This case involves an arbitration dispute between Equitable PCI Bank and RCBC Capital Corporation regarding the sale of shares in Bankard, Inc. The ICC-ICTr arbitration tribunal ruled in favor of RCBC, holding that RCBC's claim against Equitable for alleged overpayment was not time-barred. The tribunal also confirmed the Partial Award. Equitable appealed the trial court's decision confirming the award directly to the Supreme Court. However, the proper procedure was to appeal first to the Court of Appeals. While RCBC did not raise this procedural issue, the Supreme Court pointed out that the correct appeal process was not followed.
This case involves an arbitration dispute between Equitable PCI Bank and RCBC Capital Corporation regarding the sale of shares in Bankard, Inc. The ICC-ICTr arbitration tribunal ruled in favor of RCBC, holding that RCBC's claim against Equitable for alleged overpayment was not time-barred. The tribunal also confirmed the Partial Award. Equitable appealed the trial court's decision confirming the award directly to the Supreme Court. However, the proper procedure was to appeal first to the Court of Appeals. While RCBC did not raise this procedural issue, the Supreme Court pointed out that the correct appeal process was not followed.
This case involves an arbitration dispute between Equitable PCI Bank and RCBC Capital Corporation regarding the sale of shares in Bankard, Inc. The ICC-ICTr arbitration tribunal ruled in favor of RCBC, holding that RCBC's claim against Equitable for alleged overpayment was not time-barred. The tribunal also confirmed the Partial Award. Equitable appealed the trial court's decision confirming the award directly to the Supreme Court. However, the proper procedure was to appeal first to the Court of Appeals. While RCBC did not raise this procedural issue, the Supreme Court pointed out that the correct appeal process was not followed.
EQU!A"#E $C "AN%NG C&R$&RA!&N, GE&RGE #. G&, $A!RC% D. G&, GENE'E'E (.). G&,*ERDNAND +AR!N G. R&+UA#DE,, &-CAR $. #&$E,. DEE, RENE ). "UENA'EN!URA, G#&RA #.!AN.C#+AC&, R&GE#& -. C/UA, *EDERC& C. $A-CUA#, #E&$&#D& -. 'ER&0, (#*RD& '.'ERGARA, ED#"ER!& '. )A'ER, AN!/&N0 *. C&N(A0, R&+U#AD U. D0 !ANG, (A#!ER C.(E--+ER, a12 AN!&N& N. C&!&C& vs. RC"C CA$!A# C&R$&RA!&N !3e *acts Petitioners Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. (EPCIB) and the individual shareholders of Bankard, Inc., as sellers, and respondentRCBC Capital Corporation (RCBC), as buyer, eecuted a !hare Purchase "#ree$ent (!P") for the purchase of petitioners% interests in Bankard, representin# &&',('),))) shares, for the price of PhP *,+,',+'-,()). .o epedite the purchase, RCBC a#reed to dispense /ith the conduct of a due dili#ence audit on the financial status of Bankard.RCBC deposited the stipulated do/npay$ent a$ount in an escro/ account after /hich it /as #iven full $ana#e$ent andoperational control of Bankard. )u1e 2, 2000 is also considered by the parties as the Closi14 Date referred to in the !P". !o$eti$e in !epte$ber &))), RCBC had Bankard%s accounts audited, creatin# for the purpose an audit tea$ and theconclusion /as that the /arranty, as contained in !ection 0(h) of the !P" (si$ply !ec. 01h2 hereinafter), /as correct.RCBC paid the balance of the contract price. .he correspondin# deeds of sale for the shares in question /ere eecuted in3anuary &))*. .hereafter RCBC infor$ed petitioners of its havin# overpaid the purchase price of the sub4ect shares,clai$in# that there /as an overstate$ent of valuation of accounts a$ountin# to PhP (+, $illion, resultin# in