308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. World Interactive Network

Systems (WINS) Japan Co., Ltd.

*
G.R. No. 169332. February 11, 2008.

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. WORLD

INTERACTIVE NETWORK SYSTEMS (WINS) JAPAN CO., LTD.,
respondent.

Courts; Jurisdictions; Arbitration; Alternative Dispute Resolution; RA 876

itself mandates that it is the Court of First Instance, now the RTC, which has
jurisdiction over questions relating to arbitration, such as a petition to vacate an
arbitral award.—RA 876 itself mandates that it is the Court of First Instance, now
the RTC, which has jurisdiction over questions relating to arbitration, such as a
petition to vacate an arbitral award.

Same; Same; Same; Same; As RA 876 did not expressly provide for errors of
fact and/or law and grave abuse of discretion (proper grounds for a petition for
review under Rule 43 and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, respectively) as
grounds for maintaining a petition to vacate an arbitral award in the RTC, it
necessarily follows that a party may not avail of the latter remedy on the grounds of
errors of fact and/or law or grave abuse of discretion to overturn an arbitral award.
—The law itself clearly provides that the RTC must issue an order vacating an
arbitral award only “in any one of the . . . cases” enumerated therein. Under the legal
maxim in statutory construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the explicit
mention of one thing in a statute means the elimination of others not specifically
mentioned. As RA 876 did not expressly provide for errors of fact and/or law and
grave abuse of discretion (proper grounds for a petition for review under Rule 43
and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, respectively) as grounds for maintaining a
petition to vacate an arbitral award in the RTC, it necessarily follows that a party
may not avail of the latter remedy on the grounds of errors of fact and/or law or
grave abuse of discretion to overturn an arbitral award.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Adamson v. Court of Appeals (232 SCRA 602)
gave ample warning that a petition to vacate filed in the RTC which is not based on
the grounds enumerated in Section 24 of

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.
 VOL. 544, FEBRUARY 11, 2008 309

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. World Interactive Network Systems

(WINS) Japan Co., Ltd.

RA 876 should be dismissed.—Adamson v. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 602

(1994), gave ample warning that a petition to vacate filed in the RTC which is not
based on the grounds enumerated in Section 24 of RA 876 should be dismissed. In
that case, the trial court vacated the arbitral award seemingly based on grounds
included in Section 24 of RA 876 but a closer reading thereof revealed otherwise. On
appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the trial court and affirmed the arbitral
award.

Same; Same; Same; Same; The Court held that a voluntary arbitrator is
properly classified as a “quasi-judicial instrumentality” and is, thus, within the
ambit of Section 9(3) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act, as amended.—In Luzon
Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees, 249
SCRA 162 (1965), the Court held that a voluntary arbitrator is properly classified as
a “quasi-judicial instrumentality” and is, thus, within the ambit of Section 9 (3) of the
Judiciary Reorganization Act, as amended.

Same; Same; Same; Same; The proper remedy from the adverse decision of a
voluntary arbitrator, if errors of fact and/or law are raised, is a petition for review
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.—This rule was cited in Sevilla Trading
Company v. Semana, 428 SCRA 239 (2004), Manila Midtown Hotel v. Borromeo,
438 SCRA 653 (2004), and Nippon Paint Employees Union-Olalia v. Court of
Appeals, 443 SCRA 286 (2004). These cases held that the proper remedy from the
adverse decision of a voluntary arbitrator, if errors of fact and/or law are raised, is a
petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Thus, petitioner’s
contention that it may avail of a petition for review under Rule 43 under the
circumstances of this case is correct.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Any agreement stipulating that “the decision of the
arbitrator shall be final and unappealable” and “that no further judicial recourse if
either party disagrees with the whole or any part of the arbitrator’s award may be
availed of” cannot be held to preclude in proper cases the power of judicial review
which is inherent in courts.—As may be gleaned from the above stated provision, it
is well within the power and jurisdiction of the Court to inquire whether any
instrumentality of the Government, such as a voluntary arbitrator, has gravely
abused its discretion in the exercise of its functions and prerogatives. Any agreement
stipulating
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. World Interactive Network Systems

(WINS) Japan Co., Ltd.

that “the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and unappealable” and “that no
further judicial recourse if either party disagrees with the whole or any part of the
arbitrator’s award may be availed of” cannot be held to preclude in proper cases the
power of judicial review which is inherent in courts. We will not hesitate to review a
voluntary arbitrator’s award where there is a showing of grave abuse of authority or
discretion and such is properly raised in a petition for certiorari and there is no
appeal, nor any plain, speedy remedy in the course of law.

