Chapter I
Historical Note ISSUE: Whether or not the dispute between the parties
Lara vs. Del Rosario, G.R. No. L-6339
ISSUE Whether or not there are entitled for a mesada (one
month salaey).
RULING: NO. As to the month pay (mesada) under article
302 of the Code of Commerce, article 2270 of the new Civil
Code (Republic Act 386) appears to have repealed said
Article 302 when it repealed the provisions of the Code of
Commerce governing Agency. This repeal took place on
August 30, 1950, when the new Civil Code went into effect,
that is, one year after its publication in the Official Gazette.
The alleged termination of services of the plaintiffs by the
defendant took place according to the complaint on
September 4, 1950, that is to say, after the repeal of Article
302 which they invoke. Granting that article 302 of the
Code of Commerce is still in force, it refers to
employees who are engaged under salary basis, "and
not to those who only receive compensation
equivalent to whatever service they may render."
Chung Fu Industries (Phils.), Inc. v CA 206 SCRA 545
ISSUE: W/N petitioners are estopped from questioning the
arbitration award in view of the stipulations in the parties’
arbitration agreement that there shall be no further
judicial recourse if either party disagrees with the
arbitrator’s award.
RULING: NO. It is stated explicitly under Art. 2044 of the
Civil Code that the finality of the arbitrators’ award is not
absolute and without exceptions, thus, may be annulled or
rescinded. Under Sec. 24 and 25 of the Arbitration Law,
there are grounds for vacating, modifying or rescinding an
arbitrator’s award. Thus, judicial review of the award is
properly warranted when the factual circumstances
referred to are present.
Voluntary arbitrators, by the nature of their functions, act
in a quasi-judicial capacity. Therefore, their decisions
should not be beyond the scope of the power of judicial
review of this Court. Petitioners have amply made out a
case where the voluntary arbitrator failed to apply the
terms and provisions of the Construction Agreement which
forms part of the law applicable as between the parties,
thus committing a grave abuse of discretion.
On 19 June 1953, the Philippine Legislature enacted
RA 876 otherwise known as “The Arbitration Law.” RA
No. 876 did not revoke and instead supplemented the
provision of the New Civil Code on arbitration.
Judiciary Action
Del Monte Corporation-USA vs. CA, G.R. No. 136154, 07
February 2001
warrants an order compelling them to submit to
arbitration.
RULING: NO. The Agreement between petitioner and
private respondent is a contract. The provision to
submit to arbitration any dispute arising therefrom
and the relationship of the parties is part of that
contract and is itself a contract. As a rule, contracts are
respected as the law between the contracting parties
and produce effect as between them, their assigns and
heirs. Clearly, only parties to the Agreement, DMC-USA
and MMI are bound by the Agreement and its arbitration
clause as they are the only signatories thereto. In
recognizing the right of the contracting parties to
arbitrate or to compel arbitration, the splitting of the
proceedings to arbitration as to some of the parties on
one hand and trial for the others on the other hand, or
the suspension of trial pending arbitration between
some of the parties, should not be allowed as it would,
in effect, result in multiplicity of suits, duplicitous
procedure and unnecessary delay.
As RA 876 expressly authorizes arbitration of domestic
disputes, foreign arbitration as a system of settling
commercial disputes was likewise recognized when the
Philippines adhered to the United Nations “Convention on
the Recognition and the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral
Awards of 1958” under the 10 May 1965 Resolution No. 71
of the Philippine Senate, giving reciprocal recognition and
allowing enforcement of international arbitration
agreements between parties of different nationalities
within a contracting state.
La Naval Drug (LND) vs CA 236 SCRA 78
ISSUE: (1)W/N the litigants allowed other remedies such
as arbitration to settle their dispute without trial?
(2)W/N CA has jurisdiction over the case?
RULING: 1. YES. In an effort to declog the courts of an
increasing volume of work load and, most importantly, in
order to accord contending parties with expeditious
alternatives for settling disputes, the law authorizes,
indeed encourages, out of court settlements or
adjudications. Compromises and arbitration are widely
known and used as such acceptable methods of resolving
adversarial claims.
2 No. however the petitioner here had already submitted
himself to the court hence they are estopped form
questioning jurisdiction. In the case at bench, the want of
jurisdiction by the court is indisputable, given the nature of
the controversy. The arbitration law explicitly confines the
court’s authority only to pass upon the issue of whether
there is or there is no agreement in writing providing for
arbitration. In the affirmative, the statute ordains that the
court shall issue an order “summarily directing the parties
to proceed with the arbitration in accordance with the
terms thereof.” If the court, upon the other hand, finds that
no such agreement exists, “the proceedings shall be
dismissed.”
Insular Savings Bank v. Far East Bank and Trust
Company, 492 SCRA 145
ISSUE: W/N RTC should have taken cognizance of the
complaint
RULING: 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. However, the
decision of the Arbitration Committee is subject to judicial
review if conditions found in Articles 2038-2040 of the
Civil Code are present. Petitioner erred in the procedure it
chose for judicial review of arbitral award. The proper
recourse of petitioner from the denial of its MR 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.
In the case at bar, petitioner filed a petition for review with
the RTC when the same should have been filed with the
Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court
Alternative dispute resolution methods like arbitration,
mediation, negotiation and conciliation, are encouraged by
the Supreme Court. By enabling parties to resolve their
disputes amicably, they provide solutions that are less
time-consuming, less tedious, less confrontational, and
more productive of goodwill and lasting relationships. It
must be borne in mind that arbitration proceedings are
mainly governed by the Arbitration Law and suppletorily
by the Rules of Court.
LM Power Engineering Corporation vs. Capistol
Industrial Construction Groups Inc., 399 SCRA 562
(2003)
ISSUE: W/N there exists a controversy/dispute between
petitioner and respondent that requires prior recourse to
voluntary arbitration
RULING: YES. The instant case involves technical
discrepancies that are better left to an arbitral body that
has expertise in those areas. In any event, the inclusion of
an arbitration clause in a contract does not ipso
facto divest the courts of jurisdiction to pass upon the
findings of arbitral bodies, because the awards are still
judicially reviewable under certain conditions.