theoverpay$ent of over PhP '*' $illion. .hus, RCBC clai$ed that petitioners violated their /arranty, as sellers, e$bodied in!ec. 0(#) of the !P" (!ec. 01#2 hereinafter).RCBC, in accordance /ith !ec. *) of the !P", filed a Request for "rbitration dated 5ay *&, &))( /ith the ICC6IC". In therequest, RCBC char#ed Bankard /ith deviatin# fro$, contravenin# and not follo/in# #enerally accepted accountin#principles and practices in $aintainin# their books. "rbitration in the ICC6IC" proceeded after the for$ation of the arbitration tribunal consistin# of retired 3ustice !antia#o 5. 7apunan, no$inated by petitioners8 9eil 7aplan, RCBC%s no$inee8 and !ir Ian Barker, appointed by the ICC6IC". "fter dra/n out proceedin#s /ith each party alle#in# deviation and non6co$pliance by the other /ith arbitration rules, thetribunal, /ith 3ustice 7apunan dissentin#, rendered a Partial "/ard . :n the $atter of prescription, the tribunal held that RCBC%s clai$ is not ti$e 6barred, the clai$ properly fallin# under the conte$plation of !ec. 0(#) and not !ec. 0(h). "s such, the tribunal concluded, RCBC%s clai$ /as filed /ithin the three (;) 6year period under !ec. 0(#) and that the si (')6$onth period under !ec. 0(h) did not apply..he tribunal also eonerated RCBC fro$ laches, the latter havin# sou#ht relief/ithin the three (;)6year period prescribed in the !P".9otably, the tribunal considered the rescission of the !P" and "!P" as i$practicable and <totally out of the question.<RCBC filed /ith the R.C a 5otion to Confir$ Partial "/ard. .he R.C issued the first assailed order confir$in# the Partial "/ard and denyin# the adverted separate $otions to vacate and to suspend and inhibit. =ro$ this order, petitionerssou#ht reconsideration, but their $otion /as denied by the R.C . ssue5 >:9 there is $anifest disre#ard of the la/ by the ICC6IC"
/el25 .he petition $ust be denied..his is a procedural $iscue for petitioners /ho erroneously bypassed the Court of "ppeals (C") in pursuit of its appeal.>hile this procedural #affe has not been raised by RCBC, still /e /ould be re$iss in not pointin# out the proper $ode ofappeal fro$ a 2ecisio1 o6 t3e R!C co16irmi14, vacati14, setti14 asi2e, mo2i67i14, or correcti14 a1 arbitral a8ar2. Rule (0 is not the re$edy available to petitioners as the proper $ode of appeal assailin# the decision of the R.Cconfir$in# as arbitral a/ard is an appeal before the C" pursuant to !ec. (' of Republic "ct 9o. (R") -&,0, other/isekno/n as the "lternative ?ispute Resolution "ct of &))(, or co$pletely, "n "ct to Institutionali@e the Ase of an "lternative?ispute Resolution !yste$ in the Philippines and to Establish the :ffice for "lternative ?ispute Resolution, and for otherPurposes , pro$ul#ated on "pril &, &))( and beca$e effective on "pril &,, &))( after its publication on "pril *;, &))(.In 7orea .echnolo#ies Co., Btd v. Ber$a , /e eplained, inter alia ,that the R.C decision of an assailed arbitral a/ardis appealable to the C" and $ay further be appealed to this Court. C3u14 *u 12ustries 9$3ils: v. Courto6 A;;eals *AC!-5 65ay *+, *-,-C petitioner Chun# =uIndustries and private respondentsRoblecor Philippines for#ed aconstruction a#ree$ent /h ereinRoblecor co$$itted to constructand finish on ?ec. ;*, *-,-, Chun#=u%s industrialDfactory co$ple in .ana/an, Cavite in consideration of P(&56It /as stipulated also that in theevent of disputes, the parties /illbe sub4ected to an arbitrationresolution, /herein the arbitrator/ill be chosen by both parties "part fro$ the constructiona#ree$ent, the parties alsoentered into ancillary contracts forthe construction of a dor$itory andsupport facilities /ith a contractprice of ;, ,+0, &,0.)) to beco$p leted on or before :ctober ;*,*-,- and the other dated "u#. *&,*-,- for the installation of electrical, /ater and hydrantsyste$s at the plant site, priced at*&.