You are on page 1of 3

Umbao v. Yap, G.R. No.

L-8933, February 28, 1957 The case between herein litigants has not required court intervention from
the beginning, because they had named the arbitrator: the Administration
Facts: Petitioner Umbao and respondent Yap both had agreed in writing to Service and necessarily the proper officer, thereof, Severo Puncan. And this
“submit their case to the Wage Administration Service for investigation” and defendant should not be permitted to question the authority of said
“to abide by whatever decision (said) office may render on the case” which officer now, because he voluntarily submitted his evidence to him; and he
“they recognized . . . to be final and conclusive.” After proper investigation only turned around to deny such authority when the resultant verdict
had been conducted by Severo Puncan of the same Service, who after hearing adversely affected his pocket. He even appealed to the Secretary of Labor,
the parties and considering their evidence, declared in a written report, and without questioning Puncan’s authority, pleaded for exoneration on the
respondent Yap to be liable for unpaid wages; that the award had been merits.
approved by Ruben Santos, Acting Chief of the Service; and that respondent
had refused to abide by and comply with it. Respondent’s answer did not As to the arbitration proceedings, Republic Act No. 876 contains provisions
deny the existence of the covenant and of the award but questioned the about the procedure to be adopted by arbitrators, their oath, the hearings,
enforceability of both, contending mainly that the Service had no legal and the form and content of the award. Even so, herein appellant asserted
authority to act as arbitrator, that the procedural requirements of Republic no prejudicial departure therefrom. As already stated, Republic Act No. 876
Act No. 602 had not been followed, and that the provisions of Republic Act did not require court intervention (in the case at bar) prior to the award of
No. 876 known as the Arbitration Law had been disregarded. Petitioner then the arbitrator, no ground for it having arisen, as the parties voluntarily took
asked for judgment on the pleadings. The Court, noting non-observance of steps to carry out the settlement process down to the arbiter’s decision. It
the procedure outlined in Republic Act No. 876, gave judgment for defendant. was only after such award, when defendant refused to comply that judicial
However upon motion to reconsider, the judge seeing differently, held the action became necessary, thru the means afforded by the statute:
arbitration agreements to be a contract obligatory on the parties under the confirmation of award and judgment.
provisions of the New Civil Code. Consequently, he rendered judgment
against defendant. Hence this appeal. These provisions, we believe, apply whether or not the court intervened from
the very beginning. Now then, examining the complaint and the judgment
Issue: Whether or not the arbitration by the Service conformed to the Act. entered herein in the light of the above directions, we find substantial
conformity therewith; so much so that defendant raised no issue on the
Ruling: The argument evidently assumes that a compromise agreement is the same.
same as an arbitration agreement. Such assumption is error: one is different
from the other; they are treated in two separate chapters of the Code. Wherefore, the judgment should be, and is hereby affirmed

No rules have been promulgated by this Court. However the Legislature Continental Marble Corp. V. National Labor Relations Commission (Nlrc);,
adopted such rules in Republic Act No. 876 known as “The Arbitration Law’ Et Al., G.R. No. L-43825, May 9, 1988
effective December 1953. Said act was obviously adopted to supplement-not
to supplant-the New Civil Code on arbitration. It expressly declares that “the Facts: private respondent Rodito Nasayao claimed that sometime in May
provisions of chapters one and two, Title XIV, Book of the Civil Code the 1974, he was appointed plant manager of the petitioner corporation, with
parties may select the arbitrator without court intervention. And section 8 of an alleged compensation of P3,000.00, a month, or 25% of the monthly net
the Act impliedly permits them to do so. There is nothing in Republic Act 876 income of the company, whichever is greater, and when the company failed
requiring court permission of knowledge or intervention before the arbitrator to pay his salary for the months of May, June, and July 1974, Rodito
selected by the parties may perform his assigned work. The section does not Nasayao filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission,
mean there can be no arbitration without a previous court actuation. Branch IV, for the recovery of said unpaid varies.
Petitioners denied that Rodito Nasayao was employed in the company as ISSUE: Voluntary Arbitration award, generally final. Exceptions.
plant manager with a fixed monthly salary of P3,000.00. They claimed that
the undertaking agreed upon by the parties was a joint venture, a sort of HELD: A voluntary arbitrator by the nature of her functions acts in quasi-
partnership, wherein Rodito Nasayao was to keep the machinery in good judicial capacity. There is no reason why her decisions involving
working condition and, in return, he would get the contracts from end-users interpretation of law should be beyond this Court’s review. Administrative
for the installation of marble products, in which the company would not officials are presumed to act in accordance with law and yet we do hesitate
interfere. In addition, private respondent Nasayao was to receive an to pass upon their work where a question of law is involved or where a
amount equivalent to 25% of the net profits that the petitioner corporation showing of abuse of authority or discretion in their official acts is properly
would realize, should there be any. Petitioners alleged that since there had raised in petitions for certiorari.
been no profits during said period, private respondent was not entitled to
any amount. While the Court has accorded great respect for, and finality to, findings of
fact of a voluntary arbitrator and administrative agencies which have
The case was submitted for voluntary arbitration and the parties selected acquired expertise in their respective fields, like the Labor Department and
the herein respondent Jose T. Collado as voluntary arbitrator. In the course the National Labor Relations Commission, their findings of fact and the
of the proceedings, however, the herein petitioners challenged the conclusions drawn therefrom have to be supported by substantial evidence.
arbitrator’s capacity to try and decide the case fairly and judiciously and In that instant case, the finding of the voluntary arbitrator that Rodito
asked him to desist from further hearing the case. But, the respondent Nasayao was an employee of the petitioner corporation is not supported by
arbitrator refused. In due time, or on 29 December 1975, he rendered the evidence or by the law.
judgment in favor of the complainant, ordering the herein petitioners to pay
Rodito Nasayao the amount of P9,000.00, within 10 days from notice. The decisions of the voluntary arbitrators must be given the highest respect
and as a general rule must be accorded a certain measure of finality. This is
Petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission on especially true where the arbitrator chosen by the parties enjoys first rate
grounds that the labor arbiter gravely abused his discretion in persisting to credentials. It is not correct however, that this respect precludes the
hear and decide the case notwithstanding petitioners’ request for him to exercise of judicial review over their decisions.
desist therefrom: and that the appealed decision is not supported by
evidence. In spite of statutory provisions making final the decisions of certain
administrative agencies, the SC may take cognizance of petitions
Rodito Nasayao filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the questioning these decisions where want of jurisdiction, grave abuse of
decision of the voluntary arbitrator is final, unappealable, and immediately discretion, violation of due process, denial of substantial justice, or
executory erroneous interpretation of the law are brought to its attention.

