Source: https://fr.scribd.com/doc/315966834/Gonzales-v-RTC
Timestamp: 2019-10-16 07:52:39
Document Index: 292514995

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 8', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 21', 'Art. 1391', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 1390']

Gonzales v RTC | Arbitration | Certiorari
enregistrerEnregistrer Gonzales v RTC pour plus tard
1. LM Power vs. Capitol
Adhunik Steels Ltd Vs
A Guiguide-to-epcm-contracts
ADR Case 2 LM Engineering v Capitol
JORGE GONZALES and G.R. No. 161957
PANEL OF ARBITRATORS,
PUNO, C. J.,
NAZARIO, JJ.
CLIMAX MINING LTD.,
CLIMAX-ARIMCO MINING CORP.,
and AUSTRALASIAN PHILIPPINES Promulgated:
MINING INC.,
Respondents. January 22, 2007
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
JORGE GONZALES, G.R. No. 167994
HON. OSCAR B. PIMENTEL, in his
capacity as PRESIDING JUDGE of BR. 148
of the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT of
MAKATI CITY, and CLIMAX-ARIMCO
x-------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- x
R E S O L U T I ON
This is a consolidation of two petitions rooted in the same disputed Addendum
Contract entered into by the parties. In G.R. No. 161957, the Court in its Decision
of 28 February 2005[1]denied the Rule 45 petition of petitioner Jorge Gonzales
(Gonzales). It held that the DENR Panel of Arbitrators had no jurisdiction over the
complaint for the annulment of the Addendum Contract on grounds of fraud and
violation of the Constitution and that the action should have been brought before
the regular courts as it involved judicial issues. Both parties filed separate motions
for reconsideration. Gonzales avers in his Motion for Reconsideration [2] that the
Court erred in holding that the DENR Panel of Arbitrators was bereft of
jurisdiction, reiterating its argument that the case involves a mining dispute that
properly falls within the ambit of the Panels authority. Gonzales adds that the
Court failed to rule on other issues he raised relating to the sufficiency of his
complaint before the DENR Panel of Arbitrators and the timeliness of its filing.
Respondents Climax Mining Ltd., et al., (respondents) filed their Motion for Partial
Reconsideration and/or Clarification[3] seeking reconsideration of that part of the
Decision holding that the case should not be brought for arbitration under Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 876, also known as the Arbitration Law.[4] Respondents, citing
American jurisprudence[5] and the UNCITRAL Model Law,[6] argue that the
arbitration clause in the Addendum Contract should be treated as an agreement
independent of the other terms of the contract, and that a claimed rescission of the
main contract does not avoid the duty to arbitrate. Respondents add that Gonzaless
argument relating to the alleged invalidity of the Addendum Contract still has to be
proven and adjudicated on in a proper proceeding; that is, an action separate from
the motion to compel arbitration. Pending judgment in such separate action, the
Addendum Contract remains valid and binding and so does the arbitration clause
therein. Respondents add that the holding in the Decision that the case should not
be brought under the ambit of the Arbitration Law appears to be premised on
Gonzaless having impugn[ed] the existence or validity of the addendum
contract. If so, it supposedly conveys the idea that Gonzaless unilateral repudiation
of the contract or mere allegation of its invalidity is all it takes to avoid
arbitration. Hence, respondents submit that the courts holding that the case should
not be brought under the ambit of the Arbitration Law be understood or clarified as
operative only where the challenge to the arbitration agreement has been sustained
by final judgment.
Both parties were required to file their respective comments to the other partys
motion for reconsideration/clarification.[7] Respondents filed their Comment on 17
August 2005,[8] while Gonzales filed his only on 25 July 2006.[9]
On the other hand, G.R. No. 167994 is a Rule 65 petition filed on 6 May 2005,
or while the motions for reconsideration in G.R. No. 161957 [10] were pending,
wherein Gonzales challenged the orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
requiring him to proceed with the arbitration proceedings as sought by ClimaxArimco Mining Corporation (Climax-Arimco).
On 5 June 2006, the two cases, G.R. Nos. 161957 and 167994, were consolidated
upon the recommendation of the Assistant Division Clerk of Court since the cases
are rooted in the same Addendum Contract.
We first tackle the more recent case which is G.R. No. 167994. It stemmed from
the petition to compel arbitration filed by respondent Climax-Arimco before the
RTC of Makati City on 31 March 2000 while the complaint for the nullification of
the Addendum Contract was pending before the DENR Panel of Arbitrators. On 23
March 2000, Climax-Arimco had sent Gonzales a Demand for Arbitration pursuant
to Clause 19.1[11] of the Addendum Contract and also in accordance with Sec. 5 of
R.A. No. 876. The petition for arbitration was subsequently filed and ClimaxArimco sought an order to compel the parties to arbitrate pursuant to the said
arbitration clause. The case, docketed as Civil Case No. 00-444, was initially
raffled to Br. 132 of the RTC of Makati City, with Judge Herminio I. Benito as
Presiding Judge. Respondent Climax-Arimco filed on 5 April 2000 a motion to set
the application to compel arbitration for hearing.