*5 and requirin# co$pletionthereof one $onth after civil /orkshave been finished6 Eo/ever, Roblecor failed toco$plete the /ork despite theetension allo/ed by Chun# =u6!ubsequently, Chun# =u had totake over the construction /hen ithad beco$e evident that Roblecor/as not in a position to fulfill theobli#ation6Clai$in# an unsatisfied account of P*), 0)), ))) and unpaid pro#ressbillin#s of P &, ;+), *+-.&;,Roblecor filed a petition forCo$pulsory "rbitration /ith prayerfor .R: before respondent R.C ,pursuant to the arbitration clausein the construction a#ree$ent6 Chun# =u $oved to dis$iss thepetition and further prayed for thequashin# of the restrainin# order6!ubsequent ne#otiations bet/eenthe parties eventually led to thefor$ulation of an arbitrationa #ree$ent /hich includes that theFdecision of the arbitrator shall befinal and unappealable, therefore,there shall be no further 4udicialre course if either party disa#rees/ith the /hole or any part of thearbitrator%s a/ardG6 R.C approved the arbitrationa#ree$ent and "suncion /asappointed as the sole arbitrator6"rbitrator ruled in favor of thecontractor Roblecor6Chun# =u $oved to re$and thecase for further hearin# and askedfor a reconsideration of the 4ud#$ent a/ard clai$in# that"sunc ion co$$itted *& instancesof #rave error by disre#ardin# theprovisions of the parties% contract6R.C denied Chun# =u%s 5otion toRe$and and approved Roblecor%s5otion for Confir$ation of "/ard6Chun# =u elevated the case to C"/hich denied the petition6Eence, this petition to the !upre$eCourt --UE-5 *.>:9 the sub4ect arbitration a/ardis beyond the a$bit of the court%spo/er of 4udicial revie/ &.>:9 respondent court co$$itted#rave abuse of discretion /E#D<RA!&5 69o6It%s stated eplicitly under"rt. &)(( of the Civil Codethat the finality of thearbitrator%s a/ard is notabsolute and /itho uteceptions6>here the conditionsdescribed in "rts. &);,,&);- and &)() applicable toboth co$pro$ises andarbitrations are obtainin#,the arbitrators% a/a rd $aybe annulled or rescinded. "dditionally, !ections &(and &0 of the "rbitrationBa/ provide #roun ds forvacatin#, 5odifyin# orrescindin# an arbitrator%sa/ard. %orea !ec31olo4ies Co., #t2. 's. /o1. Albert A. #erma, et al. %orea !ec31olo4ies Co., #t2. 's. /o1. Albert A. #erma, et al. , G.R. No. 14=>81. )a1uar7 ?, 2008 *AC!-C Petitioner 7:HIE! and respondent PH!5C eecuted a Contract /hereby 7:HIE! /ould set up an BPH Cylinder 5anufacturin# Plant for respondent. Respondent unilaterally cancelled the contract on the #round that petitioner had altered the quantity and lo/ered the quality of the $achineries and equip$ent it delivered. Petitioner opposed infor$in# the latter that PH!5C could not unilaterally rescind their contract nor dis$antle and transfer the $achineries and equip$ent on $ere i$a#ined violations by petitioner. Petitioner then filed a Co$plaint for !pecific Perfor$ance a#ainst respondent before the R.C. Respondent filed its "ns/er /ith Co$pulsory Counterclai$ assertin# that it had the full ri#ht to dis$antle and transfer the $achineries and equip$ent because it had paid for the$ in full as stipulated in the contract. 