adr cases digests

7/25/2019 ADR CASES DIGESTS

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/adr-cases-digests 1/6

Transfeld (P) v. Luzon Hydro (R) | GR No. 146717 – 26 | !"R |

T#n$a% & '

1. Transfeld Philippines (Transfeld) entered into a turn-key contract with

Luzon Hydro Corp. (LHC).Under the contract Transfeld were to

construct a hydro-electric plants in !en"uet and #locos. Transfeld was

"i$en the sole responsi%ility &or the desi"n constructionco''issionin" testin" and co'pletion o& the Proect.

. The contract pro$ides &or a period &or which the proect is to %e

co'pleted and also allows &or the e*tension o& the period pro$ided

that the e*tension is %ased on ustifa%le "rounds such as &ortuitous

e$ent.+. ,urin" the construction o& the plant Transfeld reuested &or

e*tension o& ti'e citin" typhoon and $arious disputes delayin" the

construction. LHC did not "i$e due course to the e*tension o& theperiod prayed &or %ut re&erred the 'atter to ar%itration co''ittee.

. !ecause o& the delay in the construction o& the plant LHC called on

the stand-%y letters o& credit %ecause o& de&ault. Howe$er the

de'and was o%ected %y Transfeld on the "round that there is still

pendin" ar%itration on their reuest &or e*tension o& ti'e./. The disposal o& the &oru'-shoppin" char"e is crucial to the parties to

this case on account o& its pro&ound e0ect on the fnal outco'e o& the

international ar%itral proceedin"s which they ha$e chosen as their

principal dispute resolution 'echanis'. (#nternational Cha'%er o&

Co''erce (#CC). To enoin LHC &ro' callin" on the securities and respondent %anks

&ro' trans&errin" or payin" the securities in case LHC calls on the'.

Howe$er in $iew o& the &act that LHC collected the proceeds TP# in

its appeal and petition &or re$iew asked that the sa'e %e returned

and placed in escrow pendin" the resolution o& the disputes %e&ore

the #CC ar%itral tri%unal.2. 3s a &unda'ental point the pendency o& ar%itral proceedin"s does

not &oreclose resort to the courts &or pro$isional relie&s. The 4ules o&

the #CC which "o$erns the parties5 ar%itral dispute allows the

application o& a party to a udicial authority &or interi' or

conser$atory 'easures.6. 7ection 1 o& 4epu%lic 3ct (4.3.) 8o. 62 (The 3r%itration Law)

reco"nizes the ri"hts o& any party to petition the court to take

'easures to sa&e"uard and9or conser$e any 'atter which is the

su%ect o& the dispute in ar%itration. #n addition 4.3. :6/ otherwise

known as the ;3lternati$e ,ispute 4esolution 3ct o& <<; allows the

flin" o& pro$isional or interi' 'easures with the re"ular courts



whene$er the ar%itral tri%unal has no power to act or to act

e0ecti$ely.:. =eanwhile the tri%unal issued its >i&th Partial 3ward : on +< =arch

<</. #t contains a'on" others a declaration that while LHC

wron"&ully drew on the securities the drawin" was 'ade in "ood

&aith under the 'istaken assu'ption that the contractor TP# was in

de&ault. Thus the tri%unal ruled that while the a'ount drawn 'ust %e

returned TP# is not entitled to any da'a"es or interests due to LHC5s

drawin" on the securities.1<. The &act that the #CC 3r%itral tri%unal included the proceeds o& the

securities shows that it intended to 'ake a fnal deter'ination9award

as to the said issue only in the >inal 3ward and not in the pre$ious

partial awards. This supports LHC5s position that when the Third

Partial 3ward was released and Ci$il Case 8o. <-++ was fled TP#

was not yet authorized to seek the issuance o& a writ o& e*ecutionsince the uantifcation o& the a'ounts due to TP# had not yet %een

settled %y the #CC 3r%itral tri%unal. 8otwithstandin" the &act that the

a'ount o& proceeds drawn on the securities was not disputed the

application &or the en&orce'ent o& the Third Partial 3ward was

precipitately fled. To repeat the declarations 'ade in the Third Partial

3ward do not constitute orders &or the pay'ent o& 'oney.



