G.R. No.

141818 June 22, 2006

INSULAR SAVINGS BANK VS. FAR EAST BANK

FACTS:  On December 11, 1991, Far East Bank and Trust Company (Respondent)
filed a complaint against Home Bankers Trust and Company  (HBTC) with the Philippine
Clearing House Corporation’s (PCHC) Arbitration Committee Respondent sought to
recover from the petitioner, the sum of P25,200,000.00 representing the total amount of
the three checks drawn and debited against its clearing account.  HBTC sent these
checks to respondent for clearing by operation of the PCHC clearing
system.  Thereafter, respondent dishonored the checks for insufficiency of funds and
returned the checks to HBTC.  However, the latter refused to accept them since the
checks were returned by respondent after the reglementary regional clearing period.
  Meanwhile, on January 17, 1992, before the termination of the arbitration
proceedings, respondent filed another complaint but this time with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) in Makati City docketed as Civil Case No. 92-145 for Sum of Money and
Damages with Preliminary Attachment.  The complaint was filed not only against HBTC
but also against Robert Young, Eugene Arriesgado and Victor Tancuan (collectively
known as Defendants), who were the president and depositors of HBTC respectively.
Aware of the arbitration proceedings between respondent and petitioner, the RTC, in an
Omnibus Order dated April 30, 1992.  suspended the proceedings in the case against
all the defendants pending the decision of the Arbitration Committee.
 On February 2, 1998, the PCHC Arbitration Committee rendered its decision in
favor of respondent. The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied by the
Arbitration Committee. Consequently, to appeal the decision of the Arbitration
Committee in Arbicom Case No. 91-069, petitioner filed a petition for review in the
earlier case filed by respondent in Branch 135 of the RTC of Makati and docketed
as Civil Case No. 92-145.

ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction on the petition for review filed by
petitioner.
 
RULING: No. THe proper recourse of petitioner from the denial of its motion for
reconsideration 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.  Thus, the RTC of Makati did not err in dismissing the petition for review for lack
of jurisdiction but not on the ground that petitioner should have filed a separate case
from Civil Case No. 92-145 but on the necessity of filing the correct petition in the
proper court.  It is immaterial whether petitioner filed the petition for review in Civil Case
No. 92-145 as an appeal of the arbitral award or whether it filed a separate case in the
RTC, considering that the RTC will only have jurisdiction over an arbitral award in cases
of motions to vacate the same.  Otherwise, as elucidated herein, the Court of Appeals
retains jurisdiction in petitions for review or in petitions for certiorari.  Consequently,
petitioner’s arguments, with respect to the filing of separate action from Civil Case No.
92-145 resulting in a multiplicity of suits, cannot be given due course.