The Philippines has long appreciated the importance and utility of the concept of arbitration. Despite this history of supporting alternative modes of dispute resolution, arbitration, and most especially international arbitration, has not taken off in the manner that it has in most countries. International arbitration in the Philippines enjoys strong support from the law and the rules already in place, as well as jurisprudence and general state policy. In this chapter, we present the various laws in force in the Philippines with respect to arbitration in general, and to international arbitration, as well as outline jurisprudence that influences arbitration practice in the country. We also analyse trends that are useful for international practitioners interested in arbitration in the Philippines.

The Philippines is a party to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, becoming a signatory on 10 June 1958. The Convention entered into force in the Philippines on 1 June 1962. Philippine law provides support through three main pieces of legislation: the New Civil Code, The Arbitration Law of 1953, and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004. Construction is specifically governed by the Construction Industry Arbitration Law of 1985. Arbitration in the Philippines is also governed by rules promulgated by the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice, both applying the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004.

i Developments affecting international arbitration

Existing legislative enactments with respect to arbitration

Civil Code of the Philippines2

Title XIV, Chapter 2 of the Philippine Civil Code, approved on 18 June 1949, is the first law the Philippine Congress passed that mentions and governs arbitrations. This Chapter on Arbitration refers to the previous chapter on compromises on several provisions. While Chapter 2 of the Act is only composed of five provisions, they nonetheless emphasise that awards by arbitrators are final and valid, and can only be questioned on the following grounds: mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, undue influence or falsity of documents.

The Arbitration Law of 19533

Apart from the New Civil Code, the first law to address arbitration specifically was the Arbitration Law enacted in 1953. Here, it was already recognised that parties may submit their controversies to one or more arbitrators of their choice, subject to a contract agreeing to settle their issues through arbitration. The Law provides for exceptions to its scope, which include cases subject to the jurisdiction of other tribunals. The form of the arbitration agreement is also set forth in the Law, requiring arbitration clauses to be in writing and subscribed, and to be enforced by the court of first instance. Arbitrations may be instituted through a demand for arbitration. The remedy for a party against another party that fails, neglects or refuses to perform under the arbitration agreement is also specified (i.e., they must petition the court to direct the opposing party to proceed to arbitration). Other aspects of arbitration are also specified, such as:

  1. the appointment of arbitrators;
  2. qualifications of arbitrators;
  3. challenge to arbitrators;
  4. arbitrator oath;
  5. procedure to be followed in the arbitration;
  6. powers of arbitrators; and
  7. the nature of the arbitration proceedings.

The procedure to be followed for the confirmation of the award, grounds for its vacation, modification and correction are also outlined. It did not repeal the provisions of the Civil Code.

The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 (ADR Act)4

More than 50 years after the enactment of the Arbitration Law, the ADR Act was passed on 2 April 2004. The law clearly expresses the policy of the state with respect to alternative modes of dispute resolution: to actively promote party autonomy, and to encourage and actively promote the use of ADR methods. Thus, through the law, means are provided for the use of ADR and the private sector is enlisted to participate in the settlement of disputes, bolstered by establishing the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution. Other than arbitration, the law provides for the use of mediation and other forms of ADR such as third-party evaluation, mini trial, mediation–arbitration or a combination thereof. It is also through the ADR Act that international commercial arbitration was recognised in the Philippines and the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration was adopted, including rules on the interpretation of the Model Law.

There is a whole chapter in the ADR Act about international commercial arbitration that lays down provisions on legal representation, confidentiality and the interpretation of the Act. The policy of the law in favour of arbitration is highlighted. There is also a provision on the interim measures that are available to parties to prevent irreparable loss or injury, provide security for the performance of any obligation, produce or preserve any evidence, or compel a party or non-party.

The Act, however, does not expound on the issue of domestic arbitration, as this issue is still governed by the Arbitration Law, except for provisions concerning international commercial arbitration that would also apply to domestic arbitration.