Being an inexpensive, speedy and amicable method of
settling disputes, arbitration—along with mediation,
conciliation and negotiation—is encouraged by the
Supreme Court. Aside from unclogging judicial dockets,
arbitration also hastens the resolution of disputes,
especially of the commercial kind. It is regarded as the
“wave of the future” in international civil and commercial
disputes. Brushing aside a contractual agreement calling
for arbitration between the parties would be a step
backward.
The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004
Korea Technologies Co, Ltd. (KOGIES) v. Lerma 542
SCRA 1 (2008)
FACTS: PGSMC, took the position that the arbitration
clause, which provided that the arbitral award shall be
“final and binding upon the parties”, was null and void for
being against public policy as it ousted Philippine courts of
jurisdiction.
RULING: Arbitration clause not contrary to public policy.
Consistent with the policy of encouraging alternative
dispute resolution methods, courts should liberally
construe arbitration clauses. Provided such clause is
susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted
dispute, an order to arbitrate should be granted. Any doubt
should be resolved in favor of arbitration. In case a
foreign arbitral body is chosen by the parties, the
arbitral rules of our domestic arbitration bodies
would not be applied. As signatory to the Arbitration
Rules of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International
Commercial Arbitration of the United Nations
Commission on International Trade Law [UNCITRAL]
in the New York Convention on June 21, 1985, the
Philippine committed itself to be bound by the Model
Law. We have even incorporated the Model Law in
Republic Act No. 9285, otherwise known as the
Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004.” x x x
“Thus, while the RTC does not have jurisdiction over
disputes governed by arbitration mutually agreed
upon by the parties, still the foreign arbitral award is
subject to judicial review by the RTC which can set
aside, reject or vacate it.”…. Chapter 7 of RA 9285 has
made it clear that all arbitral awards, whether domestic or
foreign, are subject to judicial review on specific grounds
provided for.”
PGMSC’s interests are duly protected by the law which
requires that the arbitral award that may be rendered by
KCAB must be confirmed here by the RTC before it can be
enforced.
The salient features of RA 9285 applying and
incorporating the UNCITRAL Model, namely:
1) RTC must refer to arbitration in proper case
2) Foreign arbitral awards must be confirmed by the RTC
3) RTC has jurisdiction to review foreign arbitral awards
4) Grounds for judicial review different in domestic and
foreign arbitral awards
5) RTC decision of assailed foreign arbitral award
appealable

Reyes v. Balde II, 498 SCRA 186
FACTS: Respondents claimed that the Design-Build
Construction Agreement contained an arbitration clause,
thus any dispute arising therefrom should be brought
before the Construction Industry Arbitration Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not CIAC has jurisdiction.
RULING: YES. CIAC has original and exclusive jurisdiction
over disputes arising from or connected with construction
contracts entered into by parties that have agreed to
submit their dispute to voluntary arbitration. Needless to
say, the Design-Build Construction Agreement mutually
entered into by the parties contain an arbitration clause.
It bears to stress that being an inexpensive, speedy,
and amicable method of settling disputes,
arbitration—along with mediation, conciliation, and
negotiation—is encouraged by the Supreme Court.
Aside from unclogging judicial dockets, arbitration
also hastens the resolution of disputes, especially of
the commercial kind. It is thus regarded as the “wave
of the future” in international civil and commercial
disputes.
Principles of ADR
Maria Luisa Park Association, Inc. vs. Almendras, 588
SCRA 663, G.R. No. 171763 June 5, 2009
RULING: The terms of Article XII of the MLPAI by-laws
clearly express the intention of the parties to bring first to
the arbitration process all disputes between them before a
party can file the appropriate action. The agreement to
submit all disputes to arbitration is a contract. As such, the
arbitration agreement binds the parties thereto, In the
instant case, they, made no earnest effort to resolve their
differences in accordance with the arbitration clause
provided for in their by-laws. Mere exchange of
correspondence will not suffice much less satisfy the
requirement of arbitration. Arbitration being the mode of
settlement between the parties expressly provided by their
by laws should be respected
In a long line of cases, the SC has referred to alternative
dispute resolution, in general, and arbitration in particular,
as the “wave of the future in international relations”
Reyes, vs. Balde II, GR No. 168384
Where the jurisdiction of CIAC is properly invoked, the failure
or refusal of herein petitioner to arbitrate shall not affect the
proceedings. Arbitration proceedings shall continue
notwithstanding the absence or lack of participation of
petitioner, and the award shall be made after receiving the
evidence of the claimant. It bears to stress that
being an inexpensive, speedy and amicable method of settling
disputes, arbitration - along with mediation, conciliation and
negotiation - is encouraged by the Supreme Court.ADR is a
means used to resolve controversy. The objective of ADR
forms methods and process is to resolve or facilitate the
resolution of a dispute or controversy in a speedy, amicable
and inexpensive manner.
Fundamental of ADR: Sources of ADR
Benguet Corp v. DENR-Mines Adjudication Board
(MAB), JG Realty and Mining Corp,
545 SCRA 196 (2008)
RULING:
brought to voluntary arbitration before the Panel of
Arbitratiors. The availment of voluntary arbitration
before resort is made to the courts or quasi-judicial
agencies of the government is a valid contractual
stipulation that must be adhered to by the parties. It is not
illegal and is in fact promoted by the State.
Sec 6 of RA 876 provides that “a party
aggrieved by the failure, neglect or refusal
of another to perform under an agreement
in writing providing for arbitration may
petition the court for an order directing
that such arbitration proceed in the
manner provided for in such
agreement.”
Sec 7 provides that the court shall stay
the action or proceeding until an
arbitration has been had in accordance
with the terms of the agreement. After the
special proceeding of arbitration has been
pursued and completed, then the lower
court may confirm the award made by the
arbitrator.
