UNITED NATIONS

CONVENTION ON THE
RECOGNITION AND
ENFORCEMENT OF
FOREIGN ARBITRAL
AWARDS (NEW YORK, 10
JUNE 1958)
By: Atty. Joanne Marie A. Coma
The New York Convention
 Adopted in 1958

 Ensures recognition and

enforcement of foreign arbitral
awards (Article I, III)

 Gives effect to arbitration clause

(Article II (3))

 Limits grounds for denial of

enforcement (Article V)
NEW YORK CONVENTION:
STATUS

Universal acceptance: 146 Parties

May 10, 1965- through Senate
Resolution No. 71, Philippines
ratified the New York Convention
Upon deposit of the ratification
document, the New York Convention
came into force in the Philippines on
October 4, 1967
THE TWO BASIC ACTIONS
CONTEMPLATED BY THE NEW
YORK CONVENTION 
1. Recognition and enforcement of
foreign arbitral awards
2. Referral by a court to arbitration
 OBJECTIVES
The Convention recognizes the growing
importance of international arbitration as a means
of settling international commercial disputes.
It seeks to provide common legislative standards
for the recognition of arbitration agreements and
court recognition and enforcement of foreign and
non-domestic arbitral awards.
KEY
PROVISIONS
 Article 1 – When will it apply.
 shall apply to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral
awards made in the territory of a State other than the State
where the recognition and enforcement of such awards are
sought, and arising out of differences between persons,
whether physical or legal.
 shall also apply to arbitral awards not considered as
domestic awards in the State where their recognition and
enforcement are sought.
WHAT ARE ARBITRAL
AWARDS
The term “arbitral awards” shall include
not only awards made by arbitrators appointed
for each case
but also those made by permanent arbitral
bodies to which the parties have submitted
 WHEN CONSENTING TO BE BOUND BY THE
CONVENTION, A STATE MAY DECLARE THAT
IT WILL APPLY THE CONVENTION:

In respect to awards made only in the

territory of another Party
Only to legal relationships that are
considered “commercial” under its
domestic law
 ARTICLE 2 – PROVISIONS ON
ARBITRATION
AGREEMENTS
Each Contracting State shall recognize an agreement
in writing under which the parties undertake to
submit to arbitration all or any differences which
have arisen or which may arise between them in
respect of a defined legal relationship, whether
contractual or not, concerning a subject matter
capable of settlement by arbitration.
"AGREEMENT IN WRITING" 
include an arbitral clause in a
contract or an arbitration agreement
signed by the parties
or contained in an exchange of letters
or telegrams
 WHAT COURT WILL DO WHEN
SUIT WAS FILED WITH
ARBITRAL CLAUSE
The court of a Contracting State, when seized of an

action in a matter in respect of which the parties
have made an agreement within the meaning of this
article, shall, at the request of one of the parties,
refer the parties to arbitration, unless it finds that the
said agreement is null and void, inoperative or
incapable of being performed.
ARTICLE 4 –
RECOGNITION &
ENFORCEMENT
To obtain the recognition and enforcement
mentioned in the preceding article, the party
applying for recognition and enforcement shall, at
the time of the application, supply:
The duly authenticated original award or a duly
certified copy thereof;
The original agreement referred to in article II
or a duly certified copy thereof.
If the said award or agreement is not made in an
official language of the country in which the award
is relied upon:

shall produce a translation of these documents

into such language
translation shall be certified by an official or
sworn translator or by a diplomatic or consular
agent.
Recognition and enforcement
of the award may be refused, at
the request of the party against
whom it is invoked, only if that
party furnishes to the
competent authority where the
recognition and enforcement is
sought
5 GROUNDS UPON WHICH
RECOGNITION &
ENFORCEMENT MAY BE
REFUSED
The parties to the agreement referred to in
article II were, under the law applicable to
them, under some incapacity, or the said
agreement is not valid under the law to which
the parties have subjected it or, failing any
indication thereon, under the law of the country
where the award was made
5 GROUNDS UPON WHICH
RECOGNITION &
ENFORCEMENT MAY BE
REFUSED
The party against whom the award is invoked
was not given proper notice of the appointment
of the arbitrator or of the arbitration
proceedings or was otherwise unable to present
his case
5 GROUNDS UPON WHICH
RECOGNITION &
ENFORCEMENT MAY BE
REFUSED
 The award deals with a difference not
contemplated by or not falling within the terms
of the submission to arbitration, or it contains
decisions on matters beyond the scope of the
submission to arbitration
5 GROUNDS UPON WHICH
RECOGNITION &
ENFORCEMENT MAY BE
REFUSED
 The composition of the arbitral authority or
the arbitral procedure was not in
accordance with the agreement of the
parties, or, failing such agreement, was not in
accordance with the law of the country
where the arbitration took place
5 GROUNDS UPON WHICH
RECOGNITION &
ENFORCEMENT MAY BE
REFUSED
The award has not yet become binding on
the parties, or has been set aside or
suspended by a competent authority of the
country in which, or under the law of which,
that award was made.
Recognition and enforcement
of an arbitral award may also
be refused if the competent
authority in the country where
recognition and enforcement is
sought
(a) The subject matter of the difference is not
capable of settlement by arbitration under the
law of that country; or
(b) The recognition or enforcement of the
award would be contrary to the public policy of
that country.
If an application for the setting aside or
suspension of the award has been made to a
competent authority referred to in article V (1)
(e), the authority before which the award is
sought to be relied upon may, if it considers it
proper, adjourn the decision on the
enforcement of the award and may also, on the
application of the party claiming enforcement
of the award, order the other party to give
suitable security.
The provisions of the present Convention shall
not affect the validity of multilateral or
bilateral agreements concerning the recognition
and enforcement of arbitral awards entered into
by the Contracting States nor deprive any
interested party of any right he may have to
avail himself of an arbitral award in the manner
and to the extent allowed by the law or the
treaties of the country where such award is
sought to be relied upon.
ENTRY INTO FORCE
The Convention entered into force on
7 June 1959 (Article XII)
HOW TO BECOME A PARTY
The Convention is closed for signature.
It is subject to ratification, and is open to
accession by any Member State of the United
Nations, any other State which is a member of
any specialized agency of the United Nations,
or is a Party to the Statute of the International
Court of Justice (articles VIII and IX).
DENUNCIATION/WITHDRAWA
L
Any Party may denounce this Convention by a
written notification to the Secretary-General
of the United Nations. Denunciation shall take
effect one year after the date of the receipt of
the notification by the Secretary-General
(Article XIII)
 NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF PITTSBURG V. STOLT-
NIELSEN PHILIPPINES, INC.
“Foreign arbitration as a system of settling commercial disputes of
an international character 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.”
 JORGE GONZALES V. HON.
OSCAR PIMENTEL
This special proceeding is the procedural mechanism for the enforcement
of the contract to arbitrate. The jurisdiction of the courts in relation to
Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 876 as well as the nature of the proceedings therein
was expounded upon in La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of
Appeals. There it was held that R.A. No. 876 explicitly confines the
court's authority only to the determination of whether or not there is an
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 proceeding shall be dismissed."
 KOREA TECHNOLOGIES CO V.
LERMA
 The arbitration clause which stipulates that the arbitration must be done in
Seoul, Korea in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the
KCAB, and that the arbitral award is final and binding, is not contrary
to public policy. This Court has sanctioned the validity of arbitration
clauses in a catena of cases. In the 1957 case of Eastboard Navigation Ltd. v.
Juan Ysmael and Co., Inc., this Court had occasion to rule that an arbitration
clause to resolve differences and breaches of mutually agreed contractual
terms is valid. In BF Corporation v. Court of Appeals, we held that "[i]n this
jurisdiction, arbitration has been held valid and constitutional. Even before the
approval on June 19, 1953 of Republic Act No. 876, this Court has
countenanced the settlement of disputes through arbitration.
 KOREA TECHNOLOGIES CO V.
LERMA
And in LM Power Engineering Corporation v. Capitol Industrial Construction Groups, Inc.,
we declared 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. Brushing aside a contractual agreement calling for arbitration between the
parties would be a step backward.
 
Consistent with the above-mentioned 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.
“Foreign arbitral awards while mutually stipulated by
the parties in the arbitration clause to be final and
binding are not immediately enforceable or cannot be
implemented immediately. Sec. 35 of the UNCITRAL
Model Law stipulates the requirement for the arbitral
award to be recognized by a competent court for
enforcement, which court under Sec. 36 of the
UNCITRAL Model Law may refuse recognition or
enforcement on the grounds provided for. RA 9285
incorporated these provisos to Secs. 42, 43, and 44
relative to Secs. 47 and 48”
SEC. 42. Application of the New York Convention. - The New York Convention shall govern the
recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards covered by the said Convention.

The recognition and enforcement of such arbitral awards shall be filled with regional trial court in
accordance with the rules of procedure to be promulgated by the Supreme Court. Said procedural
rules shall provide that the party relying on the award or applying for its enforcement shall file with
the court the original or authenticated copy of the award and the arbitration agreement. If the award
or agreement is not made in any of the official languages, the party shall supply a duly certified
translation thereof into any of such languages.

The applicant shall establish that the country in which foreign arbitration award was made is a party
to the New York Convention.

If the application for rejection or suspension of enforcement of an award has been made, the regional
trial court may, if it considers it proper, vacate its decision and may also, on the application of the
party claiming recognition or enforcement of the award, order the party to provide appropriate
security. (RA 9285)
SEC. 43. Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Arbitral Awards Not Covered by the New
York Convention. The recognition and
enforcement of foreign arbitral awards not
covered by the New York Convention shall be
done in accordance with procedural rules to be
promulgated by the Supreme Court. The Court
may, on grounds of comity and reciprocity,
recognize and enforce a non-convention award as
a convention award.
SEC. 44. Foreign Arbitral Award Not Foreign
Judgment. A foreign arbitral award when
confirmed by a court of a foreign country, shall
be recognized and enforced as a foreign arbitral
award and not as a judgment of a foreign court.
It is now clear that foreign arbitral awards when confirmed by the RTC
are deemed not as a judgment of a foreign court but as a foreign arbitral
award, and when confirmed, are enforced as final and executory
decisions of our courts of law.

Thus, it can be gleaned that the concept of a final and binding arbitral
award is similar to judgments or awards given by some of our quasi-
judicial bodies, like the National Labor Relations Commission and Mines
Adjudication Board, whose final judgments are stipulated to be final and
binding, but not immediately executory in the sense that they may still be
judicially reviewed, upon the instance of any party. Therefore, the final
foreign arbitral awards are similarly situated in that they need first to be
confirmed by the RTC.
THE RTC HAS JURISDICTION TO
REVIEW FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS
Sec. 42 in relation to Sec. 45 of RA 9285
designated and vested the RTC with specific
authority and jurisdiction to set aside, reject, or
vacate a foreign arbitral award on grounds
provided under Art. 34(2) of the UNCITRAL
Model Law.