KOREA TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., Petitioner, Vs. HON. ALBERTO a. LERMA, In His Capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 256 of Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, And PACIFIC GENERAL STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Respondents.

KOREA TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., petitioner, vs. HON. ALBERTO A.
LERMA, in his capacity as

Presiding Judge of Branch 256 of Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, and PACIFIC
GENERAL STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, respondents.
ISSUE
Whether or not the appointment of a foreign arbitrator is valid?
RULING
Yes
Foreign arbitral awards must be confirmed by the RTC
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, thus:
SEC. 42. Application of the New York Convention.The New York Convention shall govern the
recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards covered by said Convention.
The recognition and enforcement of such arbitral awards shall be filed with the 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 in
party to the New York Convention. x x x x
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.
A foreign arbitral award, when confirmed by the Regional Trial Court, shall be enforced in the
same manner as final and executory decisions of courts of law of the Philippines
xxxx
SEC. 47. Venue and Jurisdiction.Proceedings for recognition and enforcement of an

arbitration agreement or for vacations, setting aside, correction or modification of an arbitral
award, and any application with a court for arbitration assistance and supervision shall be
deemed as special proceedings and shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court (i) where
arbitration proceedings are conducted; (ii) where the asset to be attached or levied upon, or
the act to be enjoined is located; (iii) where any of the parties to the dispute resides or has his
place of business; or (iv) in the National Judicial Capital Region, at the option of the applicant.
SEC. 48. Notice of Proceeding to Parties.In a special proceeding for recognition and
enforcement of an arbitral award, the Court shall send notice to the parties at their address of
record in the arbitration, or if any part cannot be served notice at such address, at such partys
last known address. The notice shall be sent al least fifteen (15) days before the date set for the
initial hearing of the application.
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. Secs. 42 and 45 provide:
SEC. 42. Application of the New York Convention.The New York Convention shall
govern the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards covered by said Convention.
The recognition and enforcement of such arbitral awards shall be filed with the 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 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.
xxxx
SEC. 45. Rejection of a Foreign Arbitral Award.A party to a foreign arbitration

proceeding may oppose an application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral
award in accordance with the procedures and rules to be promulgated by the Supreme
Court only on those grounds enumerated under Article V of the New York Convention.
Any other ground raised shall be disregarded by the Regional Trial Court.
Thus, while the RTC does not have jurisdiction over disputes governed by arbitration mutually
agreed upon by the parties, still the foreign arbitral award is subject to judicial review by the
RTC which can set aside, reject, or vacate it. In this sense, what this Court held in Chung Fu
Industries (Phils.), Inc. relied upon by KOGIES is applicable insofar as the foreign arbitral awards,
while final and binding, do not oust courts of jurisdiction since these arbitral awards are not
absolute and without exceptions as they are still judicially reviewable. Chapter 7 of RA 9285 has
made it clear that all arbitral awards, whether domestic or foreign, are subject to judicial review
on specific grounds provided for.
RTC decision of assailed foreign arbitral award appealable

Sec. 46 of RA 9285 provides for an appeal before the CA as the remedy of an aggrieved party in
cases where the RTC sets aside, rejects, vacates, modifies, or corrects an arbitral award, thus:
SEC. 46. Appeal from Court Decision or Arbitral Awards.A decision of the Regional Trial
Court confirming, vacating, setting aside, modifying or correcting an arbitral award may
be appealed to the Court of Appeals in accordance with the rules and procedure to be
promulgated by the Supreme Court.
The losing party who appeals from the judgment of the court confirming an arbitral
award shall be required by the appellate court to post a counterbond executed in favor
of the prevailing party equal to the amount of the award in accordance with the rules to
be promulgated by the Supreme Court.
Thereafter, the CA decision may further be appealed or reviewed before this Court through a
petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

KOREA TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., Petitioner, Vs. HON. ALBERTO a. LERMA, In His Capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 256 of Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, And PACIFIC GENERAL STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Respondents.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KOREA TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., Petitioner, Vs. HON. ALBERTO a. LERMA, In His Capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 256 of Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, And PACIFIC GENERAL STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Respondents.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

KOREA TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., Petitioner, Vs. HON. ALBERTO a. LERMA, In His Capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 256 of Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, And PACIFIC GENERAL STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Respondents.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KOREA TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., petitioner, vs. HON. ALBERTO A.

LERMA, in his capacity as

SEC. 47. Venue and Jurisdiction.Proceedings for recognition and enforcement of an

The RTC has jurisdiction to review foreign arbitral awards

If the application for rejection or suspension of enforcement of an award has been

SEC. 45. Rejection of a Foreign Arbitral Award.A party to a foreign arbitration

RTC decision of assailed foreign arbitral award appealable

You might also like