Remedial Law; Court ruled that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are
mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.—Although petitioner’s position
on the judicial remedies available to it was correct, we sustain the dismissal of its
petition by the CA. The remedy petitioner availed of, entitled “alternative petition for
review under Rule 43 or petition for certiorari under Rule 65,” was wrong. Time
and again, we have ruled that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually
exclusive and not alternative or successive. Proper issues that may be raised in a
petition for review under Rule 43 pertain to errors of fact, law or mixed questions of
fact and law. While a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 should only limit itself to
errors of jurisdiction, that is, grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess
of jurisdiction. Moreover, it cannot be availed of where appeal is the proper remedy
or as a substitute for a lapsed appeal.

Same; Appeals; An appeal taken either to this Court or the Court of Appeals by
the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dis-missed.—It must be emphasized that
every lawyer should be familiar with the distinctions between the two remedies for it
is not the duty of the courts to determine under which rule the petition should fall.
Petitioner’s ploy was fatal to its cause. An appeal taken either to this Court or the CA
by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed. Thus, the alternative
petition filed in the CA, being an inappropriate mode of appeal, should have been
dismissed outright by the CA.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court
of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

 VOL. 544, FEBRUARY 11, 2008 311
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. World Interactive Network
Systems (WINS) Japan Co., Ltd.

Poblador, Bautista & Reyes for petitioner.

Ponce Enrile, Reyes and Manalastas for respondent.

CORONA, J.:

This petition for review on certiorari under Rule

1
45 of the Rules of Court seeks
2
to set aside the February 16, 2005 decision and August 16, 2005 resolution of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 81940.
On September 27, 1999, petitioner ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
entered into a licensing agreement with respondent World Interactive Network
Systems (WINS) Japan Co., Ltd., a foreign corporation licensed under the laws
of Japan. Under the agreement, respondent was granted the exclusive license to
distribute and sublicense the distribution of the television service known as “The
Filipino Channel” (TFC) in Japan. By virtue thereof, petitioner undertook to
transmit the TFC programming signals to respondent which the latter received
through its decoders and distributed to its subscribers.
A dispute arose between the parties when petitioner accused respondent of
inserting nine episodes of WINS WEEKLY, a weekly 35-minute community
news program 3
for Filipinos in Japan, into the TFC programming from March to
May 2002. Petitioner claimed that these were “unauthorized insertions”
constituting a material breach of their agreement. Consequently, on May 9,
4
2002, petitioner notified respondent

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes and concurred in by Associate

Justices Godardo A. Jacinto (retired) and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente of the Second
Division of the Court of Appeals. Rollo, pp. 59-71.
2 Id., pp. 73-74.
3 The CA erroneously stated that the “unauthorized insertions” took place only
sometime in May 2002.
4 The CA erroneously indicated the date as May 9, 2000.
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. World Interactive Network
Systems (WINS) Japan Co., Ltd.

of its intention to terminate the agreement effective June 10, 2002.

Thereafter, respondent filed an arbitration suit pursuant to the arbitration
clause of its agreement with petitioner. It contended that the airing of WINS
WEEKLY was made with petitioner’s prior approval. It also alleged that
petitioner only threatened to terminate their agreement because it wanted to
renegotiate the terms thereof to allow it to demand higher fees. Respondent also
prayed for damages for petitioner’s alleged grant of an exclusive 5
distribution
license to another entity, NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation).
The parties appointed Professor Alfredo F. Tadiar to act as sole arbitrator.
6
They stipulated on the following issues in their terms of reference (TOR):

1. Was the broadcast of WINS WEEKLY by the claimant duly authorized by

the respondent [herein petitioner]?
2. Did such broadcast constitute a material breach of the agreement that is a
ground for termination of the agreement in accordance with Section 13 (a)
thereof?
3. If so, was the breach seasonably cured under the same contractual
provision of Section 13 (a)?
4. Which party is entitled to the payment of damages they claim and to the
other reliefs prayed for?
xxx xxx xxx
7
The arbitrator found in favor of respondent. He held that petitioner gave its
approval to respondent for the airing of WINS WEEKLY as shown by a series
of written exchanges between the parties. He also ruled that, had there really
been a material breach of the agreement, petitioner should have

