Puromines v.

CA, 220 SCRA 281

FACTS:Puromines, Inc. (Puromines for brevity) and Makati Aro Tradin, Inc. (not
a !arty in t"is case) entered into acontract #it" !rivate res!ondent P"i$i!!
%rot"ers &ceanic, Inc. for t"e sa$e of !ri$$ed 'rea in bu$k. T"e Sa$es
Contract (o. S)*).+.,),)+ !rovided, amon ot"ers an arbitration c$ause #"ic" states, t"us: -Any
dis!utes arisin under t"is contract s"a$$ be sett$ed by arbitration in .ondon in
accordance #it" t"e Arbitration Act )/*,and any statutory amendment or
modification t"ereof. 0ac" !arty is to a!!oint an Arbitrator, and s"ou$d t"eybe
unab$e to aree, t"e decision of an 'm!ire a!!ointed by t"em to be fina$. T"e
Arbitrators and 'm!ire area$$ to be commercia$ men and resident in .ondon. T"is
submission may be made a ru$e of t"e 1i" Court of 2ustice in 0n$and by eit"er
!arty.3 &n or about May 44, )/++, t"e vesse$ M56 7.i$iana 8imitrova7 $oaded on
board at 9u:"ny, 'SS; a s"i!ment of )*,*,, metric tons !ri$$ed 'rea in bu$k
com!$ete and in ood order and condition for trans!ort to I$oi$o andMani$a, to be
de$ivered to !etitioner. T"ree bi$$s of $adin #ere issued by t"e s"i!<aent in t"e
P"i$i!!ines,Maritime Factors Inc., name$y: %i$$ of .adin (o. ) dated May )4, )/++
coverin ),,,,, metric tons fordisc"are in Mani$a= %i$$ of .adin (o. 4 of even
date coverin >,,,, metric tons for un$oadin in I$oi$o City= and%i$$ of .adin (o. ?,
a$so dated May )4, )/++, coverin ),*,, metric tons $ike#ise for disc"are in
Mani$a. T"es"i!ment covered by %i$$ of .adin (o. 4 #as disc"ared in I$oi$o City
com!$ete and in ood order andcondition. 1o#ever, t"e s"i!ments covered by %i$$ of
.adin (os. ) and ? #ere disc"ared in Mani$a in badorder and condition, caked,
"ardened and $um!y, disco$ored and contaminated #it" rust and dirt. 8amaes#ere
va$ued at P@+?,,*@.4/ inc$udin additiona$ disc"arin eA!enses. ConseBuent$y,
!etitioner fi$ed acom!$aint #it" t"e tria$ court for breac" of contract of carriae
aainst Maritime Factors, Inc. (#"ic" #as notinc$uded as res!ondent in t"is
!etition) as s"i!<aent in t"e P"i$i!!ines for t"e o#ners of t"e vesse$ M67.i$iana
8imitrova,7 #"i$e !rivate res!ondent, P"i$i!! %rot"ers &ceanic, Inc., #as im!$eaded
as c"arterer of t"esaid vesse$ and !ro!er !arty to accord !etitioner com!$ete
re$ief. Ans#er to t"e com!$aint, #"i$e !rivateres!ondent fi$ed a motion to dismiss,
dated February /, )/+/, on t"e rounds t"at t"e com!$aint states nocause of
action= t"at it #as !remature$y fi$ed= and t"at !etitioner s"ou$d com!$y #it" t"e
arbitration c$ause int"e sa$es contract. T"e motion to dismiss #as o!!osed by
!etitioner contendin t"e ina!!$icabi$ity of t"earbitration c$ause inasmuc" as t"e
cause of action did not arise from a vio$ation of t"e terms of t"e sa$escontract but
rat"er for c$aims of caro damaes #"ere t"ere is no arbitration areement. T"e
Court rendered a decision in favor of t"e !etitioner. 'nsatisfied #it" t"e
Cudment, t"e res!ondent a!!ea$ed and t"e $o#erDscourtDs decision #as reversed by t"e
a!!e$$ate court. 1ence t"is !etition.ISS'0:E"et"er t"e !"rase 7any dis!ute arisin
under t"is contract7 in t"e arbitration c$ause of t"e sa$es contractcovers a caro
c$aim aainst t"e vesse$ (o#ners and5or c"arterers) for breac" of contract of
carriae
;'.I(F:9es. An eAamination of t"e sa$es contract (o. S)*).+.,),)+ s"o#s t"at it
is broad enou" to inc$ude t"e c$aimfor damaes arisin from t"e carriae and
de$ivery of t"e oods subCect<matter t"ereof. Considerin t"at t"e!rivate
res!ondent #as one of t"e sinatories to t"e sa$es contract . . . a$$ !arties are
ob$ied to res!ect t"eterms and conditions of t"e said sa$es contract, inc$udin t"e
!rovision t"ereof on 7arbitration.7 Arbitration "asbeen "e$d va$id and
constitutiona$. 0ven before t"e enactment of ;e!ub$ic Act (o. +G@, t"is Court
"ascountenanced t"e sett$ement of dis!utes t"rou" arbitration. T"e ru$e no# is
t"at un$ess t"e areement issuc" as abso$ute$y to c$ose t"e doors of t"e courts
aainst t"e !arties, #"ic" areement #ou$d be void, t"ecourts #i$$ $ook #it" favor
u!on suc" amicab$e arranements and #i$$ on$y interfere #it" reat re$uctance
toantici!ate or nu$$ify t"e action of t"e arbitrator. Premises considered, #e u!"o$d
t"e va$idity and a!!$icabi$ityof t"e arbitration c$ause as stated in Sa$es Contract
(o. S)*).+.,),)+ to t"e !resent dis!ute. E10;0F&;0,!etition is "ereby
8ISMISS08 and t"e decision of t"e court a quo is AFFI;M08.