ABS-CBN v. World Interactive Network Systems (G.R. No.

169332)

FACTS:
Petitioner ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation entered into a licensing
agreement with respondent World Interactive Network Systems (WINS) Japan Co., Ltd.,
a foreign corporation licensed under the laws of Japan, in that the former granted
respondent the exclusive license to distribute and sublicense the distribution of the
television service known as The Filipino Channel (TFC) in Japan. By virtue thereof,
petitioner undertook to transmit the TFC programming signals to respondent which the
latter received through its decoders and distributed to its subscribers. A dispute arose
between the parties when petitioner accused respondent of inserting nine episodes of
WINS WEEKLY, a weekly 35-minute community news program for Filipinos in Japan,
into the TFC programming.
Petitioner claimed that these were unauthorized insertions constituting a
material breach of their agreement. Consequently, petitioner notified respondent of its
intention to terminate the agreement. Thereafter, respondent filed an arbitration suit
pursuant to the arbitration clause of its agreement with petitioner. The parties appointed
Professor Alfredo F. Tadiar to act as sole arbitrator who then rendered a decision in
favor of respondent holding that petitioner gave its approval for the airing of WINS
WEEKLY as shown by a series of written exchanges between the parties and that
petitioner threatened to terminate the agreement due to its desire to compel respondent
to re-negotiate the terms thereof for higher fees. He then allowed respondent to recover
temperate damages, attorneys fees and one-half of the amount it paid as arbitrators
fee.
Petitioner filed in the CA a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court
or, in the alternative, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the same Rules, with
application for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction.
Respondent, on the other hand, filed a petition for confirmation of arbitral award. The
CA rendered the assailed decision dismissing ABS-CBNs petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the same was denied.

ISSUE:
Whether or not 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 arbitrators decision are other than those for a
petition to vacate an arbitral award enumerated under RA 876.

HELD:
RA 876 itself mandates that it is the Court of First Instance, now the RTC, which
has jurisdiction over questions relating to arbitration, such as a petition to vacate an
arbitral award. As 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 Appealsgave ample
warning that 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.
In cases not falling under any of the aforementioned grounds to vacate an award,
the Court has already made several pronouncements that a petition for 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.
Nevertheless, although petitioners 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. Time and again, we have ruled that the remedies of appeal
and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.
Wherefore, the petition is hereby denied. The decision and resolution of the CA
directing the RTC to proceed with the trial of the petition for confirmation of arbitral
award is affirmed.

INSULAR SAVINGS BANK v. FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY

G.R No. 141818; June 22, 2006

FACTS:
On December 11, 1991, Far East Bank and Trust Company (Respondent) filed a
complaint against Home Bankers Trust and Company (HBTC) with the Philippine
Clearing House Corporations (PCHC) Arbitration Committee.
Respondent sought to recover from the petitioner, the sum of P25,200,000.00
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. Meanwhile, on January 17, 1992, before the termination of the arbitration
proceedings, respondent filed another complaint but this time with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) in Makati City for Sum of Money and Damages with Preliminary
Attachment.
The complaint was filed not only against HBTC but also against Robert Young,
Eugene Arriesgado and Victor Tancuan (collectively known as Defendants), who were
the president and depositors of HBTC respectively. Aware of the arbitration proceedings
between respondent and petitioner, the RTC, in an Omnibus Order suspended the
proceedings in the case against all the defendants pending the decision of the
Arbitration Committee. On February 2, 1998, the PCHC Arbitration Committee rendered
its decision in favor of respondent. The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was
denied by the Arbitration Committee.
Consequently, to appeal the decision of the Arbitration Committee, petitioner filed
a petition for review in the earlier case filed by respondent in Branch 135 of the RTC of
Makati.In an order dated January 20, 1999, the RTC directed both petitioner and
respondent to file their respective memoranda, after which, said petition would be
deemed submitted for resolution. Both parties filed several pleadings. On February 8,
1999, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Petition for Review for Lack of Jurisdiction,
which was opposed by the petitioner. On November 9, 1999, the RTC dismissed the
petition for review.
The RTC denied petitioners motion for reconsideration, hence, this petition.

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:
No, As provided in the PCHC Rules, the findings of facts of the decision or award
rendered by the Arbitration Committee shall be final and conclusive upon all the parties
in said arbitration dispute. Under Article 2044 of the New Civil Code, the validity of any
stipulation on the finality of the arbitrators award or decision is recognized. However,
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. Consequently, the decision of the Arbitration Committee is subject to judicial
review. Since this case involves acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, the petition
should be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. 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.
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.
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.
Alternative dispute resolution methods or ADRs like arbitration, mediation, negotiation
and conciliation are encouraged by the Supreme Court.