Pang-et vs Manacnes

FACTS:
Petitioner filed for recovery of possession of real property located in sitio Abatan,
Sagada before the MCTC of Sagada against the respondent spouses Manacnes.
During the course of of the trial, the parties thru their counsel, agreed to refer the matter
to the Lupon for arbitration. In result, the MCTC proceedings is suspended. 3 days later,
Lupon issued a certification to file an action due to the refusal of the Mancnes to enter
into an agreement for arbitration and their insistence that the case should go to court.
More than a month later, MCTC remanded the matter to the Lupon and ordered the
latter to issue an arbitration award Lupon rendered an arbitration award ordering the
petitioner to retrieve the land upon payment of Php 8K for the improvements therein.
Respondent being the aggrieved party, repudiated the award but the same was rejected
by the Lupon. The petitioner filed with the Lupon a motion for execution. However,
MCTC denied such motion contending that the 10 day reglementary period has lapsed.
6 years later the petitionerfiled with MCTC an action for the enforcement of the awrd,
however the respondents argue that the award was void for having violated section 413
(a) and 415 of RA 7160
ISSUE:
WON the case properly gone the KPL rules.
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative holding such award to be void on the
following grounds.
Section 413 (a) states in clear that the parties should personally sign the
arbitration award, but the respondents failed to do so. It was Catherine who signed the
same. If a party is entitled to an assistance it shall be done only when the party
concerned is a minor or incompetent. Section 415 also states the parties personal
appearance before the Lupon is Mandatory.
It appears that the party intentionally intended not to conform for arbitration.