On 14 April 2000, Gonzales filed a motion to dismiss which he however failed to
set for hearing. On 15 May 2000, he filed an Answer with Counterclaim,
questioning the validity of the Addendum Contract containing the arbitration
clause. Gonzales alleged that the Addendum Contract containing the arbitration
clause is void in view of Climax-Arimcos acts of fraud, oppression and violation of
the Constitution. Thus, the arbitration clause, Clause 19.1, contained in the
Addendum Contract is also null and void ab initio and legally inexistent.
On 18 May 2000, the RTC issued an order declaring Gonzaless motion to dismiss
moot and academic in view of the filing of his Answer with Counterclaim.[13]
On 31 May 2000, Gonzales asked the RTC to set the case for pre-trial. [14] This the
RTC denied on 16 June 2000, holding that the petition for arbitration is a special
proceeding that is summary in nature. [15] However, on 7 July 2000, the RTC
granted Gonzaless motion for reconsideration of the 16 June 2000 Order and set
the case for pre-trial on 10 August 2000, it beingof the view that Gonzales had
raised in his answer the issue of the making of the arbitration agreement.[16]
Climax-Arimco then filed a motion to resolve its pending motion to compel
arbitration. The RTC denied the same in its 24 July 2000 order.
On 28 July 2000, Climax-Arimco filed a Motion to Inhibit Judge Herminio I.
Benito for not possessing the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. [17] On 5 August
2000, Judge Benito issued an Order granting the Motion to Inhibit and ordered the
re-raffling of the petition for arbitration. [18] The case was raffled to the sala of
public respondent Judge Oscar B. Pimentel of Branch 148.
On 23 August 2000, Climax-Arimco filed a motion for reconsideration of the 24
July 2000 Order.[19] Climax-Arimco argued that R.A. No. 876 does not authorize a
pre-trial or trial for a motion to compel arbitration but directs the court to hear the
motion summarily and resolve it within ten days from hearing. Judge Pimentel
granted the motion and directed the parties to arbitration. On 13 February 2001,
Judge Pimentel issued the first assailed order requiring Gonzales to proceed with
arbitration proceedings and appointing retired CA Justice Jorge Coquia as sole
arbitrator.[20]
Gonzales moved for reconsideration on 20 March 2001 but this was denied in the
Order dated 7 March 2005.[21]
Gonzales thus filed the Rule 65 petition assailing the Orders dated 13
February 2001 and 7 March 2005 of Judge Pimentel. Gonzales contends that public
respondent Judge Pimentel acted with grave abuse of discretion in immediately
ordering the parties to proceed with arbitration despite the proper, valid, and timely
raised argument in his Answer with Counterclaim that the Addendum Contract,
containing the arbitration clause, is null and void. Gonzales has also sought a
temporary restraining order to prevent the enforcement of the assailed orders
directing the parties to arbitrate, and to direct Judge Pimentel to hold a pre-trial
conference and the necessary hearings on the determination of the nullity of the
Addendum Contract.
In support of his argument, Gonzales invokes Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 876:
SEC. 6. Hearing by court.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. Five days notice in
writing of the hearing of such application shall be served either personally or by
registered mail upon the party in default. The court shall hear the parties, and
upon being satisfied that the making of the agreement or such failure to comply
therewith is not in issue, shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to
arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement. If the making of the
agreement or default be in issue the court shall proceed to summarily hear such
issue. If the finding be that no agreement in writing providing for arbitration was
made, or that there is no default in the proceeding thereunder, the proceeding
shall be dismissed. If the finding be that a written provision for arbitration was
made and there is a default in proceeding thereunder, an order shall be made
summarily directing the parties to proceed with the arbitration in accordance
The court shall decide all motions, petitions or applications filed under
the provisions of this Act, within ten (10) days after such motions, petitions, or
applications have been heard by it.
