Natural resources and Environmental Law case digest
Digested for Remlaw ReviewFull description
Criminal Law 1
Case Digest - Gatchalian vs. CIR GR 4542 BY CDD
digestFull description
NPC v Provincial Treasurer of Benguet GR No 209303Full description
Case digestFull description
Full description
International Law, Treaties, International Agreement, Constitutional Law
CrimFull description
Evidence Case DigestFull description
GR NO. 163101 Benguet Corporation vs. DENR
FACTS Benguet Corporation (“Benguet”) and J.G. Realty and Mining (“J.G. Realty”) entered into a Royalty Agreement with Option to Purha!e (“RA"OP”)# wherein J.G. Realty wa! a$nowledged a! the owner o% %our mining laim! o&ered 'y Mineral Prodution haring Agreement (“MPA”) Appliation Appliation o. APA*+*,,,APA*+*,,,- ointly %iled %iled 'y J.G. Realty a! laimowner and Benguet a! operator. /he RA"OP# RA"OP# among among other!# pro&ide that “any di!pute! 0 0 0 'etween Benguet and 1J.G. Realty2 with with re%erene to anything what!oe&er pertaining pertaining to 1the RA"OP2 RA"OP2 0 0 0 !hall not 'e au!e o% any ation 0 0 0 in any ourt or admini!trati&e ageny 'ut !hall 0 0 0 'e re%erred to a Board o% Ar'itrator! on!i!ting on!i!ting o% three (3) mem'er!# one to 'e !eleted 'y Benguet# another to 'e !eleted 'y ' y 1J.G. Realty2 and the third to 'e !eleted 'y the a%orementioned two ar'itrator! !o appointed.” J.G. Realty !u'!e4uently in%ormed Benguet that it wa! terminating the RA"OP 'y rea!on o% Benguet5! %ailure to omply with it! o'ligation! thereunder. thereunder. J.G. Realty !ought the anellation o% the RA"OP# RA"OP# %iling %iling a petition %or thi! purpo!e with the Panel o% Ar'itrator! (“POA”) ha&ing territorial uri!dition o&er the mining mining area in&ol&ed. 6n it! 7ei!ion# the POA delared the RA"OP anelled. Benguet then %iled a notie o% appeal with the MAB. /he dei!ion wa! a%%irmed on appeal to the Mine! Adudiation Board (“MAB”). Benguet ontended that the i!!ue rai!ed r ai!ed 'y the J.G. Realty !hould ha&e 'een rai!ed %ir!t with the ar'itration 'e%ore POA too$ ogni8ane o% the a!e.
ISSE "O the ontro&er!y !hould ha&e %ir!t 'een !u'mitted to ar'itration 'e%ore the POA
!E"D 9:. e. ; o% RA <=> eluidate! the !ope o% ar'itration? etion ;. Persons and matters subject to arbitration. /wo /wo or more per!on! or partie! may !u'mit to the ar'itration o% one or more ar'itrator! any ontro&er!y e0i!ting 'etween them at the time o% the !u'mi!!ion and whih may 'e the !u'et o% an ation# or the partie! to any ontrat may in !uh ontrat agree to !ettle 'y ar'itration a ontro&er!y therea%ter ari!ing 'etween them. uh !u'mi!!ion or ontrat !hall 'e &alid# en%orea'le and irre&oa'le# !a&e upon !uh ground! a! e0i!t at law %or the re&oation o% any ontrat. 6n RA -;<@ or the Alternati&e 7i!pute Re!olution At o% ;,,# the Congre!! reiterated the e%%iay o% ar'itration a! an alternati&e mode o% di!pute re!olution 'y !tating in e. 3; thereo% that dome!ti ar'itration !hall !till 'e go&erned 'y RA <=>. Clearly# a ontratual !tipulation that re4uire! prior re!ort to &oluntary ar'itration 'e%ore the partie! an go diretly to ourt i! not illegal and i! in %at promoted 'y the tate.