ADR, however, is not inconsistent with judicial
proceedings as opposed to the trial system. Judicial
proceedings complement ADR proceedings. When ADR is
availed of during the pendency of an action in court, the
court does not lose jurisdiction over the case. The court
proceeding will only be stayed. After the special
proceeding for arbitration has been pursued and
completed, then the court may confirm the award made by
the arbitrator. (this is the ruling in BF Corp case cited here,
not one of Benguet case’s issues)
Transfield Philippines Inc. v Luzon Hydro Corporation
ISSUE: Whether the pendency of arbitral proceedings
foreclose resort to the courts for provisional reliefs.
RULING: No. As a fundamental point, the pendency of
arbitral proceedings does not foreclose resort to the courts
for provisional reliefs. The Rules of the ICC, which governs
the parties' arbitral dispute, allows the application of a
party to a judicial authority for interim or conservatory
measures. Likewise, Section14 of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
876 (The Arbitration Law) recognizes the rights of any
party to petition the court to take measures to safeguard
and/or conserve any matter which is the subject of the
dispute in arbitration. In addition, R.A. 9285, otherwise
known as the "Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004,"
allows the filing of provisional or interim measures with
the regular courts whenever the arbitral tribunal has no
power to act or to act effectively.
MainPoint: Sources of ADR in this case at bar:
Domestic laws and rules which may either be general
or special. General ADR laws are those applicable to all
forms of ADR such as Article III , Section 16, 1987
Constitution; Chapters 1 and 2, Title XIV, Book IV, Civil
Code of the Philippines; and the Arbitration Law (R.A
876); and the ADR act of 2004 (9285) and its IRR
Uniwide Sales Realty and Resources Corporation vs
Titan-Ikeda Construction and Development
Corporation.
FACTS: Court of Appeals held that the CIAC is an
arbitration body, which is not necessarily bound by the
Rules of Court.
ISSUE: W/N CIAC should have applied the Rules of Court in
the arbitration proceeding.
RULING: NO. As an arbitration body, the CIAC can only
resolve issues brought before it by the parties through the
TOR which functions similarly as a pre-trial brief. In
rejecting Uniwide's claim for liquidated damages, the CIAC
held that there is no legal basis for passing upon and
resolving Uniwide's claim for the following reasons: (1) no
claim for liquidated damages arising from the alleged delay
was ever made by Uniwide at any time before the
commencement of Titan's complaint; (2) the claim for
liquidated damages was not included in the counterclaims
stated in Uniwide's answer to Titan's complaint; (3) the
claim was not formulated as an issue to be resolved by the
CIAC in the TOR; and (4) no attempt was made to modify
the TOR to accommodate the same as an issue to be
resolved. Uniwide insists that the CIAC should have
applied Section 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court. On this
matter, the Court of Appeals held that the CIAC is an
arbitration body, which is not necessarily bound by
the Rules of Court. Also, the Court of Appeals found that
the issue has never been made concrete enough to make
Titan and the CIAC aware that it will be an issue. In fact,
Uniwide only introduced and quantified its claim for
liquidated damages in its Memorandum submitted to the
CIAC at the end of the arbitration proceeding.
Thus, if Uniwide’s claim for liquidated damages was not
raised as an issue in the TOR or in any modified or
amended version of it, the CIAC cannot make a ruling on it.
The Rules of Court cannot be used to contravene the spirit
of the CIAC rules, whose policy and objective is to “provide
a fair and expeditious settlement of construction disputes
through a non-judicial process which ensures harmonious
and friendly relations between or among the parties.”
Arbitration has been defined as “an arrangement for taking
and abiding by the judgment of selected persons in some
disputed matter, instead of carrying it to established
tribunals of justice, and is intended to avoid the
formalities, the delay, the expense and vexation of ordinary
litigation.”
Subject Matter of ADR
People v. Vanzuela
FACTS: RTC dismissed saying that the controversy in the
case involves an agrarian dispute which falls under the
primary and exclusive original jurisdiction of the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) because the controversy had the character of an
"agrarian dispute."
ISSUE: W/N the RTC has jurisdiction over the charge for
estafa even if it involves agricultural tenants of the private
complainant.
RULING: YES. In order that a court may acquire criminal
jurisdiction, the court must have jurisdiction over the (1)
subject matter; (2) territory where the offense was
committed; and (3) person of the accused.
The jurisdiction of a tribunal over the subject matter
of an action is conferred by law. It is determined by the
material allegations of the complaint or information
and the law at the time the action was commenced.
Lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action or the
subject matter of an action, cannot be cured by the silence,
acquiescence, or even by express consent of the parties.
In the instant case, the RTC has jurisdiction over the
subject matter because the law confers on it the power to
hear and decide cases involving estafa (Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code).
RTC also has jurisdiction over the offense charged since
the crime was committed within its territorial jurisdiction.
The RTC likewise acquired jurisdiction over the persons of
the respondents because they voluntarily submitted to the
RTC's authority. Where the court has jurisdiction over the
subject matter and over the person of the accused, and the
crime was committed within its territorial jurisdiction, the
court necessarily exercises jurisdiction over all issues that
the law requires the court to resolve.
Notably, while the RTC has criminal jurisdiction conferred
on it by law, the DARAB, on the other hand, has no
authority to try criminal cases at all.

HOWEVER, while the court may have authority to pass
upon the criminal liability of the accused, it cannot make
any civil awards that relate to the agrarian relationship of
the parties because this matter is beyond its jurisdiction
and, correlatively, within DARAB's exclusive domain.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is
determined by law and is not dependent upon the
allegations of the parties.
VERDICT: Not guilty of estafa. The Court found that
respondents cannot be held liable for estafa for their
failure to pay the rental on the agricultural land subject of
the leasehold. What prevails today, under R.A. 6657, is
agricultural leasehold tenancy relationship (not share
tenancy), and all instances of share tenancy have been
automatically converted into leasehold tenancy. In such a
relationship, the tenant’s obligation is simply to pay
rentals, not to deliver the landowner’s share. Given this
dispensation, the petitioner’s allegation that the
respondents misappropriated the landowner’s share of the
harvest is untenable.
Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, 15 April 1968
FACTS: Surety filed a pleading entitled MOTION TO
DISMISS, alleging substantially that RA 296 had already
become effective, Sec. 88 of which placed within the
original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts all civil
actions where the value of the subject-matter or the
amount of the demand does not exceed P2,000.00,
exclusive of interest and costs; and that the CFI therefore
had no jurisdiction to try and decide the case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Motion to dismiss is still
meritorious.