Gonzales also cites Sec. 24 of R.A. No. 9285 or the Alternative Dispute
Resolution Act of 2004:
SEC. 24. Referral to Arbitration.A court before which an action is
brought in a matter which is the subject matter of an arbitration agreement shall,
if at least one party so requests not later than the pre-trial conference, or upon
the request of both parties thereafter, refer the parties to arbitration unless it
finds that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of
According to Gonzales, the above-quoted provisions of law outline the procedure
to be followed in petitions to compel arbitration, which the RTC did not
follow. Thus, referral of the parties to arbitration by Judge Pimentel despite the
timely and properly raised issue of nullity of the Addendum Contract was
misplaced and without legal basis. Both R.A. No. 876 and R.A. No. 9285 mandate
that any issue as to the nullity, inoperativeness, or incapability of performance of
the arbitration clause/agreement raised by one of the parties to the alleged
arbitration agreement must be determined by the court prior to referring them to
arbitration. They require that the trial court first determine or resolve the issue of
nullity, and there is no other venue for this determination other than a pre-trial and
hearing on the issue by the trial court which has jurisdiction over the
case. Gonzales adds that the assailed 13 February 2001 Order also violated his
right to procedural due process when the trial court erroneously ruled on the
existence of the arbitration agreement despite the absence of a hearing for the
presentation of evidence on the nullity of the Addendum Contract.
Respondent Climax-Arimco, on the other hand, assails the mode of review availed
of by Gonzales. Climax-Arimco cites Sec. 29 of R.A. No. 876:
SEC. 29. Appeals.An appeal may be taken from an order made in a proceeding
under this Act, or from a judgment entered upon an award through certiorari
proceedings, but such appeals shall be limited to questions of law. The
proceedings upon such an appeal, including the judgment thereon shall be
governed by the Rules of Court in so far as they are applicable.
Climax-Arimco mentions that the special civil action for certiorari employed by
Gonzales is available only where there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against the challenged orders or
acts. Climax-Arimco then points out that R.A. No. 876 provides for an appeal from
such orders, which, under the Rules of Court, must be filed within 15 days from
notice of the final order or resolution appealed from or of the denial of the motion
for reconsideration filed in due time. Gonzales has not denied that the relevant 15day period for an appeal had elapsed long before he filed this petition for
certiorari. He cannot use the special civil action of certiorari as a remedy for a lost
Climax-Arimco adds that an application to compel arbitration under Sec. 6 of R.A.
No. 876 confers on the trial court only a limited and special jurisdiction, i.e., a
jurisdiction solely to determine (a) whether or not the parties have a written
contract to arbitrate, and (b) if the defendant has failed to comply with that
contract. Respondent cites La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals,
which holds that in a proceeding to compel arbitration, [t]he arbitration law
explicitly confines the courts authority only to pass upon the issue of whether there
is or there is no agreement in writing providing for arbitration, and [i]n 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.[23] Climax-Arimco argues that R.A. No. 876 gives no room for any other
issue to be dealt with in such a proceeding, and that the court presented with an
application to compel arbitration may order arbitration or dismiss the same,
depending solely on its finding as to those two limited issues. If either of these
matters is disputed, the court is required to conduct a summary hearing on
it. Gonzaless proposition contradicts both the trial courts limited jurisdiction and
the summary nature of the proceeding itself.
Climax-Arimco further notes that Gonzaless attack on or repudiation of the
Addendum Contract also is not a ground to deny effect to the arbitration clause in
the Contract. The arbitration agreement is separate and severable from the contract
evidencing the parties commercial or economic transaction, it stresses. Hence, the
alleged defect or failure of the main contract is not a ground to deny enforcement
of the parties arbitration agreement. Even the party who has repudiated the main
contract is not prevented from enforcing its arbitration provision. R.A. No. 876
itself treats the arbitration clause or agreement as a contract separate from the
commercial, economic or other transaction to be arbitrated. The statute, in
particular paragraph 1 of Sec. 2 thereof, considers the arbitration stipulation an
independent contract in its own right whose enforcement may be prevented only on
grounds which legally make the arbitration agreement itself revocable, thus:
SEC. 2. Persons and matters subject to arbitration.Two or more persons or
parties may submit to the arbitration of one or more arbitrators any controversy
existing, between them at the time of the submission and which may be the
subject of an action, or the parties to any contract may in such contract agree to
settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising between them. Such
submission or contract shall be valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon
such grounds as exist at law for the revocation of any contract.
The grounds Gonzales invokes for the revocation of the Addendum Contractfraud
and oppression in the execution thereofare also not grounds for the revocation of
the arbitration clause in the Contract, Climax-Arimco notes. Such grounds may
only be raised by way of defense in the arbitration itself and cannot be used to
frustrate or delay the conduct of arbitration proceedings. Instead, these should be
raised in a separate action for rescission, it continues.
Climax-Arimco emphasizes that the summary proceeding to compel arbitration
under Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 876 should not be confused with the procedure in Sec. 24
of R.A. No. 9285. Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 876 refers to an application to compel
arbitration where the courts authority is limited to resolving the issue of whether
there is or there is no agreement in writing providing for arbitration, while Sec. 24
of R.A. No. 9285 refers to an ordinary action which covers a matter that appears to
be arbitrable or subject to arbitration under the arbitration agreement. In the latter
case, the statute is clear that the court, instead of trying the case, may, on request of
either or both parties, refer the parties to arbitration, unless it finds that the
arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being
performed. Arbitration may even be ordered in the same suit brought upon a matter
covered by an arbitration agreement even without waiting for the outcome of the
issue of the validity of the arbitration agreement. Art. 8 of the UNCITRAL Model
Law[24] states that where a court before which an action is brought in a matter
which is subject of an arbitration agreement refers the parties to arbitration, the
arbitral proceedings may proceed even while the action is pending.