Regarding judicial review of arbitral awards, domestic awards are enforced in the same manner as decisions of the courts but require confirmation by the regional trial court. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) awards need not undergo confirmation (the CIAC framework is discussed below). There is also specific reference to the New York Convention in the ADR Act regarding foreign arbitral awards. It is also here that the difference between foreign arbitral awards where the New York Convention may be applied, and those awards not covered by the Convention, is first noted.

Construction Industry Arbitration Law of 1985

One of the special industries that has its own arbitration rules is the construction industry. Executive Order No. 1008, signed on 4 February 1985, cites the need to establish arbitral machinery to settle disputes within the construction industry expeditiously, and created the CIAC, which is the industry's arbitration machinery. The CIAC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from or connected with contracts entered into by parties involved in construction in the Philippines, with the parties agreeing to submit the same to arbitration. Awards of the arbitral tribunal under the CIAC law are binding upon the parties, and final and unappealable except on questions of law, which shall be appealable to the Supreme Court. Currently, proceedings in the CIAC are governed by the Revised Rules of Procedure Governing Construction Arbitration, promulgated on 28 January 2011. Final awards by a CIAC tribunal are executable once 15 days have elapsed from the parties' receipt of the award, and may be the subject of a writ of execution directed to a sheriff or other proper officer.

Other important rules on arbitration

Special ADR Rules

After the ADR Act came into effect, the Supreme Court promulgated the Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution on 1 September 2009 (Special ADR Rules), which took effect on 30 October 2009. The Special ADR Rules govern issues relating to arbitration, including the relief available to parties as to the existence, validity or enforceability of the arbitration agreement; interim measures; assistance in taking of evidence; confidentiality; protective orders; appointment, challenge and termination of an arbitrator; confirmation, correction or vacation of a domestic arbitration award; recognition, enforcement or setting aside of an award in international commercial arbitration; and recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award.

As in the ADR Act, the Special ADR Rules highlight the policy of the state to actively promote the use of various modes of ADR and to respect party autonomy. Thus, these Rules encourage and promote the use of these modes, particularly arbitration and mediation, for the efficient resolution of disputes and to unclog court dockets. To encourage the use of these alternative modes, courts are duty-bound to refer parties to arbitration where parties have agreed to submit their dispute to such, and should not refuse to refer parties to arbitration. The Special ADR Rules explicitly recognise the principles of Kompetenz-Kompetenz and separability of the arbitration clause. Courts are invited to exercise judicial restraint and to defer to the competence of the arbitral tribunal the opportunity to rule on issues of its jurisdiction. In general, however, the specific judicial relief available through the Special ADR Rules is only available if the place of arbitration as stipulated is the Philippines.

There is limited application of the Special ADR Rules on international arbitration, except for the portion on the recognition, enforcement or setting aside of an international commercial arbitration award. The Special ADR Rules dictate that any party to an international commercial arbitration in the Philippines may file for a petition to recognise and enforce, or petition to set aside, an arbitral award with regional trial courts, the venues of which are also outlined in the Rules. Courts may set aside or refuse the enforcement of the award on grounds that are like those in the New York Convention, though the latter is not specifically mentioned. A petition to set aside the arbitral award is the only recourse available to the parties, and any appeal or petition for review or petition for certiorari shall be promptly dismissed. Courts also have the power to suspend the proceedings pending before it to refer the award back to the arbitral tribunal to eliminate the grounds for setting aside the award without directing the tribunal to revise the award or the findings, or otherwise interfere with the tribunal's independence. The presumption overtly stated in the Rules is in favour of the confirmation of the award, unless the adverse party establishes a ground for the setting aside or non-enforcement of the award.

There are separate rules for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. Any party to the award may also file a petition with a regional trial court to recognise and enforce a foreign arbitral award. The New York Convention is explicitly referred to in the Special ADR Rules as the governing law, and grounds enumerated in the Convention are the same grounds for the refusal to recognise and enforce arbitral awards. The foreign arbitral award is presumed to have been made and released in due course, and courts shall recognise and enforce an award unless a ground to refuse its recognition or enforcement is fully established. The decision made by the court under the Special ADR Rules can be executed immediately.