R* (P) v. *"+ (R) ,-onsol#daed/ | GR No. 106171 – 214 | !"R |

#llaraa% &r.% & '

1. 3ll three petitions e'anated &ro' ar%itration proceedin"s co''enced

%y 4C!C Capital pursuant to the ar%itration clause under its 7hare

Purchase 3"ree'ent (7P3) with ?PC#! in$ol$in" the latter5s shares in

!ankard #nc. #n the course o& ar%itration conducted %y the Tri%unalconstituted and ad'inistered %y the #nternational Cha'%er o&

Co''erce-#nternational Co''ercial 3r%itration (#CC-#C3) ?PC#!

@?uita%le PC# !ankA was 'er"ed with !,B which assu'ed all its

lia%ilities and o%li"ations.. G.R. No. 106171 is a petition &or re$iew seekin" to re$erse the

Court o& 3ppeals (C3) ,ecision which reversed and se as#de 3e

order RT o 5aa# #y. The 4TC -onfred the e-ond Par#al

!8ard #ssued 9y 3e !r9#ra#on Tr#9unal orderin" !,B to pay4C!C Capital proportionate share in the ad$ance costs and dis'issin"

!,B5s counterclai's.+. G.R. No. 1002:; is a petition &or certiorari assailin" the 7epte'%er

1+ <11 4esolution in !<G.R. P No. 12;;; which den#ed !,B5s

application &or the issuance o& a stay order and9or te'porary

restrainin" order (TR+)9preli'inary inunction a$a#ns 3e RT o

5aa# #y. !-#n$ u'on R* a'#al=s ur$en o#on% 3e

RT #ssued on !u$us 22% 211 a 8r# o e>e-u#on or 3e#'leena#on o 3e -our=s order -onfr#n$ 3e ?#nal

!8ard rendered 9y 3e !r9#ra#on Tr#9unal on &une 16% 21. Bn the other hand G.R. No. 221: is a petition &or re$iew prayin"

&or the reversal o 3e !=s "e-#s#on and 4esolution. The C3

denied !,B5s petition &or certiorari and prohi%ition with application &or

issuance o& a T4B and9or writ o& preli'inary inunction a"ainst the

4TC o& =akati City the 4TC denied !,B5s 'otion &or access o& the

co'puterized accountin" syste' o& !ankard #nc. a&ter Chair'an4ichard #an !arker had denied !,B5s reuest that it %e "i$en access

to the said source o& &acts or data used in preparin" the accountin"

su''aries su%'itted in e$idence %e&ore the 3r%itration Tri%unal./. #n their oint =otion and =ani&estation fled in D.4. 8os. 1:121 E

1::+6 the parties su%'it and pray thatFa. 3&ter ne"otiations the Parties ha$e 'utually a"reed that it is in their

%est interest and "eneral %eneft to settle their di0erences with

respect to their respecti$e causes o& action clai's or counterclai's in

the 4C!C Capital Petition and the !,B Petition with a $iew to a

renewal o& their %usiness relations



%. Thus the parties ha$e reached a co'plete a%solute and fnal

settle'ent o& their clai's de'ands counterclai's and causes o&

action arisin" directly or indirectly &ro' the &acts and circu'stances

"i$in" rise to surroundin" or arisin" &ro' %oth Petitions and ha$e

a"reed to ointly ter'inate and dis'iss the sa'e in accordance with

their a"ree'ent.c. #n $iew o& the &ore"oin" co'pro'ise %etween the Parties !,B 4C!C

Capital and Do97hareholders with the assistance o& their respecti$e

counsels ha$e decided to ointly 'o$e &or the ter'ination and

dis'issal o& the a%o$e-captioned cases with preudice.



*en$ue o. (P) v. "@NR<5!* A &G R@!LTB (R) | GR No. 16:11 –

2; | !"R | elas-o% &r% & '

1. Bn une 1 1:62 !en"uet and .D. 4ealty entered into a 43GBP

@4oyalty 3"ree'ent with Bption to PurchaseA wherein .D. 4ealty was

acknowled"ed as the owner o& &our 'inin" clai's respecti$ely na'ed

as !onito # to # with a total area o& 66.6/ hectares situated in!aran"ay Lukluka' 7itio !a"on" !ayan =unicipality o& ose

Pan"ani%an Ca'arines 8orte.. Thus on 3u"ust : 1:6: the ?*ecuti$e ice-President o& !en"uet

3ntonio 8. Tachulin" issued a letter in&or'in" .D. 4ealty o& its

intention to de$elop the 'inin" clai's. Howe$er on >e%ruary :