Thus, the main issue raised in the Petition for Certiorari is whether it was proper
for the RTC, in the proceeding to compel arbitration under R.A. No. 876, to order
the parties to arbitrate even though the defendant therein has raised the twin issues
of validity and nullity of the Addendum Contract and, consequently, of the
arbitration clause therein as well. The resolution of both Climax-Arimcos Motion
for Partial Reconsideration and/or Clarification in G.R. No. 161957 and Gonzaless
Petition for Certiorari in G.R. No. 167994 essentially turns on whether the question
of validity of the Addendum Contract bears upon the applicability or enforceability
of the arbitration clause contained therein. The two pending matters shall thus be
jointly resolved.
We address the Rule 65 petition in G.R. No. 167994 first from the remedial
law perspective. It deserves to be dismissed on procedural grounds, as it was filed
in lieu of appeal which is the prescribed remedy and at that far beyond the
reglementary period. It is elementary in remedial law that the use of an erroneous
mode of appeal is cause for dismissal of the petition for certiorari and it has been
repeatedly stressed that a petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal.
As its nature, a petition for certiorari lies only where there is no appeal, and no
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[25] The Arbitration
Law specifically provides for an appeal by certiorari, i.e., a petition for review
under certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court that raises pure questions of
law.[26] There is no merit to Gonzaless argument that the use of the permissive term
may in Sec. 29, R.A. No. 876 in the filing of appeals does not prohibit nor discount
the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. [27] Proper interpretation of the
aforesaid provision of law shows that the term may refers only to the filing of an
appeal, not to the mode of review to be employed. Indeed, the use of may merely
reiterates the principle that the right to appeal is not part of due process of law but
is a mere statutory privilege to be exercised only in the manner and in accordance
Neither can BF Corporation v. Court of Appeals[28] cited by Gonzales
support his theory. Gonzales argues that said case recognized and allowed a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 appealing the order of the Regional Trial Court
disregarding the arbitration agreement as an acceptable remedy.[29] The BF
Corporation case had its origins in a complaint for collection of sum of money
filed by therein petitioner BF Corporation against Shangri-la Properties, Inc.
(SPI). SPI moved to suspend the proceedings alleging that the construction
agreement or the Articles of Agreement between the parties contained a clause
requiring prior resort to arbitration before judicial intervention. The trial court
found that an arbitration clause was incorporated in the Conditions of Contract
appended to and deemed an integral part of the Articles of Agreement. Still, the
trial court denied the motion to suspend proceedings upon a finding that the
Conditions of Contract were not duly executed and signed by the parties. The trial
court also found that SPI had failed to file any written notice of demand for
arbitration within the period specified in the arbitration clause. The trial court
denied SPI's motion for reconsideration and ordered it to file its responsive
pleading. Instead of filing an answer, SPI filed a petition for certiorari under Rule
65, which the Court of Appeals, favorably acted upon. In a petition for review
before this Court, BF Corporation alleged, among others, that the Court of Appeals
should have dismissed the petition for certiorari since the order of the trial court
denying the motion to suspend proceedings is a resolution of an incident on the
merits and upon the continuation of the proceedings, the trial court would
eventually render a decision on the merits, which decision could then be elevated
to a higher court in an ordinary appeal.[30]
The Court did not uphold BF Corporations argument. The issue raised
before the Court was whether SPI had taken the proper mode of appeal before the
Court of Appeals. The question before the Court of Appeals was whether the trial
court had prematurely assumed jurisdiction over the controversy. The question of
jurisdiction in turn depended on the question of existence of the arbitration clause
which is one of fact. While on its face the question of existence of the arbitration
clause is a question of fact that is not proper in a petition for certiorari, yet since
the determination of the question obliged the Court of Appeals as it did to interpret
the contract documents in accordance with R.A. No. 876 and existing
jurisprudence, the question is likewise a question of law which may be properly
taken cognizance of in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, so the Court held.[31]
The situation in B.F. Corporation is not availing in the present petition. The
disquisition in B.F. Corporation led to the conclusion that in order that the question
of jurisdiction may be resolved, the appellate court had to deal first with a question
of law which could be addressed in a certiorari proceeding. In the present case,
Gonzaless petition raises a question of law, but not a question of jurisdiction. Judge
Pimentel acted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in R.A. No. 876 when
he ordered Gonzales to proceed with arbitration and appointed a sole arbitrator
after making the determination that there was indeed an arbitration agreement. It
has been held that as long as a court acts within its jurisdiction and does not
gravely abuse its discretion in the exercise thereof, any supposed error committed
by it will amount to nothing more than an error of judgment reviewable by a timely
appeal and not assailable by a special civil action of certiorari. [32] Even if we
overlook the employment of the wrong remedy in the broader interests of justice,
the petition would nevertheless be dismissed for failure of Gonzalez to show grave
Arbitration, as an alternative mode of settling disputes, has long been recognized
and accepted in our jurisdiction. The Civil Code is explicit on the matter.[33] R.A.