There is also a special rule for foreign arbitral awards made in a country that is not a signatory to the New York Convention. Courts shall recognise and enforce the same upon the grounds provided in the Special ADR Rules when such country extends comity and reciprocity to awards made in the Philippines. Otherwise, the award is treated as a foreign judgment enforceable under the Rules of Court of the Philippines (Rules of Court).

Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 098-09

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has also released Circular No. 098-09 (implementing rules), promulgated on 4 December 2009, to implement the provisions of the ADR Act. This is a separate set of rules governing arbitration and the other modes of dispute resolution, apart from the Special ADR Rules promulgated by the Supreme Court. As discussed below, although there are no contradicting provisions, some reconciliation of these rules and those of the Supreme Court is necessary.

The implementing rules established the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution to promote the use of ADR, and to monitor its use and other relevant functions. The implementing Rules have a separate chapter on international commercial arbitration where the seat of the arbitration is the Philippines, and arbitrations must be governed by the Model Law. Due regard is given to the policy of the law in favour of arbitration and to actively promote party autonomy, as is the case with the ADR Act and Arbitration Law.

The rules expand the law on the following:

  1. the receipt of written communications;
  2. waivers;
  3. extent of court intervention (to be governed by the Special ADR Rules);
  4. definition and form of the arbitration;
  5. agreement and claims before the court regarding the agreement;
  6. interim measures;
  7. composition of the arbitral tribunal, and grounds and procedure for challenge;
  8. jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal;
  9. power of the tribunal to order interim measures;
  10. conduct of the arbitral proceedings, especially where the parties failed to agree, including the invocation of court assistance in taking evidence;
  11. correction and interpretation of awards;
  12. grounds for setting aside of an award by the regional trial court;
  13. recognition and enforcement of awards, filed in accordance with the Special ADR Rules;
  14. confidentiality of arbitration proceedings;
  15. consolidation of proceedings; and
  16. costs.

There is also a chapter for domestic arbitration, which is still covered by the Arbitration Law, as amended by the ADR Act.

Once again, the competence of the arbitral tribunal is expressly recognised, as is the distinction between convention awards, which are governed by the New York Convention, and non-convention awards, the recognition and enforcement of which are in accordance with procedural rules of the Supreme Court. Courts, however, may recognise and enforce a non-convention award as a convention award on the grounds of comity and reciprocity. Not present in the Special ADR Rules, but purposely included in DOJ Circular No. 098-09, is the following statement: '(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.' Decisions of recognition, enforcement, vacation or setting aside of an arbitral award, may, however, be appealed to the Court of Appeals, absent any stipulation by the parties that the award or decision of the arbitral tribunal shall be final and unappealable. These proceedings are summary in nature.

ii Arbitration developments in local courts

Philippine jurisprudence has, since the 1920s, acknowledged that arbitration is an important aspect of dispute resolution, and many cases, even prior to the enactment of the ADR Act, have accorded respect to the mode of arbitration.5

The Supreme Court views arbitration as an inexpensive, efficient and amicable method of settling disputes, and has continually encouraged arbitration to be practised.6 The existence of an agreement between the parties to subject themselves to arbitration has been given utmost respect and has been treated as a binding contract. Thus, an arbitration agreement that was not embodied in the main agreement but set forth in another document is binding upon the parties, where the document was incorporated by reference to the main agreement.7 The Supreme Court has also sanctioned the validity of arbitration clauses, interpreting such contracts liberally, and has generally subscribed to the view that doubts as to the interpretation of an arbitration clause should be resolved in favour of arbitration. Other than through legislation and various rules, Philippine jurisprudence has also recognised the doctrines of separability of the arbitration agreement,8 and the validity of arbitration clauses.9

These basic principles of arbitration have been uncontroversial in the eyes of the High Court. Hence, even in issues regarding the liability of a corporation's representatives to be subject to arbitration, the Supreme Court has ruled that while a corporation has a separate personality from its representatives, and is generally not bound by the terms of the contract executed by the corporation or personally liable for obligations and liabilities of the corporation, it was deemed appropriate to pierce the corporate veil so as to initiate arbitration proceedings against a corporation's representatives on the basis of allegations of malice and bad faith. The Court has justified its holding by saying that because the personalities of the representatives and the corporation may be found to be indistinct, even the directors may be compelled to submit to arbitration.