RULING: NO, Surety is now barred by laches. It has
been held that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of
a court to secure affirmative relief against his
opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such
relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. It
was further said that the question whether the court
had jurisdiction either of the subject-matter of the
action or of the parties was not important in such
cases because the party is barred from such conduct
not because the judgment or order of the court is valid
and conclusive as an adjudication, but for the reason
that such a practice cannot be tolerated — obviously
for reasons of public policy. Furthermore, it has also
been held that after voluntarily submitting a cause and
encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is
too late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or
power of the court.
The facts of this case show that from the time the Surety
became a quasi-party, it could have raised the question of
the lack of jurisdiction of the CFI to take cognizance of the
present action by reason of the sum of money involved
which, according to the law then in force, was within the
original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts. It failed to
do so. Instead, at several stages of the proceedings in the
court a quo as well as in the CA, it invoked the jurisdiction
of said courts to obtain affirmative relief and submitted its
case for a final adjudication on the merits. It was only after
an adverse decision was rendered by the CA that it finally
woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is determined
by law and is not dependent upon the allegations of the
parties, except in the case of jurisdiction by estoppel.
Basic Concepts; ADR Providers and Practioners
Metro Construction, Inc.(MCI) vs. Chatham Properties,
Inc.(Chatham)
RULING: The CIAC original and exclusive jurisdiction over
disputes arising from, or connected with, contracts entered
into by parties involved in construction in the Philippines,
whether the dispute arises before or after the completion
of the contract, or after the abandonment or breach
thereof. By express provision of Section 19 thereof, the
arbitral award of the CIAC is final and unappealable, except
on questions of law, which are appealable to the Supreme
Court.
CIAC IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY—the language of
Section 1 of Circular No. 1-91 emphasizes the obvious
inclusion of the CIAC even if it is not named in the
enumeration of quasi-judicial agencies. The
introductory words “[a]mong these agencies are”
preceding the enumeration of specific quasi-judicial
agencies only highlight the fact that the list is not exclusive
or conclusive. Further, the overture stresses and
acknowledges the existence of other quasi-judicial
agencies not included in the enumeration but should be
deemed included. In addition, the CIAC is obviously
excluded in the catalogue of cases not covered by the
Circular and mentioned in Section 2 thereof for the reason
that at the time the Circular took effect, E.O. No. 1008
allows appeals to the Supreme Court on questions of law.
By nature of their functions, ADR providers and
practitioners, including arbitrators and mediators, act
in quasi-judicial agencies. They are quasi-judicial
agencies and instrumentalities.
Yes. Appeals from the arbitral awards of the CIAC may be
brought to the Court of Appeals, and not to the Supreme
Court alone. The grounds for the appeal are likewise
broadened to include appeals on questions of facts and
appeals involving mixed questions of fact and law.
A quasi-judicial agency or body has been defined as
an organ of government other than a court and other
than a legislature, which affects the rights of private
parties “through either adjudication or rule-making.

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. World
Interactive Network Systems Japan Co. Ltd, 544 SCRA
308
ISSUE: W/N an aggrieved party in a voluntary arbitration
dispute may avail of petition for review under Rule 43 or a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 directly in the CA
when the grounds invoked to overturn the arbitrator’s
decision are other than those for a petition to vacate an
arbitral award under the Arbitration Law
RULING: Arbitration Law (RA 876) did not expressly
provide for errors of fact and/or law and grave abuse
of discretion as grounds for maintaining a petition to
vacate an arbitral award in the RTC hence, petitioner
may not avail of this remedy with the RTC. Adamson v. CA
previously held that a petition to vacate filed in the RTC
not based on the grounds enumerated in Section 24 of the
Arbitration Law should be dismissed.
Section 24. Grounds for vacating award. - In any
one of the following cases, the court must make an order
vacating the award upon the petition of any party to the
controversy when such party proves affirmatively that in
the arbitration proceedings:
(a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other
undue means; or
(b) That there was evident partiality or corruption in the
arbitrators or any of them; or
(c) That the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in
refusing to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause
shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and
material to the controversy; that one or more of the
arbitrators was disqualified to act as such under section
nine hereof, and wilfully refrained from disclosing such
disqualifications or of any other misbehavior by which the
rights of any party have been materially prejudiced; or
(d) That the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so
imperfectly executed them, that a mutual, final and definite
award upon the subject matter submitted to them was not
made. xxx
A petition for review under Rule 43 or a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 may be availed of in the CA
depending on the grounds relied upon by petitioner.
The proper remedy from the adverse decision of a
voluntary arbitrator, if errors of fact and/or law
are raised, is a petition for review under Rule 43.
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may also be
resorted to in accordance with the Constitution
and jurisprudence. The Court will not hesitate to
review a voluntary arbitrator’s award where there
is a showing of grave abuse of authority or
discretion and such is properly raised in a petition
for certiorari and there is no appeal, nor any plain,
speedy remedy in the course of law. As such their
decision or awards are generally reviewable in a
special action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as amended.
An aggrieved party before the Arbitration Committee has
several judicial remedies available—it may petition the
RTC to issue an order vacating the award on the grounds
provided for under Section 24 of the Arbitration Law, or
file a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court with the Court of Appeals, or file a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65. However, in the case at bar, the
alternative petition filed in the CA by petitioner was an
inappropriate mode of appeal which should have been
dismissed outright by CA. Remedies of appeal and
certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative
or successive.
A careful reading of the assigned errors reveals that the
real issues calling for the CA’s resolution were less the
alleged grave abuse of discretion exercised by the
arbitrator and more about the arbitrator’s appreciation of
the issues and evidence presented by the parties.
Therefore, the issues clearly fall under the classification of
errors of fact and law—questions which may be passed
upon by the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43.
Petitioner cleverly 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
petition for review under Rule 43 would be proper) and
grave abuse of discretion (because of which a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 would be permissible). It must be
emphasized that every lawyer should be familiar with
the distinctions between the two remedies for it is not
the duty of the courts to determine under which rule
the petition should fall. Petitioner’s ploy was fatal to
its cause.
