Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    Teodoro Vega

    Uploaded by

    Lee
    The plaintiff filed a case against the defendant milling company to recover unpaid sugar or its value plus damages. The defendant argued the case should be dismissed because their contract required disputes to be resolved through arbitration. The court found the arbitration clauses valid but not a bar to litigation since no arbitration award had been issued. The clauses did not expressly or necessarily create arbitration as a condition precedent to filing a case. The court held it had proper jurisdiction over the dispute.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Teodoro Vega

    Uploaded by

    Lee
    71 views1 page
    The plaintiff filed a case against the defendant milling company to recover unpaid sugar or its value plus damages. The defendant argued the case should be dismissed because their contract required disputes to be resolved through arbitration. The court found the arbitration clauses valid but not a bar to litigation since no arbitration award had been issued. The clauses did not expressly or necessarily create arbitration as a condition precedent to filing a case. The court held it had proper jurisdiction over the dispute.

    Original Description:

    ADR CASE DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiff filed a case against the defendant milling company to recover unpaid sugar or its value plus damages. The defendant argued the case should be dismissed because their contract required disputes to be resolved through arbitration. The court found the arbitration clauses valid but not a bar to litigation since no arbitration award had been issued. The clauses did not expressly or necessarily create arbitration as a condition precedent to filing a case. The court held it had proper jurisdiction over the dispute.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    71 views1 page

    Teodoro Vega

    Uploaded by

    Lee
    The plaintiff filed a case against the defendant milling company to recover unpaid sugar or its value plus damages. The defendant argued the case should be dismissed because their contract required disputes to be resolved through arbitration. The court found the arbitration clauses valid but not a bar to litigation since no arbitration award had been issued. The clauses did not expressly or necessarily create arbitration as a condition precedent to filing a case. The court held it had proper jurisdiction over the dispute.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    TEODORO VEGA vs. THE SAN CARLOS MILLING CO.

    , LTD
    G.R. No. L-21549, October 22, 1924

    FACTS:
    Plaintiff filed an action for the recovery of 32,959 kilos of centrifugal sugar, or its value, P6,252, plus the payment of
    P500 damages and the costs. The defendants filed an answer, and set up special defenses, the first of which is at
    the same time a counterclaim.

    PROCDEDURAL HISTORY:
    The Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros that tried the case, rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

    The defendant company appealed from this judgment, and alleges that the lower court erred in having held itself with
    jurisdiction to take cognizance of and render judgment in the cause. The assignment of error is based on clause 23 of
    the Mill's covenants and clause 14 of the Planter's Covenant. Said clauses are as follows:

    23. That it (the Mill — Party of the first part) will submit and all differences that may arise between the Mill
    and the Planters to the decision of arbitrators, two of whom shall be chosen by the Mill and two by the
    Planters, who in case of inability to agree shall select a fifth arbitrator, and to respect and abide by the
    decision of said arbitrators, or any three of them, as the case may be.

    xxx xxx xxx

    14. That they (the Planters--Parties of the second part) will submit any and all differences that may arise
    between the parties of the first part and the parties of the second part of the decision of arbitrators, two of
    whom shall be chosen by the said parties of the first part and two by the said party of the second part, who
    in case of inability to agree, shall select a fifth arbitrator, and will respect and abide by the decision of said
    arbitrators, or any three of them, as the case may be.

    It is an admitted fact that the differences which arose between the parties, and which are the subject of the present
    litigation have not been submitted to the arbitration provided for in the above quoted clauses.

    Defendant contends that as such stipulations on arbitration are valid, they constitute a condition precedent, to which
    the plaintiff should have resorted before applying to the courts, as he prematurely did.

    HELD:
    The defendant is right in contending that such covenants on arbitration are valid, but they are not for the reason a bar
    to judicial action, in view of the way they are expressed: An agreement to submit to arbitration, not consummated by
    an award, is no bar to suit at law or in equity concerning the subject matter submitted. And the rule applies both in
    respect of agreements to submit existing differences and agreements to submit differences which may arise in the
    future. And in view of the terms in which the said covenants on arbitration are expressed, it cannot be held that in
    agreeing on this point, the parties proposed to establish the arbitration as a condition precedent to judicial action,
    because these clauses quoted do not create such a condition either expressly or by necessary inference.

    You might also like