In another case, which had an arbitration clause stipulating that any disagreementas to the interpretation, application or execution of the contract should be submitted to arbitration, the Court cited the doctrine of separability, and considered the arbitration agreement to be independent of the main contract and able to be invoked regardless of the possible nullity or invalidity of main contract. Here, all proceedings in the lower court were rendered invalid to recognise the valid arbitration agreement.10 In another case, the Supreme Court upheld the rule that an arbitration agreement forming part of the main contract shall not be regarded as invalid or non-existent just because the main contract was invalid or did not come into existence. Even the party that has repudiated the main contract by filing for rescission is not prevented from enforcing the arbitration clause.11 However, in other instances where the principle of privity of contracts should take precedence (i.e., the parties invoking the arbitration clause were not parties to the agreement), the Supreme Court has held that, given the particularities of the case, an arbitration clause cannot be used.12

Even in cases concerning the CIAC, courts have been consistent in holding that an arbitration must proceed. Thus, an agreement to submit to voluntary arbitration for purposes of vesting jurisdiction over a construction dispute in the CIAC need not be contained in the construction contract, or be signed by the parties. The agreement could also be in a separate agreement, or any other form of written communication, as long their intent to submit their dispute to arbitration is clear.13 Where parties have already included an arbitration clause in their subcontract agreement, there was no need for any subsequent consent by the parties before the dispute can be raised before the CIAC.14 Where there is a valid arbitration clause mutually stipulated by the parties and it pertains to a construction dispute, they are contractually bound to settle their dispute through arbitration before the CIAC. The refusal of a party to participate should not affect the authority of the CIAC to conduct proceedings and issue an arbitral award.15 In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that the CIAC still acquires jurisdiction even if the construction contract has been breached, abandoned, terminated or rescinded. The parties' contract need not be valid or in force before CIAC may arbitrate the matter, so long as there is an agreement to arbitrate.16

This specific authority of the CIAC to settle disputes in the construction industry has been consistently recognised by the Supreme Court. The findings of fact by CIAC, being a quasi-judicial tribunal which has expertise on matters regarding the construction industry, must be respected and upheld.17 In fact, the Court ruled that it is within CIAC's jurisdiction to determine the contractual terms between the parties from sources other than definitive documents as it falls under CIAC's jurisdiction as set forth in Section 4 of the Construction Industry Arbitration Law.18

Furthermore, in keeping with the policy of the state to actively promote party autonomy, the Supreme Court has exercised restraint in reviewing decisions of arbitral tribunals and emphasised that court intervention is allowed only in limited circumstances. In one case, the Supreme Court remarked that commercial relationships covered by commercial arbitration laws are purely private and contractual in nature. Unlike labour relationships, they do not possess the same compelling state interest that would justify state interference into the autonomy of contracts. Hence, commercial arbitration is a purely private system of adjudication facilitated by private citizens instead of government instrumentalities wielding quasi-judicial powers.19 Consistent with this restrictive approach, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is duty bound to be extremely watchful and to ensure that an appeal does not become an ingenious means for undermining the integrity of arbitration or for conveniently setting aside the conclusions arbitral processes make.20 Not even the Court's expanded certiorari jurisdiction under the Constitution21 can justify judicial intrusion into the merits of arbitral awards. While the Constitution expanded the scope of certiorari proceedings, this power remains limited to a review of the acts of any branch or instrumentality of the government. As a purely private creature of contract, an arbitral tribunal remains outside the scope of certiorari.22 This rule on the finality of an arbitral award is anchored on the premise that an impartial body, freely chosen by the parties and in which they have confidence, has settled the dispute after due proceedings.23

