1. Chung Fu Industries Inc vs.

CA – 206 SCRA 545

HELD: NO. It is stated explicitly under Art. 2044 CC that the finality of the arbitrators' award is not
absolute and without exceptions. Where the conditions described in Articles 2038 , 2039 and 2040
applicable to both compromises and arbitrations are obtaining, the arbitrators' award may be annulled
or rescinded. 19 Additionally, under Sections 24 and 25 of the Arbitration Law, there are grounds for
vacating, modifying or rescinding an arbitrator's award. Thus, if and when the factual circumstances
referred to in the above-cited provisions are present, judicial review of the award is properly warranted

SC find that petitioners have amply made out a case where the voluntary arbitrator failed to apply the
terms and provisions of the Construction Agreement which forms part of the law applicable as between
the parties, thus committing a grave abuse of discretion.

2. Del Monte Corp-USA vs. CA – 351 SCRA 373

HELD: No.
A careful examination of the instant case shows that the arbitration clause in the Distributorship
Agreement between petitioner DMC-USA and private respondent MMI is valid and the dispute between
the parties is arbitrable. However, this Court must deny the petition. Petitioners Daniel Collins and Luis
Hidalgo, and private respondent SFI, not parties to the Agreement and cannot even be considered
assigns or heirs of the parties, are not bound by the Agreement and the arbitration clause therein.

The object of arbitration is to allow the expeditious determination of a dispute. Clearly, the issue before
us could not be speedily and efficiently resolved in its entirety if we allow simultaneous arbitration
proceedings and trial, or suspension of trial pending arbitration. Accordingly, the interest of justice
would only be served if the trial court hears and adjudicates the case in a single and complete
proceeding.

3. Insular Savings Bank vs. Far East Bank and Trust Co. 492 SCRA 145 (2006)
ISSUE: Whether the Regional Trial Court erred in dismissing the Petition of Petitioner for lack of
jurisdiction on the ground that it should have been docketed as a separate case.

HELD: petitioner had several judicial remedies

In this instance, petitioner did not avail of any of the abovementioned remedies available to it. Instead
it filed a petition for review with the RTC where Civil Case No. 92-145 is pending pursuant to Section 13
of the PCHC Rules to sustain its action. Clearly, it erred in the procedure it chose for judicial review of
the arbitral award.

4. LM Power Eng. Corp. vs. Capitol Industrial Construction Groups Inc GR 141833
ISSUE: Whether or not there exist[s] a controversy/dispute between petitioner and respondent
regarding the interpretation and implementation of the Sub-Contract Agreement dated February 22,
1983 that requires prior recourse to voluntary arbitration

HELD: YES. Clearly, the resolution of the dispute between the parties herein requires a referral to the
provisions of their Agreement. Within the scope of the arbitration clause are discrepancies as to the
amount of advances and billable accomplishments, the application of the provision on termination, and
the consequent set-off of expenses.

The arbitral clause in the Agreement is a commitment on the part of the parties to submit to arbitration
the disputes covered therein. Because that clause is binding, they are expected to abide by it in good
faith.[35] And because it covers the dispute between the parties in the present case, either of them may
compel the other to arbitrate.

5. Korea Technologies Co. Ltd vs. Judge Lerma GR 143581; Jan. 7, 2008
ISSUE: WON the arbitration clause is valid

HELD: YES
The arbitration clause which stipulates that the arbitration must be done in Seoul, Korea in accordance
with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the KCAB, and that the arbitral award is final and binding, is
not contrary to public policy. This Court has sanctioned the validity of arbitration clauses in a catena of
cases.

In case a foreign arbitral body is chosen by the parties, the arbitration rules of our domestic arbitration
bodies would not be applied. As signatory to the Arbitration Rules of the UNCITRAL Model Law on
International Commercial Arbitration of the UNCITRAL, the Philippines committed itself to be bound by
the Model Law. We have even incorporated the Model Law in RA 9285.