G.R. No. 1#6$%3& %' August %013 ASIAN COR(ORATION vs. S)ITO)O COR(ORATION
FACTS Petitioner %iled a omplaint 'e%ore the Con!trution 6ndu!try Ar'itration Commi!!ion (C6AC) again!t Re!pondent %or alleged lo!!e! and reim'ur!ement! amounting to D-M and attorneyE! %ee! o% PhP ;M to whih Re!pondent !et up a ounterlaim amounting to PhP F,M. An Ar'itral Ar'itral /ri'unal wa! wa! on!tituted and it rendered a Partial Award di!mi!!ing di!mi!!ing the laim! and ounterlaim! o% 'oth partie! %or 'eing time*'arred under ew 9or$ tate aw# the agreed go&erning law. Petitioner %iled a Petition %or Re&iew Re&iew 'e%ore the Court o% Appeal! under Rule 3 (Hir!t Petition) !ee$ing the re&er!al o% the Partial Award. "hile the Hir!t Petition wa! wa! pending# the Ar'itral /ri'unal /ri'unal ordered 'oth partie! to !u'mit proo% o% o!t! and attorneyE! %ee! inurred due to the ar'itration proeeding!. Re!pondent omplied 'ut Petitioner did not and in!tead %iled an Oppo!ition again!t the laim! %or o!t! 'y Re!pondent. /he Ar'itral /ri'unal /ri'unal did not at on the Oppo!ition 'eau!e it treated it a! a Motion %or Reon!ideration o% the Partial Award Award whih wa! a prohi'ited pleading under the C6AC Rule!. /he Ar'itral /ri'unal /ri'unal rendered a Hinal Award Award granting attorneyE! %ee! in %a&or %or Re!pondent# rea!oning that Re!pondent wa! merely %ored to litigate to de%end it! intere!t. Aggrie&ed# Petitioner %iled 'e%ore the Court o% Appeal! Appeal! another Petition %or Re&iew under Rule 3 (eond Petition) a!!ailing# thi! time# time# the Hinal Award. Award. /he Court o% Appeal! di!mi!!ed the Hir!t Petition on the ground o% %orum !hopping 'ut ga&e due our!e to the eond Petition. 6n deiding the eond Petition# the the Court o% Appeal! Appeal! modi%ied the Hinal Award 'y deleting the attorneyE! %ee! awarded to Re!pondent. Petitioner %iled a petition %or ertiorari under Rule >@ to !et a!ide the denial o% the Hir!t Petition while Re!pondent %iled a !eparate petition %or ertiorari to a!!ail the modi%iation made in the eond eond Petition. /he a!e! were on!olidated 'e%ore the upreme Court.
ISSES 1. 2.
"O the di!mi!!al o% the Petition %or Re&iew o% a Partial Award o% the Ar'itral /ri'unal /ri'unal on the ground o% %orum !hopping proper "O Court o% Appeal! an modi%y a %inal and non*appeala'le non*app eala'le award o% the Ar'itral /ri'unal
!E"D F. 9e!. 9e!. /he upreme upreme Court Court enumera enumerated ted three three way! way! 'y whih whih %orum %orum !hopping !hopping an 'e ommitted? (a) 'y %iling multiple a!e! with !ame au!e o% ation and prayer when neither o% the a!e! %iled ha! yet 'een terminatedI (') 'y %iling multiple a!e! with the !ame au!e o% ation and prayer when one a!e ha! already 'een %inally re!ol&edI and () 'y %iling multiple a!e! with the !ame au!e o% ation 'ut with di%%erent prayer! %or relie%.
/he %iling o% the Hir!t Petition 'e%ore the Court o% Appeal! and the Oppo!ition 'e%ore the Ar'itral /ri'unal /ri'unal when 'oth were !till pending on!tituted on!tituted %orum !hopping under the %ir!t mode. /hi! i! true e&en i% one wa! not a ourt 'ut an ar'itral ar'itral tri'unal# !ine the Petitioner wa! a!$ing %or the !ame relie%**the rel ie%**the re&er!al o% the Partial Award. ;. 9e!. 9e!. /he upreme upreme Court Court ruled ruled that notwith!ta notwith!tanding nding a !tatem !tatement ent in the the law (:.O. (:.O. F,,<) F,,<) that the dei!ion o% the C6AC ar'itral tri'unal !hall 'e %inal and non*appeala'le# the !ame i! !till !u'et to udiial re&iew. Court! may ta$e ogni8ane o% the a!e when there i! a !howing o% (F) want o% uri!dition# (;) &iolation o% due proe!!# proe!!# (3) denial o% !u'!tantial u!tie# u!tie# or () erroneou! interpretation o% the law. law. /hi! i! !antioned 'oth 'y Rule 3 o% the Rule! o% Court Court and the C6AC Re&i!ed Rule! whih pro&ide that dei!ion! o% the C6AC ar'itral tri'unal! may 'e appealed to the Court o% Appeal! on 4ue!tion! o% %at# law or mi0ed 4ue!tion! o% %at and law. ine the Ar'itral /ri'unal /ri'unal made an erroneou! interpretation o% the law# the Court o% Appeal! wa! u!ti%ied in modi%ying modi%ying the Hinal Award. Award.
