Case digest for Puromines vs Court of Appeals
Nocon, J:
Facts: Pursuant to a contract of sale executed between Puromines Inc (petitioner and P!ilipp "rot!ers #ceanic, Inc$, (private respondent as c!arterer of %&' iliana )imitrova, * "ills of ading were executed bound for t!e Iloilo Iloilo and %anila of +,--- metric tons of prilled prilled urea$ .owever, .owever, upon reac!ing t!e port of %anila it was found out t!at t!e s!ipment (urea were alread/ contaminated wit! rust and dirt$ 0!is prompted petitioner to file an action for breac! of contract of carriage against %aritime Factors, Inc as s!ip agent !ere in t!e P!ilippines for t!e owners of %&' iliana in t!e complaint moreover private respondent P!ilipp "rot!ers "rot!ers #ceanic Inc$, Inc$, was impleaded impleaded as c!arterer of t!e said vessel$ vessel$ Private respondent, P!ilipp "rot!ers, instead of filing its answer filed a motion to dismiss on t!e ground of no cause of action$ Private respondent also avers t!at Puromines Inc$ s!ould compl/ wit! t!e arbitration clause provided for in t!e sales contract$ Facts Facts s!ow t!at t!e sales sales contract contract executed executed between Puromines Puromines Inc$, Inc$, and P!ilipp P!ilipp "rot!ers "rot!ers #ceanic, Inc$, provides for an arbitration clause w!erein it states t!at: “Any disputes arising under this contract shall be settled by arbitration in London in accordance with the Arbitration Act 1950 and any statutory amendment or modification thereof. Each party is to appoint an Arbitrator, Arbitrator, and should they be unable to agree, the decision of an mpire appointed appointed by the them be final. final. !he Arbitra Arbitrator torss and mpir mpiree are are all to be commer commerci cial al men men and resid resident ent in London London.. !his !his submission may be made a rule of of the "igh #ourt #ourt of $ustice $ustice in England by either either party.% party.% Petitioner moved to oppose t!e said motion to dismiss alleging t!at t!e arbitration clause is not applicable on t!e case because t!e complaint did not arise from t!e violation of t!e terms and conditions of t!e sales contract but rat!er for claims of cargo agreement$ 0!e trial court ruled in favor of t!e petitioner$ #n appeal, t!e CA reversed reversed t!e decision of t!e trial court and found t!at t!e arbitration clause is applicable$ .ence t!is petition$ Issue: w!et!er petitioner is bound b/ t!e arbitration clause in t!e sales contract$ 1A0I#: 2es, 2es, petitioner is bound b/ t!e arbitration clause provided for in t!e contract$ Arbitration Arbitration !as been !eld !eld valid valid and consti constitut tution ional$ al$ 3ven before before t!e enactm enactment ent of 1A no$ 456, 456, t!e 7uprem 7upremee Court Court !as countenanced t!e settlement of disputes t!roug! arbitration$ 0!e rule now is t!at unless t!e agreement is suc! absolutel/ close t!e doors of t!e courts against t!e parties, w!ic! agreement would be void, t!e courts will loo8 wit! favor upon suc! amicable arrangements and will onl/ interfere wit! great reluctance to anticipate or nullif/ t!e action of t!e arbitrator$ arbitrator$ At t!e case at bar, t!e sales contract is compre!ensive enoug! to include claims for damages arising from carriage and deliver/ of t!e goods$ Puromines, Inc derived !is rig!t to t!e cargo from t!e bill of lading w!ic! is t!e contract of affrei!tment toget!er wit! t!e sales contract$ Conse9uentl/, Conse9uentl/, Puromines is bound b/ t!e provisions provisions and terms of t!e bill of lading lading and of t!e arbitration arbitration clause$ clause$
%oreover t!e court also ruled t!at, w!et!er t!e liabilit/ of respondent s!ould be based on t!e sales contract or t!at of t!e bill of lading, t!e parties are nevert!eless obligated to respect t!e arbitration provisions on sales contract and&or t!e bill of lading$ Petitioner being a signator/ and part/ to t!e sales contract cannot escape from !is obligation under t!e arbitration clause as stated t!erein$ As pointed out in t!e case of %indanao Portland Cement Corp$ vs %c )onoug! Construction Compan/ of Florida t!e court ruled: ;it! a written provision for arbitration as well as failure on respondent