_______________

5 Not a party to this case.

6 In arbitration proceedings, the TOR functions like a Pre-Trial Order in judicial
proceedings, i.e. it controls the course of the trial, unless it is corrected for manifest and
palpable errors.
7 Decision dated January 9, 2004. Rollo, pp. 108-142.
 VOL. 544, FEBRUARY 11, 2008 313
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. World Interactive Network
Systems (WINS) Japan Co., Ltd.

terminated the same instead of sending a mere notice to terminate said

agreement. The arbitrator found that petitioner threatened to terminate the
agreement due to its desire to compel respondent to re-negotiate the terms
thereof for higher fees. He further stated that even if respondent committed a
breach of the agreement, the same was seasonably cured. He then allowed
respondent to recover temperate damages, attorney’s fees and one-half of the
amount it paid as arbitrator’s fee.
Petitioner filed in the CA a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court or, in the alternative, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the same
Rules, with application for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary
injunction. It was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 81940. It alleged serious
errors of fact and law and/or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the arbitrator.
Respondent, on the other hand, filed a petition for confirmation of arbitral
award before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 93,
docketed as Civil Case No. Q-04-51822.
Consequently, petitioner filed a supplemental petition in the CA seeking to
enjoin the RTC of Quezon City from further proceeding with the hearing of
respondent’s petition for confirmation of arbitral award. After the petition was
admitted by the appellate court, the RTC of Quezon City issued an order
holding in abeyance any further action on respondent’s petition as the assailed
decision of the arbitrator had already become the subject of an appeal in the
CA. Respondent filed a motion for 8
reconsideration but no resolution has been
issued by the lower court to date.
On February 16, 2005, the CA rendered the assailed decision dismissing
ABS-CBN’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. It

_______________

8 Per petition for review on certiorari, id., p. 18; and petitioner’s memorandum filed with
this Court, p. 343.
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. World Interactive Network
Systems (WINS) Japan Co., Ltd.

stated that as the TOR itself provided that the arbitrator’s decision shall be final
and unappealable and that no motion for reconsideration shall be filed, then the
petition for review must fail. It ruled that it is the RTC which has jurisdiction
over questions relating to arbitration. It held that the only instance it can exercise
jurisdiction over an arbitral award is an appeal from the trial court’s decision
confirming, vacating or modifying the arbitral award. It further stated that a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is proper in arbitration
cases only if the courts refuse or neglect to inquire into the facts of an
arbitrator’s award. The dispositive portion of the CA decision read:

“WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

The application for a writ of injunction and temporary restraining order is likewise
DENIED. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Branch 93 is directed to proceed
with the trial for the Petition for Confirmation of Arbitral Award.
SO ORDERED.”

Petitioner moved for reconsideration. The same was denied. Hence, this
petition.
Petitioner contends that the CA, in effect, ruled that: (a) it should have first
filed a petition to vacate the award in the RTC and only in case of denial could it
elevate the matter to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43 and (b) the
assailed decision implied that an aggrieved party to an arbitral award does not
have the option of directly filing a petition for review under Rule 43 or a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA even if the issues raised pertain to
errors of fact and law or grave abuse of discretion, as the case may be, and not
dependent upon such grounds as enumerated under Section 24 (petition to
vacate an arbitral award) of RA 876 (the Arbitration Law). Petitioner alleged
serious error on the part of the CA.
The issue before us is whether or not an aggrieved party in a voluntary
arbitration dispute may avail of, directly in the
 VOL. 544, FEBRUARY 11, 2008 315
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. World Interactive Network
Systems (WINS) Japan Co., Ltd.

CA, a petition for review under Rule 43 or a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court, instead of filing a petition to vacate the award in the
RTC when the grounds invoked to overturn the arbitrator’s decision are other
than those for a petition to vacate an arbitral award enumerated under RA 876.
RA 876 itself mandates that it is the Court of First Instance,
9
now the RTC,
which has jurisdiction over questions relating to arbitration, such as a petition to
vacate an arbitral award.
Section 24 of RA 876 provides for the specific grounds for a petition to
vacate an award made by an arbitrator:

“Sec. 24. Grounds for vacating award.—In any one of the following cases, the
court must make an order vacating the award upon the petition of any party to
the controversy when such party proves affirmatively that in the arbitration
proceedings:

(a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means; or
(b) That there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators or any of
them; or
(c) That the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the
hearing upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence
pertinent and material to the controversy; that one or more of the arbitrators
was disqualified to act as such under section nine hereof, and willfully
refrained from disclosing such disqualifications or of any other misbehavior
by which the rights of any party have been materially prejudiced; or

_______________

9 Section 4 of RA 876 provides:

Sec. 4. Form of arbitration agreement.—

xxx
The making of a contract or submission for arbitration of any controversy , shall be deemed a
consent of the p arties to the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of the p rovince or city where
any of the p arties resides, to enforce such contract or submission.
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. World Interactive Network
Systems (WINS) Japan Co., Ltd.