No. 876 also expressly authorizes arbitration of domestic disputes. 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.[34] The enactment of R.A. No. 9285 on 2 April 2004 further
institutionalized the use of alternative dispute resolution systems, including
arbitration, in the settlement of disputes.
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, thus:
parties may submit to the arbitration of one or more arbitrators any
controversy existing, between them at the time of the submission and which
may be the subject of an action, or the parties to any contract may in such
contract agree to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising between
them. Such submission or contract shall be valid, enforceable and
irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist at law for the revocation of any
Such submission or contract may include question arising out of valuations,
appraisals or other controversies which may be collateral, incidental, precedent
or subsequent to any issue between the parties.
A controversy cannot be arbitrated where one of the parties to the controversy is
an infant, or a person judicially declared to be incompetent, unless the
appropriate court having jurisdiction approve a petition for permission to submit
such controversy to arbitration made by the general guardian or guardian ad
litem of the infant or of the incompetent. [Emphasis added.]
Thus, we held in Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Transportation Co.[35] that a
submission to arbitration is a contract. A clause in a contract providing that all
matters in dispute between the parties shall be referred to arbitration is a contract,
and in Del Monte Corporation-USA v. Court of Appeals[37] that [t]he 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.[38]
The special proceeding under Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 876 recognizes the
contractual nature of arbitration clauses or agreements. It provides:
upon being satisfied that the making of the agreement or such failure to
comply therewith is not in issue, shall make an order directing the parties to
proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement. If the
making of the agreement or default be in issue the court shall proceed to
summarily hear such issue. If the finding be that no agreement in writing
providing for arbitration was made, or that there is no default in the
proceeding thereunder, the proceeding shall be dismissed. If the finding be that
a written provision for arbitration was made and there is a default in
proceeding thereunder, an order shall be made summarily directing the parties to
proceed with the arbitration in accordance with the terms thereof.
the provisions of this Act, within ten days after such motions, petitions, or
applications have been heard by it. [Emphasis added.]
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.[39] 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."[40]The cited case also stressed that the proceedings are summary in
nature.[41] The same thrust was made in the earlier case of Mindanao Portland
Cement Corp. v. McDonough Construction Co. of Florida[42] which held, thus:
Since there obtains herein a written provision for arbitration as well as
failure on respondent's part to comply therewith, the court a quo rightly ordered
the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of their
agreement (Sec. 6, Republic Act 876). Respondent's arguments touching upon
the merits of the dispute are improperly raised herein. They should be addressed
to the arbitrators. This proceeding is merely a summary remedy to enforce the
agreement to arbitrate. The duty of the court in this case is not to resolve the
merits of the parties' claims but only to determine if they should proceed to
arbitration or not. x x x x[43]
Implicit in the summary nature of the judicial proceedings is the separable or
independent character of the arbitration clause or agreement. This was highlighted
in the cases of Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Trans. Co.[44] and Del Monte
Corporation-USA v. Court of Appeals.[45]
The doctrine of separability, or severability as other writers call
it, enunciates that an arbitration agreement is independent of the main
contract. The arbitration agreement is to be treated as a separate agreement and the
arbitration agreement does not automatically terminate when the contract of which
it is part comes to an end.[46]
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.[47]
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.[48]
The separability doctrine was dwelt upon at length in the U.S. case of Prima
Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Manufacturing Co.[49] In that case, Prima Paint and
Flood and Conklin (F & C) entered into a consulting agreement whereby F & C
undertook to act as consultant to Prima Paint for six years, sold to Prima Paint a list
of its customers and promised not to sell paint to these customers during the same
period. The consulting agreement contained an arbitration clause. Prima Paint did
not make payments as provided in the consulting agreement, contending that F &
C had fraudulently misrepresented that it was solvent and able for perform its
contract when in fact it was not and had even intended to file for bankruptcy after
executing the consultancy agreement. Thus, F & C served Prima Paint with a
notice of intention to arbitrate. Prima Paint sued in court for rescission of the
consulting agreement on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation and asked for
the issuance of an order enjoining F & C from proceeding with arbitration. F & C
moved to stay the suit pending arbitration. The trial court granted F & Cs motion,
and the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed.