Among the pertinent features of RA 9285 applying and incorporating the UNCITRAL Model Law are the
following:
(1) The RTC must refer to arbitration in proper cases.
(2) Foreign arbitral awards must be confirmed by the RTC
(3) The RTC has jurisdiction to review foreign arbitral awards.
(4) Grounds for judicial review are different in domestic and foreign arbitral awards.
(5) RTC decision of assailed foreign arbitral award appealable.

Petitioner is correct in its contention that an arbitration clause, stipulating that the arbitral award is final
and binding, does not oust our courts of jurisdiction as the international arbitral award, the award of
which is not absolute and without exceptions, is still judicially reviewable under certain conditions
provided for by the UNCITRAL Model Law on ICA as applied and incorporated in RA 9285.

6. Maria Luisa Park Assoc. Inc vs. Almendras 588 SCRA 663 (2009)
ISSUE: Whether the HLURB and not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case.

HELD: The parties failed to abide by the arbitration agreement in the MLPAI by-laws.
a. Article XII of the MLPAI by-laws entered into by the parties provides that any dispute or claim
against the Association or any of its officers and governors shall first be settled amicably.
i. If amicable settlement fails, such dispute shall be brought by the member to an arbitration panel
for final settlement. The arbitral award shall be valid and binding between the parties unless repudiated
on grounds that the same was procured through fraud or violence, or that there are patent or gross
errors in the tribunal’s findings of facts upon which the decision was based.

7. Equitable PCI Banking Co. vs. RCBC Capital Corp 574 SCRA 858 (2008)
ISSUE: WON there is manifest disregard of the law by the ICC-ICA

HELD: NO. The Court Will Not Overturn an Arbitral Award Unless It Was Made in Manifest Disregard of
the Law

When faced with questions of law, an arbitration panel does not act in manifest disregard of the law
unless (1) the applicable legal principle is clearly defined and not subject to reasonable debate; and (2)
the arbitrators refused to heed that legal principle.

A review of petitioners’ arguments would, however, show that their arguments are bereft of merit.
Thus, the Partial Award cannot be vacated.

8. Chan Kent vs. Micarez 645 SCRA 176 (2011)

HELD: No. Although the RTC has legal basis to order the dismissal of the case, the Court finds the
sanction too severe to be imposed on the petitioner where the records of the case is devoid of evidence
of willful or flagrant disregard of the rules on mediation proceedings.

A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA provides sanction including but not limited to censure, reprimand,
contempt and such other sanctions as are provided under the Rules of Court for failure to appear for
pre-trial, in case any or both of the parties absent himself/themselves, or for abusive conduct during
mediation proceedings.

9. Benguet Corp. vs. DENR-Mines Adjudication Board 545 SCRA 196

HELD: YES
In RA 9285 or the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004, the Congress reiterated the efficacy of
arbitration as an alternative mode of dispute resolution by stating in Sec. 32 thereof that domestic
arbitration shall still be governed by RA 876. Clearly, a contractual stipulation that requires prior resort
to voluntary arbitration before the parties can go directly to court is not illegal and is in fact promoted
by the State.

10. Uniwide Sales Realty & Resources Corp vs Titan-Ikeda Construction & Dev. Corp. 511 SCRA 335
(2006)
ISSUE: Whether the award given by CIAC is final

HELD: Yes. As a rule, findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have
acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not
only respect, but also finality, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. In particular, factual
findings of construction arbitrators are final and conclusive and not reviewable by this Court on appeal.
This rule, however admits of certain exceptions.

(1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means;
(2) there was evident partiality or corruption of the arbitrators or of any of them;
(3) the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the
controversy;
(4) one or more of the arbitrators were disqualified to act as such under Section nine of Republic Act No.
876 and willfully refrained from disclosing such disqualifications or of any other misbehavior by which
the rights of any party have been materially prejudiced; or
(5) the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them, that a mutual, final and
definite award upon the subject matter submitted to them was not made.