(d) That the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed

them, that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter
submitted to them was not made.”

Based on the foregoing provisions, the law itself clearly provides that the RTC
must issue an order vacating an arbitral award only “in any one of the . . . cases”
enumerated therein. Under the legal maxim in statutory construction expressio
unius est exclusio alterius, the explicit mention of one thing in a statute means
the elimination of others not specifically mentioned. As RA 876 did not
expressly provide for errors of fact and/or law and grave abuse of discretion
(proper grounds for a petition for review under Rule 43 and a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65, respectively) as grounds for maintaining a petition to
vacate an arbitral award in the RTC, it necessarily follows that a party may not
avail of the latter remedy on the grounds of errors of fact and/or law or grave
abuse of discretion to overturn an arbitral
10
award.
Adamson v. Court of Appeals gave ample warning that a petition to
vacate filed in the RTC which is not based on the grounds enumerated in
Section 24 of RA 876 should be dismissed. In that case, the trial court vacated
the arbitral award seemingly based on grounds included in Section 24 of RA
876 but a closer reading thereof revealed otherwise. On appeal, the CA
reversed the decision of the trial court and affirmed the arbitral award. In
affirming the CA, we held:

“The Court of Appeals, in reversing the trial court’s decision held that the
nullification of the decision of the Arbitration Committee was not based on the
grounds provided by the Arbitration Law and that xxx private respondents
(petitioners herein) have failed to substantiate with any evidence their claim of
partiality. Significantly, even as respondent judge ruled against the arbitrator’s
award, he could not find fault with their impartiality and integrity. Evidently, the
nullification of the award rendered at the case

_______________

10 G.R. No. 106879, 27 May 1994, 232 SCRA 602.

 VOL. 544, FEBRUARY 11, 2008 317
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. World Interactive Network
Systems (WINS) Japan Co., Ltd.

at bar was not made on the basis of any of the grounds provided by law.
xxx xxx xxx
It is clear, therefore, that the award was vacated not because of evident partiality
of the arbitrators but because the latter interpreted the contract in a way which was
not favorable to herein petitioners and because it considered that herein private
respondents, by submitting the controversy to arbitration, was seeking to renege on
its obligations under the contract.
xxx xxx xxx
It is clear then that the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court not because the
latter reviewed the arbitration award involved herein, but because the respondent
appellate court found that the trial court had no legal basis for vacating the award.
(Emphasis supplied).”

In cases not falling under any of the aforementioned grounds to vacate an

award, the Court has already made several pronouncements that a petition for
review unde Rule 43 or a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be availed of
in the CA. Which one would depend on the grounds relied upon by petitioner.
In Luzon Development
11
Bank v. Association of Luzon Development
Bank Employees, the Court held that a voluntary arbitrator is properly
classified as a “quasi-judicial instrumentality” and is, thus, within the ambit of
Section 9 (3) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act, as amended. Under this
section, the Court of Appeals shall exercise:

“x x x xxx xxx
(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions,
orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies,
instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Employees’ Compensation Commission and the Civil Service
Commission, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court

_______________

11 G.R. No. 120319, 6 October 1995, 249 SCRA 162, 168-169.

318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. World Interactive Network
Systems (WINS) Japan Co., Ltd.

in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under
Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act and of
subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth
paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.” (Emphasis supplied)

As such, decisions handed down by voluntary arbitrators fall within the exclusive
appellate jurisdiction of the CA. This decision was taken into consideration in
12
approving Section 1 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Thus:

“SECTION 1. Scope.—This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final

orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or
resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-
judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central
Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the
President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil
Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer,
National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National
Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic
Act Number 6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees
Compensation Commission, Agricultural Inventions Board, Insurance Commission,
Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry
Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law.” (Emphasis
supplied)
13
This rule was cited in Sevilla 14
Trading Company v. Semana, Manila
Midtown Hotel v. Borromeo,
15
and Nippon Paint Employees Union-Olalia
v. Court of Appeals. These cases held that the proper remedy from the
adverse decision of a voluntary arbitrator, if errors of fact and/or law are

_______________

12 Nippon Paint Employees Union-Olalia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159010, 19

November 2004, 443 SCRA 286, 290.
13 G.R. No. 152456, 28 April 2004, 428 SCRA 239, 243-244.
14 G.R. No. 138305, 22 September 2004, 438 SCRA 653, 656657.
15 Supra at pp. 290-291.
 VOL. 544, FEBRUARY 11, 2008 319
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. World Interactive Network
Systems (WINS) Japan Co., Ltd.

raised, is a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Thus,
petitioner’s contention that it may avail of a petition for review under Rule 43
under the circumstances of this case is correct.
As to petitioner’s arguments that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may
also be resorted to, we hold the same to be in accordance with the Constitution
and jurisprudence.
Section 1 of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that:

“SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such
lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.” (Emphasis supplied)

As may be gleaned from the above stated provision, it is well within the power
and jurisdiction of the Court to inquire whether any instrumentality of the
Government, such as a voluntary arbitrator, has gravely abused its discretion in
the exercise of its functions and prerogatives. Any agreement stipulating that “the
decision of the arbitrator shall be final and unappealable” and “that no further
judicial recourse if either party disagrees with the whole or any part of the
arbitrator’s award may be availed of” cannot be held to preclude 16
in proper
cases the power of judicial review which is inherent in courts. We will not
hesitate to review a voluntary arbitrator’s award where there is a showing of
grave abuse of authority or discretion and such is properly raised in a petition
for

_______________

16 Chung Fu Industries (Phils.) v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96283, 25 February 1992,
206 SCRA 545, 552-555.
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. World Interactive Network
Systems (WINS) Japan Co., Ltd.

17
certiorari
18
and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy remedy in the course of
law.
Significantly, Insular Savings Bank v. Far East Bank and Trust
19
Company definitively outlined several judicial remedies an aggrieved party to
an arbitral award may undertake:

(1) a petition in the proper RTC to issue an order to vacate the award on
the grounds provided for in Section 24 of RA 876;
(2) a petition for review in the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court on
questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law; and
(3) a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court should the
arbitrator have acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, although petitioner’s position on the judicial remedies available to

it was correct, we sustain the dismissal of its petition by the CA. The remedy
petitioner availed of, entitled “alternative petition for review under Rule 43
or petition for certiorari under Rule 65,” was wrong.
Time and again, we have ruled that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are
mutually exclusive and not alternative or

_______________

17 Id., p. 556, citing Oceanic Bic Division (FFW) v. Romero, No. L-43890, 16 July 1984,
130 SCRA 392. See also Maranaw Hotels and Resorts Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
103215, 6 November 1992, 215 SCRA 501, where we sustained the CA decision dismissing
the petition for certiorari filed before it as the voluntary arbitrator did not gravely abuse
his discretion in deciding the arbitral case before him. We emphasized therein that
decisions of voluntary arbitrators are final and unappealable except when there is want of
jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, violation of due process, denial of substantial
justice, or erroneous interpretation of the law.
18 Asset Privatization Trust v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121171, 29 December 1998,
300 SCRA 579, 600-601.
19 G.R. No. 141818, 22 June 2006, 492 SCRA 145, 156.
 VOL. 544, FEBRUARY 11, 2008 321
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. World Interactive Network
Systems (WINS) Japan Co., Ltd.

20
successive.
Proper issues that may be raised in a petition for review under21 Rule 43
pertain to errors of fact, law or mixed questions of fact and law. While a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 should only limit itself to errors of
jurisdiction, that is, grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of
22
jurisdiction. Moreover, it cannot be availed 23
of where appeal is the proper
remedy or as a substitute for a lapsed appeal.
In the case at bar, the questions raised by petitioner in its alternative
petition before the CA were the following:

A. THE SOLE ARBITRATOR COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR

AND/OR GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN RULING
THAT THE BROADCAST OF “WINS WEEKLY” WAS DULY
AUTHORIZED BY ABS-CBN.
B. THE SOLE ARBITRATOR COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR
AND/OR GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN RULING
THAT THE UNAUTHORIZED BROADCAST DID NOT
CONSTITUTE MATERIAL BREACH OF THE AGREEMENT.
C. THE SOLE ARBITRATOR COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR
AND/OR GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN RULING
THAT WINS SEASONABLY CURED THE BREACH.
D. THE SOLE ARBITRATOR COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR
AND/OR GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN RULING
THAT TEMPERATE DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF
P1,166,955.00 MAY BE AWARDED TO WINS.

