Source: http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/practice-areas/international-arbitration-4th-edition/philippines-international-arbitration-4th-edition/
Timestamp: 2020-02-25 14:50:50
Document Index: 163069792

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 4', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 18', 'Art. 4']

The Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) was created under EO 1008 to handle the arbitration of construction disputes.
Yes. For both international or domestic arbitration, the appointment of an arbitrator can be challenged if circumstances exist which give rise to justifiable doubts as to his or her impartiality or independence, or if he or she does not possess qualifications agreed upon by the parties. (Art. 4.12 and 5.11, IRR). In domestic arbitration, an arbitrator may also be challenged as well if he or she refuses to respond to questions by a party regarding the nature and extent of his professional dealings with a party or counsel. (Art. 5.11, ADR Act)
In the event the mandate of any member of an arbitral tribunal terminates by reason of withdrawal, resignation, failure or incapability of performing his or her functions, a substitute arbitrator can be appointed according to rules applicable to the arbitrator being replaced, such as the IRR or the Model Law. (Art. 4.15 and 5.14, IRR)
Yes. Arbitral Tribunals are recognized to have the competence to rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objection with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement precedent to the filing of a request for arbitration. (Art. 4.16, IRR)
Local courts may refer the parties to arbitration in accordance with the agreement, upon request by the other party to the arbitration agreement not later than the pre-trial conference. The local court may also refer to parties to arbitration if the request for referral is made with the agreement of both parties. (Rules 4.1. to 4.2, Special ADR Rules).
In case of respondent’s failure to participate, resulting in failure to communicate the statement of defense, the arbitral tribunal shall continue the proceedings without treating such failure in itself as an admission of the claimant’s allegations. (Rule 4.25(b) and Rule 5, IRR). In any event, local courts can issue orders to direct a third party, who may be a witness, to comply with a subpoena issued by an arbitral tribunal to testify in an arbitral proceeding. (Rule 9, Special ADR Rules).
Local courts have the authority to issue orders to direct a third party, who may be a witness, to comply with a subpoena issued by an arbitral tribunal. (Rule 9, Special ADR Rules).
Local courts can issue interim measures before, pending, and during the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. (Rule 5.2, Special ADR Rules).
There is no strict standard of evidence during arbitration, except that all parties are required to be treated with equality and given a full opportunity to present their respective cases. (Art. 18, Model Law) The parties are free to adopt rules on evidence as they may prefer, such as the International Bar Association (IBA) Rules on the Taking of Evidence In International Arbitration.
Costs and allocation of costs can be subject to the agreement of the parties. In default of such an agreement, costs, such as arbitrator’s fees, expenses of the arbitrators and witnesses, costs of expert advice, and legal representation and assistance, are generally fixed by the arbitral tribunal or the institution under the auspices of which tribunal was constituted. Fees of the arbitral tribunal are required to be reasonable in amount, taking into account the amount in dispute, complexity of the subject matter, and time spent by the arbitrators. Costs are borne by the unsuccessful party, unless the arbitral tribunal makes a reasonable apportionment between the parties, taking into account the circumstances of the case. (Art. 4.46 and 5.46, IRR).
The petition for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award must be verified and must state the allegations required to be made by the Special ADR Rules, and contain authentic copies of the arbitral agreement, arbitral award, and the appointment of the arbitral tribunal. (Rule 1.4, Special ADR Rules) There is no other requirement to substantiate an arbitral award.
There is no timeframe for the Regional Trial Court before which a petition to recognize and enforce an arbitral award is filed to resolve the said petition. However, one 2010 World Bank study found that, on average, it takes around 135 weeks to enforce an arbitration award rendered in the Philippines (from filing an application to a writ of execution attaching assets, and assuming there is no appeal), and around 126 weeks for a foreign award. (Manuel Bautista, Jr., as cited in The ADR Act of 2004: A decade of changes and challenges by Ryan P. Oliva, The Philippine ADR Review, October 2014).
There is no difference in the standards of review for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards promulgated in domestic arbitration proceedings, international commercial arbitration proceedings in the Philippines, or foreign arbitration proceedings. In all three (3) types of proceedings, local courts shall not disturb the arbitral tribunal’s determination of facts and/or interpretation of law. (Rules 11.9, 12.11 and 13.11, Special ADR Rules) Moreover, arbitral awards are presumed to have been made and released in due course of arbitration, and is subject to confirmation by the Regional Trial Court. (Rules 11.9, 12.12 and 13.11, Special ADR Rules).
Any party to a domestic arbitration, not later than thirty (30) days from receipt of the arbitral award, may file petition with the appropriate Regional Trial Court to vacate an arbitral award on the following grounds:
the award was procured through corruption, fraud or undue means;
there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitral tribunal or any of its members;
the arbitral tribunal was guilty of misconduct or any form of misbehavior that materially prejudiced the rights of any party;
one or more arbitrators were disqualified to act as such under the law but willfully refrained from disclosing the disqualification;
the arbitral tribunal exceeded its powers or imperfectly executed them that a complete, final and definite award upon the matter submitted to them was not made;
no arbitration agreement existed or is invalid based on the grounds to revoke a contract, or is unenforceable; or
a party to the arbitration is a minor or judicially declared incompetent. (Section 24, Arbitration Law vis-à-vis Section 40, ADR Act; Rule 11.4(A), Special ADR Rules).
a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity, or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereof, under Philippine law;
the party making the application to set aside or resist enforcement was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case;
the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of the Philippines; or
the recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to public policy. (Rule 12.4, Special ADR Rules).
The 2015 PDRCI Rules allow a party to apply for expedited procedure where:
The amount in dispute representing aggregate of any claim, counterclaim or any other claim does not exceed PhP250,000.00;
Currently, the regime in effect in the Philippines in one for confidentiality of arbitration proceedings. The ADR Act explicitly provides for confidentiality of arbitration proceedings, including all records, evidence and arbitral award, and prohibits publication except with the parties’ consent or for the limited purpose of disclosing to the court of relevant documents where resort to court is allowed. (Sec. 23, ADR Act) There is no movement yet towards transparency.
There is no case decided by the Philippine Supreme Court where corruption was raised in relation to arbitration proceedings.
There is no decision of the Philippine Court that considers the decision of the General Court of the European Union in Micula & ors (Joined Cases T-624/15, T-694/15 and T-694.15), ECLI:EU:T:2019:423, which upheld the enforcement of an arbitral award despite the claim of the European Commission that the same is an aid that violates the European Agreement. Nevertheless, Mabuhay Holdings Corporation v Sembcorp Logistics Limited [2018] is consistent with the ruling in Micula & ors since the Philippine Court, through its restrictive interpretation of public policy, upheld an arbitral award despite a claim that the same violates Philippine law.