Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

G.R.NO.

96283, February 25, 1992


 Petitioner Chung Fu Industries (Philippines) and private
respondent Roblecor Philippines, Inc. forged a construction
agreement whereby respondent contractor committed to
construct and finish petitioner corporation’s industrial/factory
complex.

Under their agreement, arising from


the performance of subject contract, it was stipulated therein
that the
chosen by both parties.
Roblecor failed to complete the work and Chung Fu had to
take over the construction.

Claiming an unsatisfied account of Php10.5M and unpaid


progress billing of Php2.7M, Roblecor then filed a
with prayer for TRO pursuant to the
arbitration clause in the construction agreement.
 The parties subsequently agreed to formulate an
arbitration agreement. One of the provisions of the
agreement states that:
The arbitrator ordered petitioners to immediately pay
Roblecor the sum of Php16.11M and that pursuant to the
arbitration agreement, the award is final and unappealable.

Roblecor moved for the confirmation of said award while


Chung Fu moved to remand the case for further hearing and
asked for a reconsideration of the judgment award claiming
that the arbitrator committed twelve (12) instances of grave
error by disregarding the provisions of the parties’ contract.
The RTC denied Chung Fu’s motion and eventually granted
the petition for confirmation of the award.

 On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision


reasoning that being signatories to the arbitration
agreement, Chung Fu Industries is bound to observe the
stipulations of the said agreement.
1. Whether petitioners are
allegedly in view of the
stipulations in the parties’ arbitration agreement that
decisions are final and unappealable.

2. Whether petitioner, after submitting for arbitration


and agreeing to the terms and conditions thereof, are

.
1. The parties are from questioning the
arbitration award. Under Sections 24 and 25 of the
Arbitration Law, a party may petition the court to make an
order to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award
when grounds exist.
2. The petitioner is not

If courts refuse or neglect to inquire into the factual


milieu of an arbitrator's award to determine
, the
proper remedy is
It is to be borne in mind, however, that this action
will lie only where a
on the part of the voluntary
arbitrator is clearly shown.
In the case at bar, the
when it failed to apply the terms and
provisions of the Construction Agreement which forms part of
the law applicable as between the parties. Furthermore, in
granting unjustified extra compensation to respondent for
several items, — all of which would
have constituted ground for vacating the award under Section
24 (d) of the Arbitration Law.
The when it
refused to look into the merits of the case, despite prima
facie showing of the existence of grounds warranting judicial
review, effectively deprived Chung Fu of their opportunity to
prove or substantiate their allegations.
Likewise,
in not giving due course to the petition,.