Chapter IV
Policy on Arbitration
Frabelle Fishing Corporation v. Philippine American
Life Insurance Company, 530 SCRA 543
RULING: The HLURB has no jurisdiction over an action
for reformation of contracts. The jurisdiction lies with
the Regional Trial Court. Any disagreement which would
require first an amendment or reformation of their
contract is an issue which the courts may and can resolve
without the need of the expertise and specialized
knowledge of the HLURB.
With respect to the arbitrational clause in the 1998 MOA,
petitioner referred the dispute to the Philippine Dispute
Resolution Center, Inc., but respondents refused to submit to
its jurisdiction.
Arbitration is one of the alternative methods of
dispute resolution that is now rightfully vaunted as
“the wave of the future” in international relations, and
is recognized worldwide. To brush aside a contractual
agreement calling for arbitration in case of
disagreement between the parties would therefore be
a step back-ward.
Arbitration Agreement
OSPA vs. CA, G.R. No. 156660
FACTS: Petitioners assert that the relationship between
respondents and the individual sugar planters is governed by
milling contracts which provides in Art XX that all
controversies which may arise shall be submitted for
discussion to a Board of Arbitration; it also provides that if the
Planter was not a member of any association, then the said 1%
shall revert to the centrals. OSPA, without impleading any of
their individual members, sued respondents with the RTC for
Arbitration under RA 876 claiming that respondents violated
the Milling Contract when they gave to independent planters
who do not belong to any association the 1% share, instead of
reverting said share to the centrals. Respondents filed MD for
lack of cause of action because petitioners had no milling
contract with respondents.
ISSUE: w/n petitioners are clothed with legal personality to file
a suit or demand arbitration from, respondents without
impleading the individual Planters.
Ruling: No. There is no legal basis for petitioners' purported
right to demand arbitration when they are not parties to the
milling contracts, especially when the language of the
arbitration clause expressly grants the right to demand
arbitration only to the parties to the contract..
Section 4 of R.A. 876 provides: A contract to arbitrate XXX shall
be in writing and subscribed by the party sought to be
charged, or by his lawful agent. XXX
The formal requirements of an agreement to arbitrate are
therefore the following: (a) it must be in writing and (b) it must
be subscribed by the parties or their representatives. To
subscribe means to write underneath, as one’s name; to sign
at the end of a document. That word may sometimes be
construed to mean to give consent to or to attest.
Petitioners would argue that they could sue respondents,
notwithstanding the fact that they were not signatories in the
milling contracts because they are the recognized
representatives of the Planters.
This claim has no leg to stand on since petitioners did not sign
the milling contracts at all, whether as a party or as a
representative of their member Planters.
An agreement to arbitrate is a contract, the relation of the
parties is contractual, and the rights and liabilities of the
parties are controlled by the law of contracts. In an agreement
for arbitration, the ordinary elements of a valid contract must
appear, including an agreement to arbitrate some specific
thing, and an agreement to abide by the award, either in
express language or by implication.
ARBITRATION IN GENERAL;Doctrine of Separability
Gonzales v. Climax Mining and Australian Philippines
Mining Inc (GR No. 161957)
ISSUE:
Whether the dispute between the parties should
be brought for arbitration under Rep. Act No. 876 even
though Gonzales has raised the twin issues of validity and
nullity of the Addendum Contract and, consequently, of the
arbitration clause therein as well
RULING/MAIN POINT:
Yes. The doctrine of separability, enunciates that
an arbitration agreement is independent of the main
contract. The arbitration agreement is to be treated as a
separate agreement and does not automatically terminate
when the contract of which it is part comes to an end.
The separability of the arbitration agreement is
especially significant to the determination of whether the
invalidity of the main contract also nullifies the arbitration
clause. Indeed, the doctrine denotes that the invalidity of
the main contract, also referred to as the "container"
contract, does not affect the validity of the arbitration
agreement. Irrespective of the fact that the main contract is
invalid, the arbitration clause/agreement still remains
valid and enforceable.
The separability of the arbitration clause is
confirmed in Art. 16(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law and
Art. 21(2) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.
Disputes do not go to arbitration unless and until
the parties have agreed to abide by the arbitrators
decision. Necessarily, a contract is required for arbitration
to take place and to be binding. R.A. No. 876 recognizes the
contractual nature of the arbitration agreement.
Cargill Phil Inc. v San Fernando Regala trading
Facts: San Fernando Regala Trading filed before the trial
court a complaint for rescission of contract with damages
against Cargill Philippines, Inc.. San Fernando Regala
Trading argued that since it was seeking rescission of the
contract, it was in effect repudiating the contract which
included the arbitration clause.
Ruling: Applying the Gonzales ruling, an arbitration
agreement which forms part of the main contract shall not
be regarded as invalid or non-existent just because the
main contract is invalid or did not come into existence,
since the arbitration agreement shall be treated as a
separate agreement independent of the main contract. A
contrary ruling would suggest that a party's mere
repudiation of the main contract is sufficient to avoid
arbitration and that is exactly the situation that the
separability doctrine sought to avoid. Thus, we find that
even the party who has repudiated the main contract is not
prevented from enforcing its arbitration clause.

Philrock, Inc. v Construction Industry Arbitration
Commission (CIAC)
[G.R. Nos. 132848-49. June 26, 2001.]
RULING: Section 4 of Executive Order 1008 expressly vests
in the CIAC original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes
arising from or connected with construction contracts
entered into by parties that have agreed to submit their
dispute to voluntary arbitration.
It is undisputed that the parties submitted themselves to
the jurisdiction of the Commission by virtue of their
Agreement to Arbitrate. After submitting itself to
arbitration proceedings and actively participating therein,
petitioner is estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the
CIAC, merely because the latter rendered an adverse
decision. Courts encourage the use of alternative
methods of dispute resolution. When parties agree to
settle their disputes arising from or connected with
construction contracts, the Construction Industry
Arbitration Commission (CIAC) acquires primary
jurisdiction. It may resolve not only the merits of such
controversies; when appropriate, it may also award
damages, interests, attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation. In line with the principles that ADR providers
and practitioners including arbitrators acting in a quasi-
judicial capacity, the principles of administrative due
process equally apply to arbitral proceedings. (not in the
case)
Judicial Review and Court Intervention
40. Agan vs Piatco (Phil. International Air Terminals,
Co.)