The U.S. Supreme Court did not address Prima Paints argument that it had
been fraudulently induced by F & C to sign the consulting agreement and held that
no court should address this argument. Relying on Sec. 4 of the Federal Arbitration
Actwhich provides that if a party [claims to be] aggrieved by the alleged failure x x
x of another to arbitrate x x x, [t]he court shall hear the parties, and upon being
satisfied that the making of the agreement for arbitration or the failure to comply
therewith is not in issue, the court shall make an order directing the parties
to proceed to arbitration x x x. If the making of the arbitration agreement or the
failure, neglect, or refusal to perform the same be in issue, the court shall proceed
summarily to the trial thereofthe U.S. High Court held that the court should not
order the parties to arbitrate if the making of the arbitration agreement is in
issue. The parties should be ordered to arbitration if, and only if, they have
contracted to submit to arbitration. Prima Paint was not entitled to trial on the
question of whether an arbitration agreement was made because its allegations of
fraudulent inducement were not directed to the arbitration clause itself, but only to
the consulting agreement which contained the arbitration agreement. [50] Prima
Paint held that arbitration clauses are separable from the contracts in which they
are embedded, and that where no claim is made that fraud was directed to the
arbitration clause itself, a broad arbitration clause will be held to encompass
arbitration of the claim that the contract itself was induced by fraud.[51]
There is reason, therefore, to rule against Gonzales when he alleges that
Judge Pimentel acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the parties to
proceed with arbitration.Gonzaless argument that the Addendum Contract is null
and void and, therefore the arbitration clause therein is void as well, is not
tenable. First, the proceeding in a petition for arbitration under R.A. No. 876 is
limited only to the resolution of the question of whether the arbitration agreement
exists. Second, the separability of the arbitration clause from the Addendum
Contract means that validity or invalidity of the Addendum Contract will not affect
the enforceability of the agreement to arbitrate. Thus, Gonzaless petition for
certiorari should be dismissed.
This brings us back to G.R. No. 161957. The adjudication of the petition in
G.R. No. 167994 effectively modifies part of the Decision dated 28 February
2005 in G.R. No. 161957.Hence, we now hold that the validity of the contract
containing the agreement to submit to arbitration does not affect the applicability
of the arbitration clause itself. A contrary ruling would suggest that a partys mere
repudiation of the main contract is sufficient to avoid arbitration. That is exactly
the situation that the separability doctrine, as well as jurisprudence applying it,
seeks to avoid. We add that when it was declared in G.R. No. 161957 that the case
should not be brought for arbitration, it should be clarified that the case referred to
is the case actually filed by Gonzales before the DENR Panel of Arbitrators, which
was for the nullification of the main contract on the ground of fraud, as it had
already been determined that the case should have been brought before the regular
courts involving as it did judicial issues.
The Motion for Reconsideration of Gonzales in G.R. No. 161957 should
also be denied. In the motion, Gonzales raises the same question of jurisdiction,
more particularly that the complaint for nullification of the Addendum Contract
pertained to the DENR Panel of Arbitrators, not the regular courts. He insists that
the subject of his complaint is a mining dispute since it involves a dispute
concerning rights to mining areas, the Financial and Technical Assistance
Agreement (FTAA) between the parties, and it also involves claimowners. He adds
that the Court failed to rule on other issues he raised, such as whether he had ceded
his claims over the mineral deposits located within the Addendum Area of
Influence; whether the complaint filed before the DENR Panel of Arbitrators
alleged ultimate facts of fraud; and whether the action to declare the nullity of the
Addendum Contract on the ground of fraud has prescribed.
These are the same issues that Gonzales raised in his Rule 45 petition in
G.R. No. 161957 which were resolved against him in the Decision of 28 February
2005. Gonzales does not raise any new argument that would sway the Court even a
bit to alter its holding that the complaint filed before the DENR Panel of
Arbitrators involves judicial issues which should properly be resolved by the
regular courts. He alleged fraud or misrepresentation in the execution of the
Addendum Contract which is a ground for the annulment of a voidable contract.
Clearly, such allegations entail legal questions which are within the jurisdiction of
The question of whether Gonzales had ceded his claims over the mineral
deposits in the Addendum Area of Influence is a factual question which is not
proper for determination before this Court. At all events, moreover, the question is
irrelevant to the issue of jurisdiction of the DENR Panel of Arbitrators. It should be
pointed out that the DENR Panel of Arbitrators made a factual finding in its Order
dated 18 October 2001, which it reiterated in its Order dated 25 June 2002, that
Gonzales had, through the various agreements, assigned his interest over the
mineral claims all in favor of [Climax-Arimco] as well as that without the
complainant [Gonzales] assigning his interest over the mineral claims in favor of
[Climax-Arimco], there would be no FTAA to speak of. [52] This finding was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated 30 July 2003 resolving the
petition for certiorari filed by Climax-Arimco in regard to the 18 October
2001 Order of the DENR Panel.[53]
The Court of Appeals likewise found that Gonzaless complaint alleged fraud
but did not provide any particulars to substantiate it. The complaint repeatedly
mentioned fraud, oppression, violation of the Constitution and similar conclusions
but nowhere did it give any ultimate facts or particulars relative to the allegations.