The only remedy against a final domestic arbitral award is to file petition to vacate or to modify or correct the award not later than 30 days from the receipt of the award. Unless a ground to vacate has been established, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) must confirm the arbitral award as a matter of course. Once the RTC orders the confirmation, vacation, or correction or modification of a domestic arbitral award, the aggrieved party may move for reconsideration within a non-extendible period of 15 days from receipt of the order. The losing party may also opt to appeal from the RTC's ruling instead. Under the Arbitration Law and ADR Law, the mode of appeal is via a petition for review on certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which appeal shall only be limited to questions of law.24

Thus, in the case of Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) v. BCA Corporation International & Ad Hoc Arbitral Tribunal,25 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by certiorari filed against an interlocutory order of an arbitral tribunal and held that an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court is from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals and only questions of law may be raised.

It is important to note, however, that an arbitral award is not absolute. Rule 19.10 of the Special ADR Rules – by referring to Section 24 of the Arbitration Law and Article 34 of the 1985 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law – recognises the very limited exceptions to the autonomy of arbitral awards.26

The issue of confirmation and enforcement has also been tackled, even prior to the implementation of the two rules specifically governing it. The 2008 case of Korea Techonologies v. Lerma27 was decided prior to the promulgation and coming into effect of the Special ADR Rules and DOJ Circular No. 098-09, but it presciently saw the need to discuss the confirmation of foreign arbitral awards by the regional trial court, the power of the regional trial court to review foreign arbitral awards and the grounds under which awards may be set aside. However, the extent of the discussion of the court was limited, as the arbitration had not commenced at that point.

Since the promulgation of the Special ADR Rules and DOJ Circular No. 098-09, only a handful of cases that reached the Supreme Court have pertained to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In these cases, the Supreme Court held that a foreign corporation, although not licensed to do business in the Philippines, may sue in this jurisdiction to enforce a foreign arbitral award.28 The Court reasoned that none of the exclusive grounds in the New York Convention and the ADR Act, as well as those of the Special ADR Rules, point to the capacity of the party seeking recognition and enforcement of the award. Further, it is in the interests of justice if foreign corporations not licensed to do business in the Philippines can avail of the courts to enforce foreign arbitral awards. In a 2015 case,29 the Supreme Court held that execution is a necessary incident to the Court's confirmation of the arbitral award. Thus, the trial court's power to confirm a judgment award under the Special ADR Rules was deemed included in the power to order its execution, it being a collateral and subsidiary consequence of granting the court the power to confirm domestic arbitral awards. The Supreme Court concluded that the Special ADR Rules should be made to apply to proceedings of confirmation of the award as well as to the execution of the confirmed award.

In another case, the Supreme Court determined that vacating arbitral awards should be based on statute. In this case, the Arbitration Law and Rule 11.4(b) of the Special ADR Rules were cited. Among the grounds discussed was the evident partiality of the members of the arbitral tribunal. The Court found that an arbitrator should conduct himself or herself beyond reproach and suspicion, and that his or her acts should be free from appearances of impropriety. However, one of the arbitrators was found by the Supreme Court as demonstrating evident partiality, and the arbitral award was vacated.30

iii Investor–state disputes

The only pending suit against the Republic of the Philippines filed with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes was filed by Shell Philippines Exploration BV on 20 July 2016. The case concerns the Philippines–Netherlands bilateral investment treaty of 1985. The tribunal has been constituted, and the parties are contending on provisional measures.

A case filed by Baggerwerken Decloedt En Zoon NV, a Belgian investor, was recently concluded. The award was rendered on 23 January 2017, and held the Philippines liable for a breach of the Belgium–Luxembourg bilateral investment treaty of 1998.

Previous cases involving the Republic of the Philippines include cases filed by Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide and SGS Société Générale de Surveillance SA.

There were two different Fraport cases, both of which were dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction of ICSID. However, the award rendered in 2007 was subsequently annulled by an ad hoc committee. The SGS case was resolved through a settlement recorded in the form of an award.


i Philippine law and favor arbitrandum

There is no doubt that the Philippines is in favour of arbitration as a means of avoiding litigation and settling disputes amicably and expeditiously. Thus, arbitration clauses are liberally construed to favour arbitration, meaning that if there was an interpretation that would render an arbitration clause effective so as to avoid litigation and speed up the resolution of the dispute, that interpretation will be adopted.31 Unless an arbitration agreement is such as to absolutely deprive parties of their recourse to courts, the courts should look with favour upon such amicable agreements. To ignore contractual agreements calling for arbitration is considered a step backward.32

Other than those outlined above, there are only a limited number of cases on arbitration decided by the Supreme Court, thus confining the development of arbitration jurisprudence here. This also reflects the lack of international commercial arbitration cases that are conducted within the Philippines.

ii Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards

Another issue that is especially relevant to the practice of international commercial arbitration is the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.

As stated above, Chapter 7(B) of the ADR Act refers to the judicial review of foreign arbitral awards. The provisions of the Act have already been discussed above. Rule 13.12 of the Special ADR Rules also addresses the recognition and enforcement of an award when a country is not a signatory to the New York Convention, and the country does not extend comity and reciprocity to awards made in the Philippines. The Rule states that courts may treat the award as a foreign judgment enforceable under Rule 39, Section 48, of the Rules of Court. DOJ Circular No. 098-09 contains the following statement: 'A foreign arbitral award rendered in a state which is not a party to the New York Convention will be recognized upon proof of the existence of comity and reciprocity and may be treated as a convention award. If not so treated and if no comity or reciprocity exits, the non-convention award cannot be recognized and/or enforced but may be deemed as presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties in accordance with Section 48 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.'

The Rules of Court dictate that foreign judgments, if made upon a specific thing, are conclusive upon the title to the thing, while if it is made against a person, the judgment is presumptive evidence of a right between the parties and their successors in interest. It is noteworthy that Section 44 of the ADR Act states:

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 a judgment of a foreign court. A foreign arbitral award, when confirmed by the regional trial court, shall be 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 executor decisions of courts of law of the Philippines.

The issue that must be observed here is that the Rules of Court open an arbitral award to grounds for non-recognition or implementation similar to, but not exactly contemplated by, the New York Convention. Rule 39 of Section 48 further states: 'In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.' Although it is observable that those grounds upon which the award may be questioned may fall within one or more of the categories for refusal set forth in Article V of the Convention, the ground of clear mistake of law or fact may embolden a local court to delve deeper into the award than necessary. The parties may similarly find flexibility in that same provision, and expand it even further than the interpretations of public policy found in Article V 2(b). This distinction made in the law, Special ADR Rules and the implementing rules is worthy of further study.

None of the more recent Supreme Court decisions has confronted the issue of a non-Convention award being recognised or enforced in the Philippines; hence, there has been no occasion to apply these rules. In its decisions, the Court has exclusively asserted the use of the Special ADR Rules as, at the time of writing, there has been no case using DOJ Circular No. 098-09, despite its similarity to the provisions of the Special ADR Rules.


1 Jan Vincent S Soliven and Lenie Rocel E Rocha are associates at Desierto and Desierto. The co-authors would like to recognise the significant contribution of Jeneline N Nicolas to this chapter. The information in this chapter was accurate as at June 2018.

2 Philippine Civil Code, Republic Act No. 386.

3 Arbitration Law, Republic Act No. 876, enacted in 1953.

4 Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004, Republic Act No. 9285.

5 The case of Chung Fu Industries v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96283, 25 February 1992, provides an instructive outline of the history of arbitration in the Philippines up until that point.

6 Allied Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123871, 31 August 1998, LM Power Engineering Corp v. Capitol Industrial, G.R. No. 141833, 26 March 2003, among a catena of other cases.

7 Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Limited, v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc, G.R. No. 196072, 20 September 2017 and Sulpicio Lines, Inc, v. Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Limited, G.R. No. 208603, 20 September 2017.