FACTS: The Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) bid project for
the construction of NAIA Terminal III was awarded to the
Paircargo Consortium (now PIATCO). Asia's Emerging
Dragon Corp (AEDC), another bidder, protested the lack of
pre-qualification requirements of PIATCO and sought the
nullification of the Concession Agreements under which
the Government granted PIATCO the exclusive right to
operate a commercial international passenger terminal
within the Island of Luzon" during the concession period
and to collect the fees and rentals. As a consequence of
such exclusive franchise, Terminals I and II will be closed
down. Subsequently, President Arroyo declared that she
will not honor the PIATCO contracts for being null and
void. An arbitration proceedings pursuant to Section
10.02 of the ARCA (Amended and Restated Concession
Agreement) have been filed at the instance of respondent
PIATCO. (before the ICC)
ISSUE: W/N the arbitration step taken by PIATCO will oust
this Court of its jurisdiction over the cases.
RULING: NO. In Del Monte Corporation-USA v. Court of
Appeals, it was held that the arbitration clause is binding
only on the parties to the contract. Since there are parties
to the case who are not signatories nor assignees to the
contract, they cannot be bound by the arbitration clause
contained therein. To allow arbitration to some and trial as
to others would result in multiplicity of suits and
unnecessary delay, hence, the court therein ruled that the
interest of justice would be best served if the court is
allowed to proceed with the adjudication of the case in
one complete proceeding. Similarly in this case, it is
established that petitioners who have presented legitimate
interests in the resolution of the controversy are not
parties to the PIATCO Contracts. Accordingly, they cannot
be bound by the arbitration clause provided for in the
ARCA and hence, cannot be compelled to submit to
arbitration proceedings. A speedy and decisive resolution
of all the critical issues in the present controversy,
including those raised by petitioners, cannot be made
before an arbitral tribunal. The object of arbitration is
precisely to allow an expeditious determination of a
dispute. This objective would not be met if this Court
were to allow the parties to settle the cases by
arbitration as there are certain issues involving non-
parties to the PIATCO Contracts which the arbitral
tribunal will not be equipped to resolve.
Prior to the ADR Act and its IRR, where the arbitration is
multi-party, and one or more but not all of them are
parties to an arbitration agreement, the court is given the
discretion to refuse a referral to ADR if arbitration will not
be decisive and speedy or if it will result to multiplicity of
suits, duplicitous procedure and unnecessary delay.
Petition for Review Petition for Certiorari
Rule 43 Rule 65
Proper issues that may be Proper issue that may be
raised pertain to raised must be limited to
(1) errors of fact (1) errors of jurisdiction, i.e.,
(2) errors of law grave abuse of discretion
(3) mixed errors of fact and amounting to a lack or
law excess of jurisdiction.
Note: It cannot be availed of
where appeal is the proper
remedy or as a substitute for
a lapsed appeal.
Chapter VI
Rockland Construction Co., Inc. vs. Mid-Pasig Land
Development Corporation 543 SCRA 596 (2008) –
Ruling: The doctrine of estoppel is based on the grounds
of public policy, fair dealing, good faith and justice, and its
purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act,
representations, or commitments to the injury of one to
whom they were directed and who reasonably relied
thereon. Since estoppel is based on equity and justice, it is
essential that before a person can be barred from asserting
a fact contrary to his act or conduct, it must be shown that
such act or conduct has been intended and would unjustly
cause harm to those who are misled if the principle were
not applied against him. For estoppel to apply, the action
giving rise thereto must be unequivocal and
intentional because, if misapplied, estoppel may
become a tool of injustice
MAYNILAD CASE
Maynilad Water Services, Inc.
(Philippines) v. Republic of the
Philippines
Date of Commencement: 27 March 2015
Length of Proceedings: 2-3 years
MANILA WATER CASE (THE RECENT ONE)
– CASE INFORMATION NOT YET
AVAILABLE
BACKGROUND
Water concessionaires, Maynilad and Manila
Water, separately brought a case for arbitration
stemming from the government’s refusal of
water rate hikes resulting to losses for both
utility firms. The antecedent facts are as
follows:
In 1997, the Philippine Government, led by
President Fidel V. Ramos, solicited bids for
concession agreements with Metropolitan
Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) to
address the water crisis in Metro Manila that
existed due to the incapability of the MWSS to
maintain viable operations due to technical
inefficiencies and enormous financial debts.
The Government unilaterally determined the
terms of the agreements, which were bidden
out on a take it or leave it basis.
Manila Water was one of many local and
international corporations who responded to
the Government’s call for public-private
partnership to solve the water crisis. It offered
the lowest fee to serve as concessionaire of
MWSS, which decided to pay the fee with the
water tariff to be collected by the
concessionaire. Manila Water was
subsequently awarded the Concession
Agreement for the East Zone. Meanwhile,
Maynilad was awarded for the West Zone. 1
This Concession Agreement with the
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage
System (MWSS) back in 1997 carried a
provision that pushes the government to
"indemnify" the utility firm against any loss that
could result from the regulator's actions. As
regulator, the MWSS approves or rejects
petitions for water rate adjustments. However,
MWSS rejected the Manila Water’s request to
raise water rates for year 2013 to 2017.
Instead, it even told the utility firm to slash its
basic water charge by P2.77 per cubic meter.
Similarly, MWSS also rejected Maynilad’s
request for tariff adjustments for the period
2013 to 2017.2
ARBITRATION RULING
The international tribunal backed by the
Permanent Court of Arbitration ordered the
Republic to indemnify Manila Water the amount
of ₱7,390,000,000 representing the actual
losses it suffered from 1 June 2015 until 22
November 2019. It also ordered the state to
pay 100 percent of the amounts paid by Manila
Water to the PCA and 85 percent of Manila
Water’s other claimed costs.