Sec. 5, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that in all
averments of fraud, the circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with
particularity. This is to enable the opposing party to controvert the particular facts
allegedly constituting the same. Perusal of the complaint indeed shows that it failed
to state with particularity the ultimate facts and circumstances constituting the
alleged fraud. It does not state what particulars about Climax-Arimcos financial or
technical capability were misrepresented, or how the misrepresentation was
done. Incorporated in the body of the complaint are verbatim reproductions of the
contracts, correspondence and government issuances that reportedly explain the
allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, but these are, at best, evidentiary
matters that should not be included in the pleading.
As to the issue of prescription, Gonzaless claims of fraud and
misrepresentation attending the execution of the Addendum Contract are grounds
for the annulment of a voidable contract under the Civil Code.[55] Under Art. 1391
of the Code, an action for annulment shall be brought within four years, in the case
of fraud, beginning from the time of the discovery of the same. However, the time
of the discovery of the alleged fraud is not clear from the allegations of Gonzaless
complaint. That being the situation coupled with the fact that this Court is not a
trier of facts, any ruling on the issue of prescription would be uncalled for or even
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari in G.R. No. 167994 is
DISMISSED. Such dismissal effectively renders superfluous formal action on the
Motion for Partial Reconsideration and/or Clarification filed by Climax Mining
Ltd., et al. in G.R. No. 161957.
The Motion for Reconsideration filed by Jorge Gonzales in G.R. No. 161957
is DENIED WITH FINALITY.
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 13 OF THE CONSTITUTION, IT IS
HEREBY CERTIFIED THAT THE CONCLUSIONS IN THE ABOVE RESOLUTION WERE
REACHED IN CONSULTATION BEFORE THE CASE WAS ASSIGNED TO THE WRITER
OF THE OPINION OF THE
Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd., G.R. No. 161957, 28 February 2005.
Rollo (G.R. No. 161957), pp. 715-741.
Id. at 700-706.
The pertinent portion of the assailed decision reads:
Petitioner also disagrees with the Court of Appeals ruling that the case should be
brought for arbitration under Rep. Act [No.] 876, pursuant to the arbitration clause in
the Addendum Contract which states that [a]ll disputes arising out of or in connection with the
Contract, which cannot be settled amicably among the Parties, shall finally be settled under R.A.
No. 876. He points out that respondents Climax and APMI are not parties to the Addendum
Contract and are thus not bound by the arbitration clause in said contract.
We agree that the case should not be brought under the ambit of the Arbitration Law,
but for a different reason. The question of validity of the contract containing the agreement to
submit to arbitration will affect the applicability of the arbitration clause itself. A party cannot
rely on the contract and claim rights or obligations under it and at the same time impugn its
existence or validity. Indeed, litigants are enjoined from taking inconsistent positions. As
previously discussed, the complaint should have been filed before the regular courts as it
involved issues which are judicial in nature. Rollo [G.R. No. 161957], p. 695
4 AM JUR 2d, at 136, and AMERICAN LAW REPORTS, ANNOTATED, 3 ALR2d 425 to 426.
Art. 16(1) thereof states: The arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections
with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. For that purpose, an arbitration clause which
forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract. A decision
by the arbitral tribunal that the contract is null and void shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration
clause. The Model Law was adopted in Republic Act No. 9285 or the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 (in
Sec. 19 thereof).
Resolution of 15 June 2005, rollo (G.R. No. 161957), p. 767.
Id. at 780-790.
Id. at 832-838.
Rollo (G.R. No. 167994), pp. 3-24.
Clause 19.1 of the Addendum Contract, rollo (G.R. No. 167994), p. 87. It reads: All disputes arising out
of or in connection with the Contract, which cannot be settled amicable among the Parties, shall be finally settled
under Republic Act No. 876, otherwise known as The Arbitration Law, as may be amended from time to time. It is
agreed, however, that at all events and notwithstanding any provision of Republic Act No. 876, only one arbitrator
shall be appointed by all the Parties. For purposes of such appointment and at all proceedings hereunder, each of the
CLAIMOWNER and ARIMCO shall have one vote. AUMEX, GEOPHILIPPINES and INMEX shall jointly have
only one vote and, for purposes hereof, GEOPHILIPPINES and INMEX hereby irrevocably constitute AUMEX as
their attorney-in-fact, in their place, name and stead, to exercise the voting right granted hereunder. If the
CLAIMOWNER, ARIMCO and AUMEX fail to agree on an arbitrator within 30 days from the date they first begin
considering persons to act as arbitrator, such arbitrator shall be appointed by the appropriate court in accordance
with Republic Act No. 876. The Parties agree that the venue of the arbitration and all actions under the Contract
shall be Metro Manila, Philippines. The Parties further agree that the decision of the arbitrator shall be binding and
enforceable upon the Parties and that no judicial action may be instituted by any Party against any other Party under
the Contract except as provided in this Clause 19.1.
