Frabelle Vs Phil ADR
Frabelle Vs Phil ADR
Frabelle Vs Phil ADR
American Life
The respondents in this case are all corporations duly organized and existing under the
Philippine laws.
The dispute between the parties started when petitioner found material concealment on
the part of respondents regarding certain details in the 1996 DOA and 1998 MOA and
their gross violation of their contractual obligations as condominium developers.
Dissatisfied with its existing arrangement with respondents, petitioner, on October 22,
2001, referred the matter to the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center, Inc. (PDRCI) for
arbitration. However, in a letter dated November 7, 2001, respondents manifested their
refusal to submit to PDRCI’s jurisdiction.
Respondents then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for prohibition with prayer for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, 10 docketed as CA-G.R.
SP No. 71389. Petitioner claimed, among others, that the HLURB has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the controversy and that the contracts between the parties provide for compulsory
arbitration. This was after the respondents’ plea for the outright dismissal of the present case is
denied by HLURB Arbiter Atty. Dunstan T. San Vicente.
II. Issue:
WON the parties should initially resort to arbitration?
III. Ruling:
With regard to the second and last issue, paragraph 4.2 of the 1998 MOA mandates that any dispute
between or among the parties "shall finally be settled by arbitration conducted in accordance
with the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International Chamber of
Commerce."14 Petitioner referred the dispute to the PDRCI but respondents refused to submit to its
jurisdiction.
It bears stressing that such arbitration agreement is the law between the parties. They are,
1awphi1
Korea Tech.