Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 51 views

    3) INSULAR V FAR EAST

    Uploaded by

    Angeline De Guzman
    The Regional Trial Court dismissed a petition for review filed by Insular Savings Bank regarding a decision by the Philippine Clearing House Corporation's Arbitration Committee in favor of Far East Bank and Trust Company. The RTC found it lacked jurisdiction because the petition was not filed as a separate case as required. However, the Supreme Court held that while the RTC did not have jurisdiction to review arbitral awards, it also should not have required the petition be filed as a separate case. Instead, the petition should have been filed with the Court of Appeals under the Rules of Court concerning petitions for review of arbitral awards. Therefore, the RTC was correct in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction, but not for the reason stated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    3) INSULAR V FAR EAST

    Uploaded by

    Angeline De Guzman
    51 views2 pages
    The Regional Trial Court dismissed a petition for review filed by Insular Savings Bank regarding a decision by the Philippine Clearing House Corporation's Arbitration Committee in favor of Far East Bank and Trust Company. The RTC found it lacked jurisdiction because the petition was not filed as a separate case as required. However, the Supreme Court held that while the RTC did not have jurisdiction to review arbitral awards, it also should not have required the petition be filed as a separate case. Instead, the petition should have been filed with the Court of Appeals under the Rules of Court concerning petitions for review of arbitral awards. Therefore, the RTC was correct in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction, but not for the reason stated.

    Original Title

    3) INSULAR v FAR EAST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Regional Trial Court dismissed a petition for review filed by Insular Savings Bank regarding a decision by the Philippine Clearing House Corporation's Arbitration Committee in favor of Far East Bank and Trust Company. The RTC found it lacked jurisdiction because the petition was not filed as a separate case as required. However, the Supreme Court held that while the RTC did not have jurisdiction to review arbitral awards, it also should not have required the petition be filed as a separate case. Instead, the petition should have been filed with the Court of Appeals under the Rules of Court concerning petitions for review of arbitral awards. Therefore, the RTC was correct in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction, but not for the reason stated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    51 views2 pages

    3) INSULAR V FAR EAST

    Uploaded by

    Angeline De Guzman
    The Regional Trial Court dismissed a petition for review filed by Insular Savings Bank regarding a decision by the Philippine Clearing House Corporation's Arbitration Committee in favor of Far East Bank and Trust Company. The RTC found it lacked jurisdiction because the petition was not filed as a separate case as required. However, the Supreme Court held that while the RTC did not have jurisdiction to review arbitral awards, it also should not have required the petition be filed as a separate case. Instead, the petition should have been filed with the Court of Appeals under the Rules of Court concerning petitions for review of arbitral awards. Therefore, the RTC was correct in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction, but not for the reason stated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    INSULAR SAVINGS BANK v.

    FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY


    G.R. No. 141818             June 22, 2006

    FACTS:
    Far East Bank and Trust Company (Respondent) filed a complaint against Home
    Bankers Trust and Company (HBTC)4 with the Philippine Clearing House Corporation’s
    (PCHC) Arbitration Committee. Respondent sought to recover from the petitioner, the
    sum representing the total amount of the three checks drawn and debited against its
    clearing account. HBTC sent these checks to respondent for clearing by operation of
    the PCHC clearing system. Thereafter, respondent dishonored the checks for
    insufficiency of funds and returned the checks to HBTC. However, the latter refused to
    accept them since the checks were returned by respondent after the reglementary
    regional clearing period.

    The PCHC Arbitration Committee rendered its decision in favor of respondent.


    Petitioner then filed a petition for review in the earlier case filed by respondent in Branch
    135 of the RTC of Makati.

    Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Petition for Review for Lack of Jurisdiction which
    the RTC granted on the ground that the petition for review is a separate and distinct
    case, the same must comply with all the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for
    civil actions before the Court so that since the commencement of the subject petition
    lacks the mandatory requirements provided for, except the payment of docket fees

    Respondent argues that petitioner’s claim that the parties by agreement had conferred
    on the RTC appellate jurisdiction over decisions of private arbitrators is erroneous
    because they cannot confer a non-existent jurisdiction on the RTC or any court.

    ISSUE:
    DID REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERR IN DISMISSING THE PETITION OF
    PETITIONER FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION ON THE GROUND THAT IT SHOULD
    HAVE BEEN DOCKETED AS A SEPARATE CASE?

    HELD:
    NO. Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a cause - the right to act in a
    case.37 Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the
    general class to which the proceedings in question belong. Jurisdiction over the subject
    matter is conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the
    parties or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists. 38

    In the instant case, petitioner and respondent have agreed that the PCHC Rules would
    govern in case of controversy. However, since the PCHC Rules came about only as a
    result of an agreement between and among member banks of PCHC and not by law, it
    cannot confer jurisdiction to the RTC. Thus, the portion of the PCHC Rules granting
    jurisdiction to the RTC to review arbitral awards, only on questions of law, cannot be
    given effect.
    Consequently, the proper recourse of petitioner from the denial of its motion for
    reconsideration by the Arbitration Committee is to file either a motion to vacate the
    arbitral award with the RTC, a petition for review with the Court of Appeals under Rule
    43 of the Rules of Court, or a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
    In the case at bar, petitioner filed a petition for review with the RTC when the same
    should have been filed with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
    Thus, the RTC of Makati did not err in dismissing the petition for review for lack of
    jurisdiction but not on the ground that petitioner should have filed a separate case but
    on the necessity of filing the correct petition in the proper court.

    You might also like