The ruling for Manila Water came almost 3
years after the PCA ruled on a similar case
filed by west zone concessionaire Maynilad
Services, Inc. In that case, the Court has
ordered the state to reimburse P3.4 billion for
Maynilad’s losses from March 2015 to August
2016.3
MAYNILAD’S VICTORY BECOMES FINAL
The Philippine government filed an application
to set aside the arbitral decision ordering
Malacañang to compensate Maynilad for its
1
https://www.manilawater.com/customer/agos/2019-12-
04/press-statement-on-the-award-recently-issued-by-an-
arbitral-tribunal-in-favor-of-manila-water-as-administered-
by-the-permanent-court-of-arbitration
2
https://business.inquirer.net/258771/maynilad-arbitration-
victory-becomes-final
3
https://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2019/11/29/Manila-
Water-arbitration.html
revenue losses. However, this was dismissed good water concessionaire agreement should
by the High Court – be.7
the lower division of Singapore’s Supreme
Court, in a ruling dated September 4, 2018. WAIVING THE ARBITRAL AWARDS
The Supreme Court of Singapore favored the The water concessionaires would no longer
arbitral decision that sided with Maynilad Water seek to collect from the government close to
Services Inc. This has become final on October P11 billion that an international arbitration court
4, 2018 after the Philippine government had awarded to them for foregone revenue
decided to no longer elevate the case to the from higher rates that they were unable to
Court of Appeal, the higher division of implement. In addition to no longer pursuing its
Singapore’s Supreme Court. collection of the P7.4 billion arbitral award,
(Note: A second arbitration is still pending).4 Manila Water is willing to defer rate increases
scheduled for January 2020. Maynilad is
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE supposed to raise its basic charge by P1.95
The Philippine Government will appeal the per cubic meter and Manila Water P2 per cubic
ruling of an international tribunal which ordered meter effective Jan.1.8
officials to pay billions of refunds to water
concessionaires Maynilad and Manila Water.
According to Presidential Spokesperson
Salvador Panelo, the Government will either
appeal the decision in the Supreme Court of
Singapore or oppose the enforcement of the
arbitral ruling once a petition is filed in court for
its reinforcement. The opposition will be
grounded on the fact that the contract is
against public policy and interest of the Filipino
people.5

ROOM FOR NEGOTIATION

Officials from both Maynilad and Manila Water
agreed to negotiate the supposed onerous
deals with the government, which were signed
in 1997. Manila Water president Jose Rene
Almendras and Maynilad president Ramoncito
Fernandez said they were ready to cooperate
with the government in striking a new deal,
without the “onerous” provisions.6

The government shall form a team composed

of lawyers from OSG, the Office of the
Government Corporate Counsel, the Finance
Department, and the Justice Department to
form the government’s own version of what a

4
https://business.inquirer.net/258771/maynilad-arbitration-
victory-becomes-final
5 7
https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2019/12/9/Panelo- https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2019/12/9/Panelo-
Malacanang-Maynilad-Manila-Water-Singapore-arbitral- Malacanang-Maynilad-Manila-Water-Singapore-arbitral-
ruling- ruling-
appeal.html?fbclid=IwAR0TXVThbNltnbqfWdMQpX3vgecPSd5 appeal.html?fbclid=IwAR0TXVThbNltnbqfWdMQpX3vgecPSd5
3HWfPzPEyn6CmF0H9I14IV2akERM 3HWfPzPEyn6CmF0H9I14IV2akERM
6 8
https://business.inquirer.net/285136/water-firms-waiving- https://business.inquirer.net/285136/water-firms-waiving-
p10-8-billion-award p10-8-billion-award

NOTES:
History
1. Civil Code took effect on August 30, 1950
2. June 19, 1953—R.A. 876 Arbitration Law was
enacted, which did not revoke, and instead
supplemented the provisions of the NCC on
arbitration.
3. Resolution No. 71—convention that gave
recprocal recognition and allowed enforcement
of international arbitration agreements
between parties of different nationalities within
a contracting state
4. United Nations Commission on International
Trade Law (UNCITRAL) June 21, 1985, which
adopted the Model Law on International
Commercial Arbitration
5. R.A. 9285 Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of
2004 –first comprehensive alternative dispute
resolution law in the Ph; which also adopted the
UNCITRAL Model Law.
Lawyers are expected to exert genuine and sincere
efforts at bringing parties to a settlement within the
scope of their authority.
Judiciary’s Action:
1. Requirement of conducting pre-trial
conferences
2. Utilization of different modes of discovery
3. Strict proscription against forum shopping
SC passed Admin. issuances encouraging the use of
alternative dispute resolution through—
a. Philippine Mediation Center; or
b. JDR
ADR Methods—
a. Arbitration
b. Mediation
c. Negotiation
d. Conciliation
NLRC, together with its arbitration branch—cases
involving unfair labor practice, termination of
employment, conditions of employment, damages
arising from EER, and other labor-related disputes.
Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. 7160) –requires
conciliation, mediation, or arbitration in the barangay
level before the pangkat ng tagapagkasundo of would-
be adverse parties in specified civil and criminal cases
before resort to the courts can be had.
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) –
disputes related to, arising from, or connected with
construction agreements.
Alternative Dispute Resolution— is a system, using
means and methods allowed by law, and approved by
parties for the purpose of resolving or facilitating the
resolution of disputes and controversies between them
in an expeditious and speedy manner, without resorting
to court adjudication.
Principles of ADR
1. Promotion of party autonomy and self-
determination in the resolution of disputes;
2. Recognition of ADR as efficient tool and an
alternative procedure for resolution of cases;
3. Enlisting of private sector participation, as many
ADR practitioners or providers hail from the
private sector in various fields of endeavor.
Objectives and Benefits of ADR
1. Speedy and impartial justice
2. Declogging of court dockets
Features of ADR
1. Means used to resolve a dispute or controversy.
2. Utilizes means and methods allowed by law.
Such as: arbitration, mediation,
conciliation, early neutrak evaluation or
mini-trial.