respondent Commission, in a resolution dated 7 May 1976, dismissed the Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. St. Francis Square Realty, G.R Nos. 198916-
appeal on the ground that the decision appealed from is final, unappealable 17, 198920-21, 11 January 2016
and immediately executory, and ordered the herein petitioners to comply
with the decision of the voluntary arbitrator within 10 days from receipt of Bases Conversion Development Authority, et al., v. DMCI Project
the resolution. Developers, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 173137, 11 January 2016

Court issued a temporary restraining order, restraining herein respondents


from enforcing and/or carrying out the questioned decision and resolution.
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. World Interactive Network Systems Ruling: RA 876 itself mandates that it is the Court of First Instance, now the
Japan Co., Ltd., G.R. No. 169332, February 11, 2008 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
Facts: Petitioner ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation entered into a licensing errors of fact and/or law and grave abuse of discretion (proper grounds for a
agreement with respondent World Interactive Network Systems (WINS) petition for review under Rule 43 and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65,
Japan Co., Ltd., a foreign corporation licensed under the laws of Japan, in that respectively) as grounds for maintaining a petition to vacate an arbitral award
the former granted respondent the exclusive license to distribute and in the RTC, it necessarily follows that a party may not avail of the latter
sublicense the distribution of the television service known as “The Filipino remedy on the grounds of errors of fact and/or law or grave abuse of
Channel” (TFC) in Japan. By virtue thereof, petitioner undertook to transmit discretion to overturn an arbitral award. Adamson v. Court of Appeals gave
the TFC programming signals to respondent which the latter received through ample warning that a petition to vacate filed in the RTC which is not based on
its decoders and distributed to its subscribers. A dispute arose between the the grounds enumerated in Section 24 of RA 876 should be dismissed.
parties when petitioner accused respondent of inserting nine episodes of
WINS WEEKLY, a weekly 35-minute community news program for Filipinos in In cases not falling under any of the aforementioned grounds to vacate an
Japan, into the TFC programming. Petitioner claimed that these were award, the Court has already made several pronouncements that a petition
“unauthorized insertions” constituting a material breach of their agreement. for review under Rule 43 or a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be
Consequently, petitioner notified respondent of its intention to terminate the availed of in the CA. Which one would depend on the grounds relied upon by
agreement. Thereafter, respondent filed an arbitration suit pursuant to the petitioner.
arbitration clause of its agreement with petitioner. The parties appointed
Professor Alfredo F. Tadiar to act as sole arbitrator who then rendered a Nevertheless, although petitioner’s position on the judicial remedies
decision in favor of respondent holding that petitioner gave its approval for available to it was correct, we sustain the dismissal of its petition by the CA.
the airing of WINS WEEKLY as shown by a series of written exchanges The remedy petitioner availed of, entitled “alternative petition for review
between the parties and that petitioner threatened to terminate the under Rule 43 or petition for certiorari under Rule 65,” was wrong. Time and
agreement due to its desire to compel respondent to re-negotiate the terms again, we have ruled that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually
thereof for higher fees. He then allowed respondent to recover temperate exclusive and not alternative or successive.
damages, attorney’s fees and one-half of the amount it paid as arbitrator’s
fee. Petitioner filed in the CA a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules A careful reading of the assigned errors reveals that the real issues calling for
of Court or, in the alternative, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the the CA’s resolution were less the alleged grave abuse of discretion exercised
same Rules, with application for temporary restraining order and writ of by the arbitrator and more about the arbitrator’s appreciation of the issues
preliminary injunction. Respondent, on the other hand, filed a petition for and evidence presented by the parties. Therefore, the issues clearly fall under
confirmation of arbitral award. The CA rendered the assailed decision the classification of errors of fact and law — questions which may be passed
dismissing ABS-CBN’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner moved for upon by the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43. Petitioner cleverly
reconsideration but the same was denied. crafted its assignment of errors in such a way as to straddle both judicial
remedies, that is, by alleging serious errors of fact and law (in which case a
Issue: The issue before us is whether or not an aggrieved party in a voluntary petition for review under Rule 43 would be proper) and grave abuse of
arbitration dispute may avail of, directly in the CA, a petition for review under discretion (because of which a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 would be
Rule 43 or a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, instead permissible).
of filing a petition to vacate the award in the RTC when the grounds invoked
to overturn the arbitrator’s decision are other than those for a petition to Wherefore, the petition is hereby denied. The decision and resolution of the
vacate an arbitral award enumerated under RA 876. CA directing the RTC to proceed with the trial of the petition for confirmation
of arbitral award is affirmed.