Rollo (G.R. No. 167994), pp. 250-322.
Id. at 518-520.
Id. at 527-530.
Id. at 30-35.
G.R. No. 103200, 31 August 1994, 236 SCRA 78.
Sec. 19 of R.A. No. 9258 adopts the UNCITRAL Model Law for international commercial arbitration,
while Sec. 33 of R.A. No. 9258 makes certain portions of the UNCITRAL Model Law, including Art. 8, applicable
to domestic arbitration.
Nippon Paint Employees Union-Olalia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159010, 19 November 2004, 443
SCRA 286, 291.
Justice Romero, in his dissenting opinion in Asset Privatizatoin Trust v. Court of Appeals, 360 Phil. 768,
824-825 (1998), had occasion to discuss the mode of review under Sec. 29 of R.A. No. 876:
The term certiorari in [Sec. 29 of R.A. No. 876] refers to an ordinary appeal under Rule
45, not the special action of certiorari under Rule 65. It is an appeal, as Section 29
proclaims. The proper forum for this action is, under the old and the new rules of procedure, the
Supreme Court. Thus, Section 2(c) of Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states that,
In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the
Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45. Moreover,
Section 29 limits the appeal to questions of law, another indication that it is referring to an
appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 which, indeed, is the customary manner of reviewing such
issues. On the other hand, the extraordinary remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 may be availed
of by a party where there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the course
of law, and under circumstances where a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions,
has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.
Rollo (G.R. No. 167994), pp. 364-365.
351 Phil. 508 (1998).
Rollo (G.R. No. 167994), p. 365.
Supra note 28, at 518-519.
Supra note 28 at 520-521.
Estate of Salud Jimenez v. Philippine Export Processing Zone, 402 Phil. 271, 284 (2001).
CIVIL CODE, Book IV, Title XIV, Chapter 2.
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh v. Stolt-Nielsen Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 87958,
26 April 1990, 184 SCRA 682.
57 Phil. 600 (1932).
404 Phil. 192 (2001).
Supra note 22 at 91.
126 Phil. 78 (1967).
Supra note 35.
Supra note 37.
P. CAPPER, INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: A HANDBOOK (3rd ed., 2004), p. 12.
Id. Accordingly, the termination or avoidance (for example, following a fraudulent misrepresentation) of
a contract which was initially valid will not affect the validity of the arbitration agreement. The doctrine also
recognizes in this way the wish of the parties to have disputes arising out of their contract settled by arbitration, even
if that contract is no longer in existence. Id. at 81.
In the U.S., a distinction has been drawn between legal doctrines relating to enforceability of contracts and
legal doctrines relating to whether a contract is formed. Making this distinction, some courts have applied Prima
Paint Corp. v. Flood and ConKlin,infra note 49, to voidable-contract arguments, but not to no-contract agreements
involving for example forgery. S.J. Ware, infra note 50 at 49.
Supra note 46, at 81.
388 U.S. 395, 87 S.Ct. 1801, 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967).
S.J. WARE, ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (2001 ed.), pp. 45-46, citing Prima Paint,supra.
Supra note 49, 380 U.S., at 404.
Order of 25 June 2002, rollo (G.R. No. 161957), p. 612.
Rollo (G.R. No. 161957), pp. 194-201.
See CIVIL CODE, Art. 1390.
Documents similaires à Gonzales v RTC
Edinburg v IOC - Court of Appeals - Opinion
Lm Power Engineering Corp v Capitol Industrial Construction
Emilio m. Caparoso
Plus de Chow Momville Estimo
Fletcher vs. Director
Dean Epifanio Estrellado
3. Ting v. Heirs of Lirio, 14 March 2007
Central Bank Act Cases
2. Manalo v. Court of Appeals, 16 January 2001
Secrecy of Bank Deposits.pdf
Parts of Speech Simple
A.C. No. 9094 Canon 15
Land Titles Case Digest- Estimo
A.C. No. 6622 Canons 1,7.pdf
A.C. No. 9390 Canon 16.pdf
A.C. No. 7430 Canon 6
pdbaines
Jvjsncknaibxuacnslfb
Landmark Torts Cases Philippines
Custodio v. CA
Liger et al v. New Orleans Hornets NBA Limited Partnership - Document No. 116
Beckett vs. Sarmiento