_______________

20 Sebastian v. Morales, G.R. No. 141116, 17 February 2003, 397 SCRA 549, 561;
Oriental Media, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80127, 6 December 1995, 250 SCRA 647,
653; Hipolito v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 108478-79, 21 February 1994, 230 SCRA 191,
204; Federation of Free Work ers v. Inciong, G.R. No. 49983, 20 April 1992, 208 SCRA 157,
164; and Manila Electric Company v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88396, 4 July 1990, 187
SCRA 200, 205.
21 RULES OF COURT, Rule 43, Sec. 3.
22 RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, Section 1.
23 Oriental Media, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, Hipolito v. Court of Appeals, Federation
of Free Work ers v. Inciong, and Manila Electric Company v. Court of Appeals, supra.
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. World Interactive Network
Systems (WINS) Japan Co., Ltd.

E. THE SOLE ARBITRATOR COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR

AND/OR GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN
AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THE UNREASONABLE
AMOUNT AND UNCONSCIONABLE AMOUNT OF
P850,000.00.
F. THE ERROR COMMITTED BY THE SOLE ARBITRATOR IS
NOT A SIMPLE ERROR OF JUDGMENT OR ABUSE OF
DISCRETION. IT IS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION.

A careful reading of the assigned errors reveals that the real issues calling for the
CA’s resolution were less the alleged grave abuse of discretion exercised by the
arbitrator and more about the arbitrator’s appreciation of the issues and
evidence presented by the parties. Therefore, the issues clearly fall under the
classification of errors of fact and law—questions which may be passed upon
by the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43. Petitioner cleverly crafted its
assignment of errors in such a way as to straddle both judicial remedies, that is,
by alleging serious errors of fact and law (in which case a petition for review
under Rule 43 would be proper) and grave abuse of discretion (because of
which a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 would be permissible).
It must be emphasized that every lawyer should be familiar with the
distinctions between the two remedies for it is not the duty of the courts to
24
determine under which rule the petition should fall. Petitioner’s ploy was fatal
to its cause. An

_______________

24 Chua v. Santos, G.R. No. 132467, 18 October 2004, 440 SCRA 365, 372-373, citing
paragraph 4 (e) of Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90 dated March 9, 1990, Guidelines to be
Observed in Appeals to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, to wit:
e) Duty of counsel.—It is, therefore, incumbent upon every attorney who would seek
review of a judgment or order promulgated against his client to make sure of the nature of
the errors he proposes to assign, whether these be of fact or law; then upon such basis to
ascertain carefully which Court has appellate jurisdiction; and finally, to follow
scrupulously the requisites for appeal prescribed by
 VOL. 544, FEBRUARY 11, 2008 323
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. World Interactive Network
Systems (WINS) Japan Co., Ltd.

appeal taken either 25to this Court or the CA by the wrong or inappropriate mode
shall be dismissed. Thus, the alternative petition filed in the CA, being an
inappropriate mode of appeal, should have been dismissed outright by the CA.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The February 16, 2005
decision and August 16, 2005 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 81940 directing the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 93 to
proceed with the trial of the petition for confirmation of arbitral award is
AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Azcuna and

Leonardo-De Castro, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Note.—An aggrieved party before the Arbitration Committee has several

judicial remedies available—it may petition the RTC to issue an order vacating
the award on the grounds provided for under Section 24 of the Arbitration Law,
or file a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court with the Court
of Appeals, or file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. (Insular Savings
Bank vs. Far East Bank and Trust Company, 429 SCRA 145 [2006])

——o0o——

_______________

law, ever aware that any error or imprecision in compliance may well be fatal to his
client’s cause.
25 Ybañez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117499, 9 February 1996, 253 SCRA 540, 547,
citing paragraph 4 of Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90 dated March 9, 1990, Guidelines to
be Observed in Appeals to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Thus:
4. Erroneous Appeals.—An appeal taken to either the Supreme Court or the Court of
Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed.