The International Arbitration Review: Philippines


i International and domestic commercial arbitration

International and domestic commercial arbitrations in the Philippines are primarily governed by Republic Act (RA) No. 9285 or the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 (the ADR Act) and RA No. 876 or the Arbitration Law (the Arbitration Law).2 The Philippines, through the ADR Act, has also adopted the 21 June 1985 Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the Model Law) of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) to govern international commercial arbitrations,3 as well as the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the NY Convention) for the enforcement and recognition of foreign arbitral awards covered by the said Convention.4 The Department of Justice then issued Department Circular No. 98 or the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the ADR Act (the ADR Act IRR).

An arbitration is considered 'international' under Article 1(3) of the Model Law if: (1) the parties to an arbitration agreement have, at the time of the conclusion of that agreement, their places of business in different states; or (2) the place of arbitration, or place where a substantial part of the obligations is to be performed, is situated outside the state in which the parties have their places of business; and (3) the parties have expressly agreed that the subject matter of the arbitration agreement relates to more than one country.5

Conversely, 'domestic arbitration' is defined as an 'arbitration that is not international'.6 While domestic arbitration in the Philippines is primarily governed by the Arbitration Law, the ADR Act made certain provisions of the Model Law involving the validity of arbitration agreements, composition of the arbitral tribunal, as well as the conduct and termination of arbitral proceedings applicable to it.7 The principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz under Article 16 of the Model Law was noticeably not made expressly applicable to domestic arbitrations. However, the principle was incorporated under the ADR Act IRR8 and adopted as a policy under the Philippine Supreme Court's Administrative Matter No. 076-11-08-SC (the Special ADR rules).9

ii Structure of arbitration proceedings

Consistent with the principle of party autonomy,10 parties are at liberty to choose their mode of arbitration in resolving any dispute, whether ad hoc or institutional. Ad hoc arbitration in the Philippines can refer to arbitrations administered by the parties themselves, or even by an institution that is not a permanent or regular arbitration institution in the Philippines.11

On the other hand, institutional arbitration refers to one administered by a domestic entity registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and engaged in the arbitration of disputes in the Philippines on a regular and permanent basis.12 The Philippine Dispute Resolution Center, Inc (PDRCI) remains the primary arbitral institution that administers arbitration proceedings in the country. More recently, however, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines established the Philippine International Center for Conflict Resolution (PICCR) in an effort to provide efficient and effective dispute resolution services through its nationwide network.13

The Philippines also has specialised arbitration bodies that deal with the resolution of disputes arising from specific industries. The Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) remains the main arbitration machinery for construction disputes covered by arbitration agreements.14 State agencies have similarly developed arbitration programmes, such as arbitration under the Intellectual Property Office (in cooperation with the PDRCI), which covers intellectual property disputes,15 as well the arbitration under the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market16 for energy-related inter partes disputes.

iii Composition of arbitral tribunal

In domestic arbitrations, the default arbitrator qualifications under the Arbitration Law are the following: (1) being of legal age; (2) full-enjoyment of their civil rights; and (3) the ability to read and write.17 On the other hand, for international commercial arbitration, the Model Law does not prescribe a list of qualifications, but merely states that no person shall be precluded by reason of his or her nationality from acting as an arbitrator.18 In any event, parties can, through stipulation, tailor-fit the tribunal's composition to the nature of their dispute,19 and may opt to have a specialised dispute resolved by experts on the subject.20

It is usual practice, however, for members of the legal profession in the Philippines to be appointed as a member of an arbitral tribunal in an effort to prevent a perceived 'risk that an arbitrator might misapply the law or misappreciate the facts en route to an erroneous decision'.21

Specialised institutions provide specific qualifications under their governing law and rules. Arbitrators appointed for CIAC arbitrations, for instance,22 are prescribed to be CIAC-accredited, and engender confidence from the business sector, particularly the stakeholders of the construction industry and the government. These include engineers, architects, construction managers, engineering consultants and businessmen familiar with the construction industry and lawyers who are experienced in construction disputes. As of January 2017, only 33 out of the 87 CIAC-accredited arbitrators are lawyers.23 PDRCI, on the other hand, maintains a pool of accredited arbitrators composed of lawyers, doctors and engineers who undergo PDRCI-administered training.24

iv Extent of court intervention

The Philippines adopts a policy of minimal court intervention in arbitrations based on respect to party autonomy,25 which tempered the interventionist approach prior to the enactment of the ADR Act.26 Nonetheless, the Philippine Regional Trial Court (the Court)27 performs assistive and supervisory functions in aid of domestic arbitrations28 and international commercial arbitrations where the seat of arbitration is the Philippines.29

In its supervisory function,30 the Court may provide judicial relief before the commencement of any arbitration by determining the existence, validity and enforceability of an arbitration agreement,31 subject to the exercise of judicial restraint consistent with the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle.32 After commencement of arbitration, the Court may also provide judicial relief on any ruling by an arbitral tribunal on a preliminary question upholding or declining its jurisdiction33 if it finds the arbitration agreement invalid, non-existent or unenforceable,34 except when the arbitral tribunal defers any ruling on a preliminary jurisdictional question until final award.35

The Court also provides the following assistive functions36 in arbitrations:

  1. referral of a dispute to alternative dispute resolution, where direct resort to the Court is made, in violation of an arbitration agreement;37
  2. issuance of interim measures of protection, such as injunctions, attachments, receivership and enforcement assistance,38 subject always to the primacy of the authority of an arbitral tribunal to either modify, amend, revise or revoke any such interim measure;39
  3. acting as appointing authority in limited instances;40
  4. ruling on any challenge to the appointment of the arbitrator, in case an appointing authority fails or refuses to act on any such challenge;41
  5. termination of the mandate of an arbitrator in case the latter becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform his or her functions;42
  6. assist in taking evidence when the need arises,43 which may involve directing any party to:
    • comply with a subpoena ad testificandum or subpoena duces tecum;
    • appear as a witness before an officer for the taking of his or her deposition upon oral examination or by written interrogatories;
    • allow the physical examination of the condition of persons, or the inspection of things or premises and, when appropriate, to allow the recording or documentation of condition of persons, things or premises (i.e., photographs, video and other means of recording or documentation); and
    • allow the examination and copying of documents; and perform any similar acts;44 and
  7. issue confidentiality or protective orders, in case a party, counsel or witness was compelled during arbitration to disclose information under circumstances that create a reasonable expectation that the information would be kept confidential.45

v Recognition, enforcement and vacation of arbitral awards

The Philippines adopts a policy in favour of enforcement of arbitral awards. Domestic and foreign arbitral awards covered by the NY Convention (Convention Awards), as well as those issued in international commercial arbitrations (ICA Awards), enjoy the presumption that they were made and released in due course of arbitration and are subject to confirmation by the Court.46

Convention and ICA arbitral awards

Convention awards and ICA awards, which are respectively governed by Article V of the NY Convention47 and Article 34 of the Model Law,48 may be refused recognition (in case of Convention Awards), or vacated, set aside or annulled based on substantially similar grounds, particularly:

  1. the parties to the arbitration agreement were, under the law applicable to them, under some incapacity; or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made;
  2. the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his or her case;
  3. the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, that part of the award which contains decisions on matters submitted to arbitration may be recognised and enforced;
  4. the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place; or49
  5. the award has not yet become binding on the parties or has been set aside or suspended by a court of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made.

Convention Awards may also be refused recognition or enforcement, and ICA Awards vacated or set aside based on the following grounds: (1) the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of the Philippines; or (2) the recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of the Philippines.

Non-convention awards

Foreign arbitral awards made in a state that is not a signatory to the NY Convention can only be treated and enforced as a Convention Award if there is proof of comity and reciprocity between the said state and the Philippines.50 Otherwise, the same can only be deemed presumptive evidence of a right between the parties.51

Domestic arbitral awards

The grounds to vacate and set aside domestic arbitral awards were limited by the ADR Act to those enumerated under Section 24 of the Arbitration Law,52 particularly:

  1. the award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means;
  2. there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators or any of them;
  3. 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;
  4. that one or more of the arbitrators was disqualified to act as such under Section 9 hereof, and willfully refrained from disclosing such disqualifications or of any other misbehaviour by which the rights of any party have been materially prejudiced; or
  5. 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.

However, the Special ADR Rules53 and Philippine jurisprudence54 lifted the grounds to vacate under Article 34 of the Model Law, as indicated in the prior enumeration, and made them applicable to domestic arbitration. As well, while the Philippines generally adopts a policy that prevents a merits review of arbitral awards,55 Philippine jurisprudence has allowed the vacation of domestic arbitral awards based on 'manifest disregard of the law'.56 The Supreme Court has considered this ground a narrow standard of review, which requires that an arbitral tribunal 'clearly and unequivocally violate an established legal precedent'.57

The year in review

In recent years, technological innovations and the increase in facilities and institutions for ADR have made arbitration a better alternative to court litigation. An example is the recent establishment of PICCR,58 which is expected to make the conduct of arbitration proceedings more accessible in the same town or province where parties reside or have their places of business.59

Arbitration has also been preferred by foreign companies with commercial disputes.60 The relative swiftness of the proceedings allows businesses to focus their efforts on their respective enterprise and not be implicated in protracted court litigation. Likewise, confidentiality of the proceedings and the non-availability of a merits review of awards have contributed to the preference of arbitration by the parties. Parties understand that involvement in conflict, let alone a protracted dispute, creates a negative public perception.61 Considerations of swiftness and confidentiality have overall encouraged parties to resort to arbitration instead of traditional court litigation.

i Pandemic response

The covid-19 pandemic naturally affected recent arbitral practice. For instance, travel restrictions and social distancing measures in the Philippines spurred parties, witnesses, arbitral tribunals and arbitration counsels to dispense with in-person arbitration hearings and adopt the use of online video conferencing for their proceedings not only for preliminary hearings (i.e., case management or preliminary conferences), but also for trial and presentation of evidence.

Significantly, this has increased the accessibility of ADR institutions to parties.62 Courts, institutions and practitioners have undeniably witnessed the feasibility and effectivity of doing remote and virtual hearings. It is convenient, timesaving, cost-efficient, and, more importantly, has made arbitration dispute resolution more accessible to parties, especially those residing abroad. Given the convenience of conducting arbitration proceedings remotely and electronically, it can be anticipated that these practices would be maintained or even become preferred modes of conducting arbitration in the Philippines.

ii Arbitration of intra-corporate disputes

In 2019, RA No. 11232 or the Revised Corporation Code was enacted, with the innovation that articles of incorporation or by-laws of a corporation may now include an arbitration agreement to resolve intra-corporate disputes such as those 'between the corporation, its stockholders or members, which arise from the implementation of the articles of incorporation or by-laws, or from intra-corporate relations'.63 Arbitral awards issued in intra-corporate arbitration shall bind 'the corporation, its directors, trustees, officers, and executives or managers'.64

The Revised Corporation Code, however, has minimum requirements for the enforceability of arbitral clauses in the corporate charter, particularly:

  1. it should indicate the number of arbitrators and procedure for appointment;
  2. the power to appoint members of the arbitral tribunal must be granted to a 'designated independent third party';
  3. should such third party fail to make the appointment, parties can request the Securities and Exchange Commission to appoint the arbitrators; and
  4. arbitrators must be accredited or must belong to organisations accredited for the purpose of arbitration.65

Before the issuance of the Revised Corporation Code, the avenue to litigate intra-corporate disputes remained with special commercial courts. Special commercial courts, however, are now required to dismiss intra-corporate cases when initiated in violation of an arbitration clause incorporated in the corporation's articles of incorporation, by-laws, or a separate agreement.66 While decisions of the special commercial courts in intra-corporate cases are immediately executory,67 arbitral awards under intra-corporate arbitrations become executory after the lapse of 15 days from receipt by the parties, and are vulnerable to being stayed by the filing of a bond or an injunctive writ issued by an appellate court.68

iii 2021 PDRCI Arbitration Rules

The 2015 PDRCI Arbitration Rules were recently amended by the 2021 PDRCI Arbitration Rules. Among the significant amendments include:

  1. a provision that arbitrators who make disclosures on circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts to their impartiality do not impliedly admit their lack of independence or impartiality;69
  2. a requirement that each party inform PDRCI, the arbitral tribunal, and other parties of the existence and identity of any third party who has entered an arrangement for the funding of claims or defences, under which it has an economic interest in the outcome of the arbitration;70
  3. a shortened period within which the PDRCI shall decide a challenge on the arbitrator from 30 days to five days;71
  4. the inclusion of a file counsel72 and a tribunal secretary;73
  5. a procedure for summary disposition, which shall be done by the tribunal in the form of an order or award within 60 days from the allowance of the application, or such further time that may be allowed by PDRCI; and
  6. a procedure for the production of evidence, and the sanctions that may be imposed upon a party who unjustly fails or refuses to comply with the order or agreement to produce evidence, or any attempt to delay or defeat the production of evidence or to overwhelm the requesting party with irrelevant or immaterial evidence.74

iv Survey of recent developments in Philippine jurisprudence

Recent decisions of the Supreme Court continue to strengthen the state policy of favouring arbitration, recognising that arbitration plays a great role in attracting foreign investors to do business in the country and consequently boosting the economy,75 and consistently sustain, among others, fairness and confidentiality in arbitration proceedings.

In Hygenic Packaging Corp v. Nutri-Asia, Inc, GR No. 201302, 23 January 2019, the arbitration clause was only in the terms and conditions of the purchase orders covering each transaction. Although the Supreme Court did not give effect to the arbitration clause as provided for in the purchase order, as the same was not properly signed by the parties, it nevertheless recognised the existence and the validity of having an arbitration clause in a purchase order in the absence of a main contract provided that there is an unequivocal agreement between the parties to submit the dispute to arbitration.

In Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Limited v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc, 804 SCRA 203 (2017), the Supreme Court held that a party may be compelled to arbitrate pursuant to the Rules of the Protection and Indemnity Club, which were merely incorporated in the insurance policy by reference. The Supreme Court held that '[a]n 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'.

In another doctrine that has undisputedly paved the way for sustaining most arbitration clauses – the doctrine of separability – the Supreme Court explains that the validity of the contract containing the arbitration agreement does not affect the validity of the arbitration agreement itself.76 In Dupasquier v. Ascendas (Philippines Corporation), GR No. 211044, 24 July 2019, however, the Supreme Court qualified that the doctrine of separability is not to be applied in time-limited contracts. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that an arbitration clause incorporated in a memorandum of understanding (MOU), which is a preparatory contract that expired even before the intended memorandum of agreement (MOA) could be executed, did not survive such expiry, and cannot be invoked to refer a dispute to arbitration. The Supreme Court held that the 'parties intended that the happening of the date certain would give no effect to all parts of the MOU, including the Arbitration Clause'. This ruling, however, according to the Supreme Court, 'should not be understood as abandoning the doctrine of separability, but merely giving way to the manifest intention of the contracting parties'.

A recent Supreme Court ruling allowed a dispute based, among others, on tort to be the subject of arbitration. In Strickland v. Ernst & Young LLP, GR No. 193782, 1 August 2018, which involved a claim by Dale Strickland for renumeration against Ernst & Young LLP, among others, for services rendered, the Supreme Court ruled that 'even considering Strickland's allegations of tortious conduct, [the case] was properly referred to arbitration'. The Supreme Court, using the standards provided for under the Model Law, said that the claim for compensation is a 'commercial' dispute. In ruling that the claim is commercial, the Supreme Court held that '[t]he explanatory footnote to Article 1(l) of the Model Law explains that [t]he term “commercial” should be given a wide interpretation so as to cover matters arising from all relationships of a commercial nature, whether contractual or not'.

In Busan Universal Rail, Inc vs. Department of Transportation-Metro Rail Transit 3, GR No. 235878, 26 February 2020, which involved a national government project, the Supreme Court held that while regional trial courts have the power under the ADR act to grant interim or provisional relief to parties in an arbitration case prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, such power must give way to Republic Act No. 897577 which prohibits courts, except the Supreme Court, from issuing temporary restraining orders or writs of preliminary injunction in cases involving national government projects.

Two recent court rulings clarified 'contrary to public policy' as a ground to vacate an arbitral award.

In Metro Bottled Water Corp v. Andrada Construction & Development Corp Inc, GR No. 202430, 6 March 2019, the Supreme Court restrained itself from disturbing the factual findings of the arbitral tribunal absent any proof that the integrity of the arbitral tribunal has been compromised and refused to vacate an award based on public policy considerations. The Supreme Court noted that prior cases considering 'public policy' pertained to the declaration of a contract, or parts of it, as void.78 The Supreme Court even recognised that the term 'contrary to public policy' has 'divergent approaches in defining [it] in the realm of international arbitration, [and] has become one of the most controversial bases for refusing enforcement of foreign arbitral awards'.79

However, in Mabuhay Holdings Corporation v. Sembcorp Logistics Limited, 888 SCRA 364 (2018), the Supreme Court finally settled the limitations of the 'contrary to public policy' as a ground to refuse enforcement of an arbitral award. The Supreme Court, similar to what most arbitral jurisdictions have done, adopted the narrow approach in determining the same. The Supreme Court ruled that for an arbitral award to be declared contrary to public policy, '[t]he illegality or immorality of the award must reach a certain threshold such that, enforcement of the same would be against [the] State's fundamental tenets of justice and morality, or would blatantly be injurious to the public, or the interests of the society'. Failure to meet such standards, the courts are ought to enforce the foreign arbitral award.

A recent court ruling clarified 'evident partiality' as a ground to vacate an arbitral award. In Tri-Mark Foods, Inc vs. Gintong Pansit, ATBP, Inc et al., GR No. 215664, 14 September 2021, the Supreme Court emphasised that the standard of evident partiality:

requires a showing that a reasonable person would have to conclude that an arbitrator was partial to one party to the arbitration, where proof of such interest, bias or partiality is direct, definite and capable of demonstration rather than remote, uncertain or speculative and ascertained from such record as is available demonstrating the arbitrator's conduct as being so biased and prejudiced as to destroy fundamental fairness

In this case, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals and regional trial court by stating that the mere act of an arbitrator in disregarding certain documentary or testimonial evidence presented by a party, on its own, is tantamount to evident partiality that would be a ground to vacate an arbitral award. It was made clear that evident partiality of an arbitrator 'cannot be deduced from the latter's interpretation of facts and law'.

v Investor–state disputes

The Philippines is party to at least 30 bilateral investment treaties in force that incorporate an arbitration clause, allowing foreign investors to resort to investor–state dispute settlement before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).80 One dispute has recently been brought and is pending before the ICSID by Shell Philippines, an investor with its home state in the Netherlands. The dispute involves the Philippine government's order for payment of 53.14 billion Philippine pesos (US$1.1 billion) in income taxes imposed on the Malampaya consortium that operates a natural gas development project in the West Philippine Sea.81

Outlook and conclusions

Arbitration in the Philippines is demonstrably growing and is slowly becoming a more popular alternative for practitioners and parties to resolve disputes. The physical and virtual expansion of the facilities and services of ADR institutions have significantly made ADR a more appealing forum. Spurred by necessary responses to the pandemic, ADR institutions in the Philippines have been more innovative and technology-friendly and have been able to accommodate virtual hearings and use features like breakout rooms, when parties or the arbitrators need to confer, or screen sharing, which has been proven to be most useful when presenting a witness and identifying documentary evidence.

The accessibility of ADR in the Philippines is complemented by the policies of the state and the rulings of the Supreme Court, and the active role played by ADR institutions and arbitration practitioners. The Supreme Court has recognised the effect of having an effective ADR system and that policies in favour of arbitration can only resolve the long-standing problem of clogged court dockets and also attract foreign investors to do business in the country that would ultimately boost the economy.82 It is therefore expected that international and domestic commercial arbitration will continue to develop in the Philippines.


1 Ruth Nichole R Ureta and Fritzzie Lyn F Español are partners, and Via Monina C Valdepeñas is a senior associate at Villaraza & Angangco (V&A Law).

2 Section 32, ADR Act.

3 Section 19, ADR Act.

4 Section 42, ADR Act.

5 See: Strickland v. Ernst & Young LLP, GR No. 193782, 1 August 2018.

6 Section 32, ADR Act.

7 Section 33, ADR Act; see also Articles 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19 and 29 to 32 of the Model Law.

8 Article 5.15, ADR Act IRR.

9 Rule 2.4, Special ADR Rules.

10 Section 2, ADR Act.

11 Article 1.6 (D)(3), Rule 2 of the ADR Act IRR.

12 Article 1.10 (D)(3), Rule 2 of the ADR Act IRR.

13 See 'About Us', accessible at: (last accessed 9 April 2021).

14 See Executive Order No. 1008 dated 4 February 1985. However, unlike other arbitral institutions, Section 19 of Executive Order No. 1008 and Section 18.4, Revised Rules of Procedure of CIAC expressly allowed the appeal of CIAC arbitral awards to the Court of Appeals on questions of law.

15 See Intellectual Property Office Order No. 061-11 dated 5 April 2011.

16 See Department of Energy Department Circular No. DC2002-06-003 dated 28 June 2002.

17 Section 10, Arbitration Law.

18 Article 11, Model Law.

19 Section 10, Arbitration Law.

20 Fruehauf Electronics Philippines Corporation v. Technology Electronics Assembly and Management Pacific Corporation, 810 SCRA 280 (2016).

21 ibid.

22 Section 8.1, CIAC Revised Rules of Procedure Governing Construction.

23 CE Construction Corporation v. Araneta Center, Inc, 836 SCRA 181 (2017) citing (last accessed on 29 March 2021).

25 Rule 2.1, Special ADR Rules.

26 See ME Valderrama, Approaches to Court Involvement in Arbitration, The PHILJA Judicial Journal, 2006, Volume 8(25), p. 59.

27 Article 1.6 (A)(9), ADR Act IRR.

28 Article 5.5, ADR Act IRR.

29 Article 4.1, ADR Act IRR.

30 See p. 59, Valderrama, footnote 26.

31 Rule 3.2, Special ADR Rules.

32 Rule 3.8, Special ADR Rules.

33 Rule 3.12, Special ADR Rules.

34 Rule 3.15, Special ADR Rules.

35 Rule 3.20, Special ADR Rules.

36 See pp. 66–75, Valderrama, footnote 26.

37 Rule 4.1, Special ADR Rules.

38 Rule 5.6, Special ADR Rules.

39 Rules 5.13 to 5.15, Special ADR Rules.

40 Rule 6.1, Special ADR Rules.

41 Rule 7.2, Special ADR Rules.

42 Rule 8.1, Special ADR Rules.

43 Rule 9.2, Special ADR Rules.

44 Rule 9.5, Special ADR Rules.

45 Rule 10.1, Special ADR Rules.

46 Rules 11.9, 12.12, and Rule 13.11, Special ADR Rules.

47 Section 45, ADR Act.

48 Section 19, ADR Act.

49 Note the slightly different language under Article 34(iv) of the Model Law, which provides: '(iv) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Law from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Law . . .' (emphasis added).

50 Section 44, ADR Act.

51 Article 4.36, ADR Act IRR; see also Rule 13.12, Special ADR Rules.

52 Section 41, ADR Act.

53 Rule 19.10, Special ADR Rules.

54 Fruehauf Electronics Philippines Corporation v. Technology Electronics Assembly and Management Pacific Corporation, see footnote 20.

55 Rule 19.17, Special ADR Rules.

56 Asset Privatization Trust v. Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 579 (1998).

57 Equitable PCI Bank Corporation v. RCBC Capital Corp., 574 SCRA 585 (2008).

58 (last accessed on 29 March 2021).

59 ibid.

60 Mabuhay Holdings Corporation v. Sembcorp Logistics Limited, 888 SCRA 364 (2018).

61 See Federal Express Corporation and Rhicke Jennings v. Airfreight 2100, Inc and Alberto D. Lina, 809 SCRA 382 (2016).

62 See Memorandum Circular No. 01-2020 dated 10 June 2020, entitled Guidelines on the Conduct of On-Line or Virtual Proceedings for CIAC Cases; see also Practice Note No. 1 effective 3 August 2020, entitled 'Guidelines on Online Meetings and Virtual Hearings', issued by PDRCI; see also IPOPHL Memorandum Circular No. 2020-012 dated 4 May 2020, entitled 'Supplemental Advisory on IPOPHL Services Re Mediation'; See also (last accessed on 29 March 2021).

63 Section 181, Paragraph 1, Revised Corporation Code.

64 Section 181, Paragraph 2, Revised Corporation Code.

65 Section 181, Paragraph 3, Revised Corporation Code.

66 Section 181, Paragraph 4, Revised Corporation Code.

67 Section 4, Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies.

68 Section 181, Paragraph 6, Revised Corporation Code.

69 Section 3, Article 17, 2021 PDRCI Rules.

70 Section 4, Article 17, 2021 PDRCI Rules.

71 Article 20, 2021 PDRCI Rules.

72 Article 24, 2021 PDRCI Rules.

73 Article 25, 2021 PDRCI Rules.

74 Article 39, 2021 PDRCI Rules.

75 Mabuhay Holdings Corporation v. Sembcorp Logistics Limited (see footnote 60).

76 Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd, 152 SCRA 148 (2007); Koppel, Inc v. Makati Rotary Club Foundation, 105 SCRA 142 (2013); Cargill Philippines, Inc v. San Fernando Regala Trading, Inc, 641 SCRA 31 (2011).

77 An Act to Ensure the Expeditious Implementation and Completion of Government Infrastructure Projects by Prohibiting Lower Courts From Issuing Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions or Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions, Providing Penalties For Violations Thereof, and For Other Purposes, Republic Act No. 8975, 7 November 2000.

78 See Gabriel v. Monte De Piedad, 71 Phil. 497, 500 (1941); Ferrazzini v. Gsell, 34 Phil. 697 (1916).

79 Mabuhay Holdings Corporation v. Sembcorp Logistics Limited (see footnote 60).

80 See International Investments Agreements Navigator for the Philippines, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, accessible at: (last accessed 9 April 2021).

82 Mabuhay Holdings Corporation v. Sembcorp Logistics Limited (see footnote 60).

The Law Reviews content