Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
January 7,
2008
FACTS: Petitioner KOGIES and respondent PGSMC executed a Contract whereby KOGIES
would set up an LPG Cylinder Manufacturing Plant for respondent. Respondent unilaterally
cancelled the contract on the ground that petitioner had altered the quantity and lowered the
quality of the machineries and equipment it delivered. Petitioner opposed informing the latter
that PGSMC could not unilaterally rescind their contract nor dismantle and transfer the
machineries and equipment on mere imagined violations by petitioner. Petitioner then filed a
Complaint for Specific Performance against respondent before the RTC. Respondent filed
its Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim asserting that it had the full right to dismantle and
transfer the machineries and equipment because it had paid for them in full as stipulated in
the contract. KOGIES filed a motion to dismiss respondents counterclaims arguing that
when PGSMC filed the counterclaims, it should have paid docket fees and filed a certificate
of non-forum shopping, and that its failure to do so was a fatal defect. The RTC dismissed
the petitioners motion to dismiss respondents counterclaims as these counterclaims fell
within the requisites of compulsory counterclaims.
ISSUE: WON payment of docket fees and certificate of non-forum shopping were required
in the respondents Answer with counterclaim?
HELD: NO. The counterclaims of PGSMC were incorporated in its Answer with Compulsory
Counterclaim in accordance with Section 8 of Rule 11, 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure, the rule that was effective at the time the Answer with Counterclaim was filed.
Sec. 8 on existing counterclaim or cross-claim states, A compulsory counterclaim or a
cross-claim that a defending party has at the time he files his answer shall be contained
therein. As to the failure to submit a certificate of forum shopping, PGSMCs Answer is not
an initiatory pleading which requires a certification against forum shopping under Sec. 524
of Rule 7, 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. It is a responsive pleading, hence, the
courts a quo did not commit reversible error in denying KOGIES motion to dismiss
PGSMCs compulsory counterclaims. At the time PGSMC filed its Answer incorporating its
counterclaims against KOGIES, it was not liable to pay filing fees for said counterclaims
being compulsory in nature. We stress, however, that effective August 16, 2004 under Sec.
7, Rule 141, as amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, docket fees are now required to be paid
in compulsory counterclaim or cross-claims.
3.If so, was the breach seasonably cured under the same
contractual provision of Section 13 (a)?
THUS:
o
ISSUE: WON an aggrieved party in a voluntary arbitration dispute may avail of, directly in
the CA, a petition for review under Rule 43 or a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court, instead of filing a petition to vacate the award in the RTC when the grounds
invoked to overturn the arbitrator's decision are other than those for a petition to vacate an
arbitral award enumerated under RA 876
HELD:
RA 876 mandates that it is the RTC, which has jurisdiction over questions relating
to arbitration, such as a petition to vacate an arbitral award.
o
Section 24 of RA 876 provides for the specific grounds for a petition to
vacate an award made by an arbitrator:
Thus, the law itself clearly provides that the RTC must issue an order
vacating an arbitral award only "in any one of the . . . cases"
enumerated therein
o
expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the explicit mention of one thing
in a statute means the elimination of others not specifically mentioned
o
RA 876 did not expressly provide for errors of fact and/or law and
grave abuse of discretion (proper grounds for a petition for review
under Rule 43 and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, respectively)
as grounds for maintaining a petition to vacate an arbitral award in the
RTC, it necessarily follows that a party may not avail of the latter
remedy on the grounds of errors of fact and/or law or grave abuse of
discretion to overturn an arbitral award
Adamson v. Court of Appeals a petition to vacate filed in the RTC which is not
based on the grounds enumerated in Section 24 of RA 876 should be dismissed
o
Here, trial court vacated the arbitral award seemingly based on
grounds included in Section 24 of RA 876 but a closer reading thereof
revealed otherwise
o
On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the trial court and affirmed
the arbitral award
o
SC affirmed CA:
o
The Court of Appeals, in reversing the trial court's decision held that the nullification of the
decision of the Arbitration Committee was not based on the grounds provided by the
Arbitration Law and that . . . private respondents (petitioners herein) have failed to
substantiate with any evidence their claim of partiality. Significantly, even as respondent
judge ruled against the arbitrator's award, he could not find fault with their impartiality and
integrity. Evidently, the nullification of the award rendered at the case at bar was not made
on the basis of any of the grounds provided by law. AEIHCS
xxx xxx xxx
It is clear, therefore, that the award was vacated not because of evident partiality of the
arbitrators but because the latter interpreted the contract in a way which was not favorable
to herein petitioners and because it considered that herein private respondents, by
submitting the controversy to arbitration, was seeking to renege on its obligations under the
contract.
xxx xxx xxx
It is clear then that the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court not because the latter
reviewed the arbitration award involved herein, but because the respondent appellate court
found that the trial court had no legal basis for vacating the award.
-
review under Rule 43 or a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be availed of
in the CA. Which one would depend on the grounds relied upon by petitioner
Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank
Employees Court held that a voluntary arbitrator is properly classified as a
"quasi-judicial instrumentality" and is, thus, within the ambit of Section 9 (3) of
the Judiciary Reorganization Act, as amended. Under this section, the Court of
Appeals shall exercise:
xxx xxx xxx
As such, decisions handed down by voluntary arbitrators fall within the exclusive
appellate jurisdiction of the CA. This decision was taken into consideration in
approving Section 1 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Thus:
SEC. 1.Scope. This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the
Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or
authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among
these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals,
Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the President, Land Registration Authority,
Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and
Technology Transfer, National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board,
National Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic
Act Number 6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees Compensation
Commission, Agricultural Inventions Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic
Energy Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission,
andvoluntary arbitrators authorized by law. (Emphasis supplied)
-
A lot of cases held the proper remedy from the adverse decision of a voluntary
arbitrator, if errors of fact and/or law are raised, is a petition for review under Rule
43 of the Rules of Court. Thus, petitioner's contention that it may avail of a petition
for review under Rule 43 under the circumstances of this case is correct
As to petitioner's arguments that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may also
be resorted to, we hold the same to be in accordance with the Constitution and
jurisprudence
SEC. 1.The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as
may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government
o
(3)a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court should the
arbitrator have acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, although petitioner's position on the judicial remedies
available to it was correct, we sustain the dismissal of its petition by
the CA. The remedy petitioner availed of, entitled "alternative petition
for review under Rule 43 or petition for certiorari under Rule 65," was
wrong.
o
remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive
and not alternative or successive
SC:
(2)a petition for review in the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court on
questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law; and
(1)a petition in the proper RTC to issue an order to vacate the award on the
grounds provided for in Section 24 of RA 876;
Thus:
~ WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The February 16, 2005 decision and
August 16, 2005 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 81940 directing the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 93 to proceed with the trial of the petition for
confirmation of arbitral award is AFFIRMED~