8 Gonzales v. Climax Mining, G.R. Nos. 161957 and 167994, 22 January 2007.

9 Korea Technologies Co v. Lerma, G.R. No. 143581, 7 January 2008.

10 Koppel, Inc v. Makati Rotary Club Foundation, Inc, G.R. No. 198075, 4 September 2013.

11 Cargill Philippines, Inc v. San Fernando Regala Trading, Inc, G.R. No. 175404, 31 January 2011.

12 Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc v. Spouses Stroem, G.R. No. 204689, 21 January 2015.

13 Federal Builders, Inc v. Power Factors, Inc, G.R. No. 211504, 8 March 2017.

14 Heunghwa Industry Co, Ltd, v. DJ Builders Corporation, G.R. No. 169095, 8 December 2008, and William Golangco Construction Corp v. Ray Burton Development Corp, G.R. No. 163582, 9 August 2010.

15 Metropolitan Cebu Water District v. Mactan Rock Industries, Inc, G.R. No. 172438, 4 July 2012.

16 Gammon Philippines, Inc v. Metro Rail Transit Development Corporation, G.R. No. 144792, 31 January 2006.

17 Department of Public Works and Highways, v. CMC/MONARK/PACIFIC/HI-TRI Joint Venture, G.R. No. 179732, 13 September 2017; Metro Rail Transit Development Corporation v. Gammon Philippines, Inc, G.R. No. 200401, 17 January 2018.

18 CE Construction Corporation v. Araneta Center, Inc, G.R. No. 192725, 9 August 2017.

19 Fruehauf Electronics Philippines Corporation v. Technology Electronics Assembly and Management Pacific Corporation, G.R. No. 204197, 23 November 2016.

20 Metro Rail Transit Development Corporation v. Gammon Philippines, Inc, G.R. No. 200401, 17 January 2018.

21 1987 Philippine Constitution.

22 See footnote 19.

23 Werr Corporation International v. Highlands Prime, Inc, G.R. No. 187543, 8 February 2017.

24 See footnote 19.

25 G.R. No. 225051, 19 July 2017.

26 Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution, A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC, 1 September 2009, provides: Rule 19.10. Rule on judicial review on arbitration in the Philippines. As a general rule, the court can only vacate or set aside the decision of an arbitral tribunal upon a clear showing that the award suffers from any of the infirmities or grounds for vacating an arbitral award under Section 24 of Republic Act No. 876 or under Rule 34 of the Model Law in a domestic arbitration, or for setting aside an award in an international arbitration under Article 34 of the Model Law, or for such other grounds provided under these Special Rules.

If the Regional Trial Court is asked to set aside an arbitral award in a domestic or international arbitration on any ground other than those provided in the Special ADR Rules, the court shall entertain such ground for the setting aside or non-recognition of the arbitral award only if the same amounts to a violation of public policy.

The court shall not set aside or vacate the award of the arbitral tribunal merely on the ground that the arbitral tribunal committed errors of fact, or of law, or of fact and law, as the court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the arbitral tribunal.

Rule 19.11. Rule on judicial review of foreign arbitral award. - The court can deny recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award only upon the grounds provided in Article V of the New York Convention, but shall have no power to vacate or set aside a foreign arbitral award.

27 See footnote 9.

28 Tuna Processing, Inc v. Philippine Kingford, Inc, G.R. No. 185582, 29 February 2012.

29 Department of Environment and Natural Resources v. United Planners Consultants, Inc, G.R. No. 212081, 23 February 2015.

30 RCBC Capital Corporation v. Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc, G.R. No. 196171, 10 December 2012.

31 Lanuza Jr v. BR Corporation, et al, G.R. No. 174938, 1 October 2014.

32 Maria Luisa Park Association, Inc v. Almendras, G.R. No. 171763, 5 June 2009, with citation to Malcolm J's dissent in Vega v. San Carlos Milling Co, G.R. No. 21549, 22 October 1924.