Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 54 views

    Frabelle Vs Phil ADR

    Uploaded by

    fay garneth buscato
    The document discusses a dispute between Frabelle Properties Corporation and several corporations organized under Philippine law. In 1996, the corporations entered an agreement to develop a 45-story office building. Frabelle was later assigned rights to Unit 38-B. A dispute arose regarding contractual obligations. Frabelle referred the matter to arbitration but the corporations refused. The corporations then filed a petition to prohibit arbitration, which was denied. The main issue is whether the parties must initially resort to arbitration as their agreements mandate disputes be resolved through arbitration according to International Chamber of Commerce rules.

    Copyright:

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

    Frabelle Vs Phil ADR

    Uploaded by

    fay garneth buscato
    54 views2 pages
    The document discusses a dispute between Frabelle Properties Corporation and several corporations organized under Philippine law. In 1996, the corporations entered an agreement to develop a 45-story office building. Frabelle was later assigned rights to Unit 38-B. A dispute arose regarding contractual obligations. Frabelle referred the matter to arbitration but the corporations refused. The corporations then filed a petition to prohibit arbitration, which was denied. The main issue is whether the parties must initially resort to arbitration as their agreements mandate disputes be resolved through arbitration according to International Chamber of Commerce rules.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Frabelle vs Phil ADR

    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 document discusses a dispute between Frabelle Properties Corporation and several corporations organized under Philippine law. In 1996, the corporations entered an agreement to develop a 45-story office building. Frabelle was later assigned rights to Unit 38-B. A dispute arose regarding contractual obligations. Frabelle referred the matter to arbitration but the corporations refused. The corporations then filed a petition to prohibit arbitration, which was denied. The main issue is whether the parties must initially resort to arbitration as their agreements mandate disputes be resolved through arbitration according to International Chamber of Commerce rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    54 views2 pages

    Frabelle Vs Phil ADR

    Uploaded by

    fay garneth buscato
    The document discusses a dispute between Frabelle Properties Corporation and several corporations organized under Philippine law. In 1996, the corporations entered an agreement to develop a 45-story office building. Frabelle was later assigned rights to Unit 38-B. A dispute arose regarding contractual obligations. Frabelle referred the matter to arbitration but the corporations refused. The corporations then filed a petition to prohibit arbitration, which was denied. The main issue is whether the parties must initially resort to arbitration as their agreements mandate disputes be resolved through arbitration according to International Chamber of Commerce rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Frabelle vs Phil.

    American Life
    The respondents in this case are all corporations duly organized and existing under the
    Philippine laws.

    On May 8, 1996, respondents entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (1996


    MOA) whereby each agreed to contribute cash, property, and services for the
    construction and development of Philamlife Tower, a 45-storey office condominium
    along Paseo de Roxas, Makati City.

    On December 6, 1996, respondents executed a Deed of Assignment (1996


    DOA) wherein they assigned to Frabelle Properties Corporation (Frabelle) their rights
    and obligations under the 1996 MOA with respect to the construction, development, and
    subsequent ownership of Unit No. 38-B located at the 38 th floor of Philamlife Tower. The
    parties also stipulated that the assignee shall be deemed as a co-developer of the
    construction project with respect to Unit No. 38-B.

    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

    therefore, expected to abide by it in good faith. 15


    This Court has previously held that arbitration is one of the alternative methods of dispute resolution
    that is now rightfully vaunted as "the wave of the future" in international relations, and is recognized
    worldwide. To brush aside a contractual agreement calling for arbitration in case of disagreement
    between the parties would therefore be a step backward. 16

    Korea Tech.

    You might also like