1::: .D. 4ealty throu"h its President ohnny L. Tan then sent a

letter to the President o& !en"uet in&or'in" the latter that it was

ter'inatin" the 43GBP on the &ollowin" "roundsFa. The &act that your co'pany has &ailed to per&or' the o%li"ations set

&orth in the 43GBP i.e. to undertake de$elop'ent works within

years &ro' the e*ecution o& the 3"ree'entI%. iolation o& the Contract %y allowin" hi"h "raders to operate on our

clai'.c. 8o stipulation was pro$ided with respect to the ter' li'it o& the

43GBP.d. 8on-pay'ent o& the royalties thereon as pro$ided in the 43GBP.+. Bn une 2 <<< .D. 4ealty fled a Petition &or ,eclaration o&

8ullity9Cancellation o& the 43GBP with the Le"aspi City PB3 4e"ion

docketed as ,?84 Case 8o. <<<-<1 and entitled .D. 4ealty $.

!en"uet.. ,?84-=3P PB3 @Panel o& 3r%itratorsAF declared the 43GBP cancelled./. =3! @=ines 3dudication !oardAF aJr'ed PB3.. 7hould the contro$ersy ha$e frst %een su%'itted to ar%itration %e&ore

the PB3 took co"nizance o& the caseK

2. H?L,F Bn correctness o& appealF Petitioner ha$in" &ailed to properlyappeal to the C3 under 4ule + the decision o& the =3! has %eco'e

fnal and e*ecutory. Bn this "round alone the instant petition 'ust %e

denied.6. ?7 the case should ha$e frst %een %rou"ht to $oluntary ar%itration

%e&ore the PB3. 7ecs. 11.<1 and 11.< o& the 43GBP pertinently

pro$ideFi. 11.<1 3r%itration - 3ny disputes di0erences or disa"ree'ents

%etween !?8DU?T and the BG8?4 with re&erence to anythin"whatsoe$er pertainin" to this 3"ree'ent that cannot %e a'ica%ly

settled %y the' shall not %e cause o& any action o& any kind

whatsoe$er in any court or ad'inistrati$e a"ency %ut shall upon



notice o& one party to the other %e re&erred to a !oard o&

3r%itrators consistin" o& three (+) 'e'%ers one to %e selected %y

!?8DU?T another to %e selected %y the BG8?4 and the third to

%e selected %y the a&ore'entioned two ar%itrators so appointed.ii. 11.< Court 3ction - 8o action shall %e instituted in court as to

any 'atter in dispute as hereina%o$e stated e*cept to en&orce

the decision o& the 'aority o& the 3r%itrators:. 3 contractual stipulation that reuires prior resort to $oluntary

ar%itration %e&ore the parties can "o directly to court is not ille"al and

is in &act pro'oted %y the 7tate.1<. To reiterate 3$ail'ents o& $oluntary ar%itration %e&ore resort is

'ade to the courts or uasi-udicial a"encies o& the "o$ern'ent is a

$alid contractual stipulation that 'ust %e adhered to %y the parties.11. #n other words in the e$ent a case that should properly %e the

su%ect o& $oluntary ar%itration is erroneously fled with the courts oruasi-udicial a"encies on 'otion o& the de&endant the court or

uasi-udicial a"ency shall deter'ine whether such contractual

pro$ision &or ar%itration is suJcient and e0ecti$e. #& in aJr'ati$e the

court or uasi-udicial a"ency shall then order the en&orce'ent o& said

pro$ision.1. #n su' on the issue o& whether PB3 should ha$e re&erred the case

to $oluntary ar%itration we fnd that indeed PB3 has no urisdiction

o$er the dispute which is "o$erned %y 43 62 the ar%itration law.1+.HBG??4 ?7TBPP?L 3PPL#?7. The Court rules that the urisdiction o&

PB3 and that o& =3! can no lon"er %e uestioned %y !en"uet at this

late hour. Ghat !en"uet should ha$e done was to i''ediately

challen"e the PB35s urisdiction %y a special ci$il action &or certiorari

when PB3 ruled that it has urisdiction o$er the dispute. To redo the

proceedin"s &ully participated in %y the parties a&ter the lapse o&

se$en years &ro' date o& institution o& the ori"inal action with the PB3

would %e anathe'a to the speedy and eJcient ad'inistration o& ustice.

adr cases digests

Documents