Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Philippine Institute of Arbitrators
Philippine Institute of Arbitrators
MARIO E. VALDERRAMA
LLB, FCIArb, FHKIArb, FPIArb
CIAC, PDRCI & WESM Accredited Arbitrator
Member (co-opted) of the East Asia Branch Main Committee of
The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb)
CIArb Approved Tutor
Contact Details
Tel No 367 4001; Telefax 362 1867
Mobile 0917 411 4594
E-mail <marval.law@gmail.com>
PRELIMINARY NOTES
Classification of Arbitration
For our purposes, and with respect to
the applicable law, let us classify
arbitration into:
Foreign
Local
Note that what is local to us is foreign in
so far as other jurisdictions are
concerned.
PRELIMINARY NOTES
Another Classification of Arbitration
Foreign Seat of arbitration (or place of arbitration
designated by parties) is in a jurisdiction other than
the Philippines. Applicable law of the arbitration is
usually the law of that jurisdiction.
Enforcement in the Philippines of foreign arbitral
awards is governed by the New York Convention of
1958 if from a convention country. See R.A. 9285
Sec. 43 for awards from a non-convention country.
PRELIMINARY NOTES
Another Classification of Arbitration
Local Seat of arbitration is the Philippines. Philippine
law is the governing law of the arbitration.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Arbitration pre-dates Governments and Courts
Process is based on contractual rights, the contract
principle of party autonomy or the will of the parties,
expressed as freedom of contract in common law
legal systems. People enter into contracts even
before the institution of Governments.
The origin of arbitration is lost in obscurity. It is not
known at what time or place man first decided to
submit to his chief or to his friends for a decision and
a settlement with his adversary, instead of resorting
to violence and self-help, or to the public legal
machinery available. (Earl S. Wolaver: The Historical
Background of Commercial Abitration, University of
Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 32, No. 2, Dec., 1934)
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Period of Hostility
During the 19th century, the reaction of
Courts to arbitration was one of hostility
Courts in the U.S. nevertheless enforced
arbitral awards
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Initial law was directed against judicial hostility and
not against problems of the judiciary. The purpose of
the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act of 1925:
The FAA was designed to overrule the judiciarys
long-standing refusal to enforce agreements to
arbitrate x x x and to place such agreements upon
the same footing as other contracts (Volt Information
Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Standord
Junior University, 489 U.S. 468, 109 S. Ct. 1248, 103
L. Ed. 2d 488 (1989)).
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Second Wave of Laws Directed Against Judicial Intervention
Recent amendments to arbitration laws reveal a trend in
favor of limiting and clearly defining court involvement in
international commercial arbitration x x x [T]he parties to
an arbitration agreement make a conscious decision to
exclude court jurisdiction and prefer the finality and
expediency of the arbitral process.
xxx
x x x Protecting the arbitral process from unpredictable or
disruptive court interference is essential to parties who
choose arbitration (in
particular
foreign
parties).
(Explanatory Note by the UNCITRAL Secretariat on the
Model Law).
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Emerging Concept: A-National Arbitration
The
theory
underlying
a-national
arbitration provides that transborder
commercial transactions are completely
outside the regulatory reach of national
laws and national judicial authority. X x x
In effect, the transborder arbitral process
is, de facto, an autonomous and selfregulating
international
system
of
adjudication. (Thomas E. Carbonneau:
Cases and Materials on The Law and
Practice of Arbitration, Revised Third
Edition I pp. 32 33).
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Emerging
Concept:
Arbitration
A-National
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Sidelight: The Challenge of A-National Arbitration
Law:
R.A.
876
before
its
Notes:
The Supreme Court finally promulgated the
Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute
Resolution. It became effective on 30 October
2009.
The Department of Justice subsequently released
the IRR on R.A. 9285. It was approved on 4
December 2009.
Domestic Arbitration
Domestic Arbitration shall continue to be
governed by Republic Act No. 876 x x x.
Articles 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 18
and 19 and 29 to 32 of the Model Law
and Section 22 to 31 of the preceding
Chapter 4 shall apply to domestic
arbitration (R.A. 9285 Secs. 32 and 33).
R.A.
876
Section
21
was
not
Example:
R.A. 876 operates under the federal pre-emption doctrine:
Court first before arbitration
International
Commercial arbitration shall be governed by the
Model
Law
on
International
Commercial
Arbitration (the Model Law) adopted by the
United Nations Commission on International
Trade Law on 21 June 1985 (United Nations
Document A/40/17) and recommended for
enactment
by
the
General
Assembly
in
Resolution No. 40/72 approved on 11 December
1985, copy of which is hereto attached as
Appendix A. (Sec. 19).
Re Model Law
Adopted by the United Nations Commission
on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) on
21 June 1985
Like other UNCITRAL Model Laws, it is
intended to promote international trade and
commerce
Covers all stages of the arbitral process from
the arbitration agreement to the recognition
and enforcement of the arbitral award
Re Model Law
NOTES: PROBLEMS RE
PHILIPPINE ARBITRATION LAW
Examples of Conflicting Provisions:
R.A. 876 Sec. 24 enumerates 4 grounds to
vacate a domestic award. In contrast, Special
Rules Rule 11.4. enumerates seven (7) grounds
to vacate a domestic award.
IRR Art. 4.37 last paragraph is premised on the
proposition that local international awards are
appealable, providing that the right to appeal
may be waived. Such waiver, nevertheless, is
without prejudice to the application of the
Rules of Court Rule 65.
NOTES: PROBLEMS RE
PHILIPPINE ARBITRATION LAW
IRR Art. 4.37 last paragraph:
Any stipulation by the parties that the
arbitral tribunals award or decision shall
be final, and therefore not appealable, is
valid. Such stipulation carries with it a
waiver of the right to appeal from an
arbitral award but without prejudice to
judicial review by way of certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
NOTES: PROBLEMS RE
PHILIPPINE ARBITRATION LAW
The good news is that the DOJ OADR is
now looking at the laws involved for
possible recommended amendments.
But
what
about
some
decisions
emanating from the Supreme Court
that are also causing confusion?