[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
496 views2 pages

ABS CBN Vs WINS

The CA dismissed ABS-CBN's petition for lack of jurisdiction. It ruled that the RTC, not the CA, has jurisdiction over questions relating to arbitration, including petitions to vacate an arbitral award. RA 876 mandates that the RTC has jurisdiction over arbitration matters. It also did not provide errors of fact/law or abuse of discretion as grounds for overturning an arbitral award in the RTC, so those grounds under Rules 43 and 65 cannot be used directly in the CA. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision, agreeing that the proper remedy was to file in the RTC, not directly petition the CA.

Uploaded by

Edwin Villa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
496 views2 pages

ABS CBN Vs WINS

The CA dismissed ABS-CBN's petition for lack of jurisdiction. It ruled that the RTC, not the CA, has jurisdiction over questions relating to arbitration, including petitions to vacate an arbitral award. RA 876 mandates that the RTC has jurisdiction over arbitration matters. It also did not provide errors of fact/law or abuse of discretion as grounds for overturning an arbitral award in the RTC, so those grounds under Rules 43 and 65 cannot be used directly in the CA. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision, agreeing that the proper remedy was to file in the RTC, not directly petition the CA.

Uploaded by

Edwin Villa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Badong, Vincent Steve P.

Alternative Dispute Resolution Prosecutor Velenton-Carreon

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN


vs.
WORLD INTERACTIVE NETWORK SYSTEMS (WINS) JAPAN CO., LTD.
G.R. No. 169332 February 11, 2008

Facts:
Petitioner ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN) entered into an agreement with
respondent World Interactive Network Systems (WINS). 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.

A dispute arose after petitioner accused respondent for inserting nine episodes of WINS
WEEKLY, into the TFC programming from March to May 2002, claiming that such insertions
were unauthorized thus constituting a material breach of their agreement. As a result,
petitioner notified respondent of its intention to terminate their licensing agreement.

Thereafter, respondent filed an arbitration suit pursuant to the arbitration clause of its
agreement with petitioner contending that the airing of WINS WEEKLY was made with
petitioner's prior approval. It was 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 distribution license to another entity.

The parties appointed a sole arbitrator in the person of Professor Alfredo F. Tadiar. The said
arbitrator executed a decision in favor of the respondent.

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.

The CA rendered the assailed decision dismissing ABS-CBN’s petition for lack of jurisdiction.
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.

Issue:
Whether an aggrieved party in a voluntary arbitration dispute may avail of, directly in the
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.
Badong, Vincent Steve P. Alternative Dispute Resolution Prosecutor Velenton-Carreon

Ruling:
The CA’s decision is sound. A petition for review under Rule 43 or a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 directly in the CA is NOT the proper remedy.

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.

Furthermore, RA 876 did not expressly provide that errors of fact and/or law and grave
abuse of discretion, which is the proper grounds for a petition for review under Rule 43 and
a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, Thus, it means that such ground is not acceptable for
maintaining a petition to vacate an arbitral award in the RTC. Hence, it follows that a party
may not avail of the remedies under Rule 43 and Rule 65 on the grounds of errors of fact
and/or law or grave abuse of discretion to overturn an arbitral award.

You might also like