7:HIE! filed a $otion to dis$iss respondent%s counterclai$s ar#uin# that /hen PH!5C filed the counterclai$s, it should have paid docket fees and filed a certificate of non6foru$ shoppin#, and that its failure to do so /as a fatal defect. .he R.C dis$issed the petitioner%s $otion to dis$iss respondent%s counterclai$s as these counterclai$s fell /ithin the requisites of co$pulsory counterclai$s. --UEC >:9 pay$ent of docket fees and certificate of non6foru$ shoppin# /ere required in the respondent%s "ns/er /ith counterclai$I /E#DC 9:. .he counterclai$s of PH!5C /ere incorporated in its "ns/er /ith Co$pulsory Counterclai$ in accordance /ith !ection , of Rule **, *--+ Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the rule that /as effective at the ti$e the "ns/er /ith Counterclai$ /as filed. !ec. , on eistin# counterclai$ or cross6clai$ states, F" co$pulsory counterclai$ or a cross6 clai$ that a defendin# party has at the ti$e he files his ans/er shall be contained therein.G "s to the failure to sub$it a certificate of foru$ shoppin#, PH!5C%s "ns/er is not an initiatory pleadin# /hich requires a certification a#ainst foru$ shoppin# under !ec. 0&( of Rule +, *--+ Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. It is a responsive pleadin#, hence, the courts a quo did not co$$it reversible error in denyin# 7:HIE!% $otion to dis$iss PH!5C%s co$pulsory counterclai$s. "t the ti$e PH!5C filed its "ns/er incorporatin# its counterclai$s a#ainst 7:HIE!, it /as not liable to pay filin# fees for said counterclai$s bein# co$pulsory in nature. >e stress, ho/ever, that effective "u#ust *', &))( under !ec. +, Rule *(*, as a$ended by ".5. 9o. )(6&6)(6!C, docket fees are no/ required to be paid in co$pulsory counterclai$ or cross6 clai$s. 1sualr -avi14s vs *ar East Di4est
Insular !avin#s Bank vs. =ar East Bank "nd .rust Co$pany, H.R. 9o. *(*,*,, 3une &&, &))'=actsC Respondent filed a co$plaint a#ainst Eo$e Bankers .rust and Co$pany
(EB.C) /ith the Philippine Clearin# Eouse Corporation%s (PCEC) "rbitration Co$$ittee , seekin# recoveryfro$ the petitioner, the su$ of P&0,&)),))).)) representin# the total a$ount of the three checksdra/n and debited a#ainst its clearin# account.Before the ter$ination of the arbitration proceedin#s, respondent filed another co$plaint but this ti$e /ith the Re#ional .rial Court (R.C) fo r !u$ of 5oney and ?a$a#es /ithPreli$inary "ttach$ent. .he R.C suspended the proceedin#s pendin# the decision of the"rbitration Co$$ittee..he PCEC "rbitration Co$$ittee rendered its decision in favor of respondent.Petitioner $otion for reconsideration /as denied. It then filed a petition for revie/ in the earliercase filed by respondent in the R.C. .he R.C dis$issed the petition for revie/, for lack of 4urisdiction.IssueC >hether or not the petitioner availed the proper re$edy contestin# the decision rendered by the "rbitration Co$$ittee.Rulin#C 9e#ative.Petitioner had several 4udicial re$edies available at its disposal after the "rbitration Co$$itteedenied its 5otion for Reconsideration. It $ay petition the proper R.C to issue an order vacatin#the a/ard on the #rounds provided for under !ection &( of the "rbitration Ba/. Petitionerlike/ise has the option to file a petition for revie/ under Rule (; of the Rules of Court /ith theCourt of "ppeals on questions of fact, of la/, or $ied questions of fact and la/. Bastly, petitioner $ay file a petition for certiorari under Rule '0 of the Rules of Court on the #round thatthe "rbitrator Co$$ittee acted /ithout or in ecess of its 4urisdiction or /ith #rave abuse ofdiscretion a$ountin# to lack or ecess of 4urisdiction. !ince this case involves acts or o$issionsof a quasi64udicial a#ency, the petition should be filed in and co#ni@able only by the Court of"ppeals.