3. Contractual in nature
4. Avoids court trial
However, more often than not, ADR is
coducted as part of court proceedings
as distinguished from the trial stage of
court proceedings as in the case of JDR,
which, although not governed by ADR
Act of 2004, requires judges to conduct
mediation between parties as part of
the pre-trial and prior to the trial stage.
Likewise the case of Court Annexed
Mediation (CAM), while not governed
by ADR Act of 2004, is required to be
conducted prior to pre-trial.
5. Usually involves the participation of a neutral
third party.
Forms of ADR
Arbitration—voluntary dispute resolution process in
which one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance
with the agreement of the parties or rules promulgated
pursuant to the ADR Act, resolve a dispute by rendering
an award.
Mediation—voluntary process in which a mediator,
selected by the disputing parties, facilitates
communication and negotiation, and assists parties in
reaching a voluntary agreement regarding a dispute.
The concluding arbitral award in an arbitration
proceeding is rendered by the third party arbitral
tribunal or arbitrator; while the concluding mediated
settlement agreement in a mediation proceeding is the
voluntary agreement executed by the parties
themselves.
Conciliation—adjustment and settlement of a dispute in
a friendly, unantagonistic manner.
Neutral and Early Neutral Evaluation—ADR process
wherein the parties and their lawyers are brought
together to present summaries of their cases and
receive a non-binding assessment by an experienced
neutral person with expertise in the subject of the
dispute.
Mini-trial—a structured dispute resolutin method in
which the merits of the case are argued before a panel
composed of senior decision makers, with or without
the presence of a neutral third person, after which the
parties seek a negotiated settlement
Combination of these—any combination of the forms
aforementioned, consented by the parties, not contrary
to law, public order or public policy
Components of ADR
1. Contending parties
2. Dispute or controversy
3. Form of ADR
4. ADR provider or practitioner
General Rule: All adversarial disputes and controversies
can be the subject matter of ADR.
Exceptions:
a. Civil status of persons
b. Validity of marriage or any ground for legal
separation
c. Jurisdiction of the courts, except on the cases of
estoppel
d. Future legitime
e. Criminal liability
f. In general, those which by law cannot be
compromised
g. Labor disputes (governed by the Labor Code)
The seat of ADR is jurisdiction under whose law the
proceeding is being conducted, The venue or place of
ADR on the other hand, is the actual site where the
arbitration is conducted.
ADR proceedings are completed upon the execution of
a concluding act or agreement.
1. Arbitral award—partial or final decision od
an arbitrator in resolving the issue in a
controversy.
2. Settlement agreement—contract executed
by the mediating parties, assisted by their
respective counsel, certified by a mediator,
evidencing a succesful mediation.
3. Compromise agreement—contract,
whereby parties, by making reciprocal
concessions, avoid litigation or put an end
to one already existing.
4. Waiver or quitclaim—statement
renouncing any right or claim in a
controversy by one party in favor of the
other.

By the nature of their functions, ADR providers and
practitioners, including arbitrators and mediators, act
in a quasi-judicial capacity. They are quasi-judicial
agencies or instrumentalities.
MEDIATION
As a form of ADR, Mediation is non-evidentiary or non-
merit based.
Mediated Settlement Agreement
The concluding agreement has the effect of a res
judicata, and therefore, binding upon the parties
whether or not it has been submitted to the court for
approval. However, there can be no execution of the
concluding agreement unless it has been first judicially
approved. The parties, by motion, have to present the
concluding agreement to the proper court for approval
and the rendition of the judgment based thereon. The
court is called upon to approve the concluding
agreement provided it is not contrary to law, good
morals, good customs, public order and public policy.
Once judicially approved, the concluding agreement
may be enforced through a writ of execution.
ARBITRATION
Kinds:
Compulsory Arbitration—process of settlement of
(labor) disputes by a government agency who has the
authority to investigate and to make an award which is
binding on all parties and a mode of arbitration where
the parties are compelled to accept the resolution of
their dispute through arbitration by a third party.
Voluntary Arbitration—involves the reference of a
dispute to an impartial body, members of which are
chosen by the parties themselves, which parties freely
consent in advance to abide by the arbitral award issued
after the proceedings where both parties had the
opportunity to be heard.
Three types of judicial intervention in arbitration:
1. Judicial assistance in arbitration—allows the
parties in an arbitration to secure from the
courts orders or processes that will aid in the
conduct of the arbitration; e.g.issuance of
interim measures of protection
2. Judicial review of arbitral awards—involves
passing upon to the extent and on grounds
provided by law, the propriety of the arbitral
award; and
3. Judicial review of court decisions in ADR
related cases—involves remedies available
from the orders of the RTC and the CA rendered
in the first two tyoes of judicial intervention.
DOMESTIC ARBITRATION
In general, arbitration is domestic if conducted in the
Philippines.
The ADR Act of 2004 devoted only two (2) sections to
domestic arbitration:
a. Section 32, which distinguished domestic
arbitration from international arbitration and
declared that the Arbitration Law (R.A. 876)
remains to be applicable to domestic
arbitration; and
b. Section 33, which adopted certain provisions of
the Model Law and the ADR Act on
international commercial arbitration to
domestic arbitration
Unlike the provisions of ADR Act of 2004 on
international commercial arbitration and the rules
corresponding thereto which cover only disputes arising
from relationships of a commercial nature, the
provisions and rules on domestic arbitration cover both
commercial and non commercial disputes provided they
are susceptible of arbitration and do not fall within the
exclusive originl arbitral jurisdiction of quasi-judicial
agencies.
Alternative Dispute Resolution; Court
Diversion; Stages (2012)
No.VIII.B. Discuss the three (3) Stages of
Court Diversion in connection with
Alternative Dispute Resolution. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The three stages of diversion are CourtAnnexed Mediation (CAM),
Judicial Dispute Resolution, and Appeals Court Mediation (ACM).
During CAM, the judge refers the parties to the Philippine Mediation
Center (PMC) for the mediation of their dispute by trained and
accredited mediators. If CAM fails, the JDR is undertaken by the JDR
judge, acting as a mediator-conciliator-early neutral evaluator. The
third case is during appeal, where covered cases are
referred to ACM.