Rule 43

The Supreme Court noted that Rule 43 of the Rules of Court expressly applies to awards,
judgments, final orders or resolutions of quasi-judicial agencies, including voluntary
arbitrators authorized by law.
Rule 65
As for the remedy under Rule 65, the Supreme Court stressed that it will not hesitate to
review a voluntary arbitrators award where there is a showing of grave abuse of authority
or discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any
plain, speedy remedy in the course of law.
It should be noted that the Philippine Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 (ADR
Law) adopted and incorporated the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International
Commercial Arbitration (Model Law), which limits recourse against an international arbitral
award only to the grounds specified under Section 34 of the Model Law (e.g., incapacity of a
party to the arbitration agreement or the invalidity of the arbitration agreement under the
applicable law). Neither the Model Law, nor the New York Convention on the Recognition
and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, to which the Philippines acceded in 1967,
recognize the setting aside of international/foreign on the broader grounds of errors of law
and/or fact or grave abuse of discretion.
Notably, the ruling in ABS-CBN treated the case as a domestic arbitration even though one
of the parties, i.e., WINS, was a Japanese corporation and a substantial portion of the
obligation, i.e., the distribution and sublicensing of the The Filipino Channel, was
performed in Japan. Perhaps this may be explained by the fact that the arbitral award in
this case was rendered prior to the enactment of the ADR Law. It was only under the ADR
Law that a distinction was made between domestic arbitration and international arbitration.
Under the ADR Law, international arbitration shall be governed by the Model Law, while
domestic arbitration shall be governed by R.A. No, 876. The ADR Law adopts the definition
of international arbitration under Article 1(3) of the Model Law. Domestic arbitration, on the
other hand, defines domestic arbitration as arbitration that is not international.
However, in Korea Technologies Co., Ltd., v. Hon. Alberto A. Lerma, et al. (G.R. No.
143581, 7 January 2008), the Supreme Court held that the ADR Law, being a procedural
law, may be given retroactive effective. Hence, there appears to be a conflict in this respect
between ABS-CBN and Korea Technologies. It is hoped that the ruling of the Supreme
Court in ABS-CBN regarding the remedies against a domestic arbitral award, especially
Rule 43 (allowing appellate review on both questions of fact and law), will not be applied to
foreign arbitral awards.