PHILIPPINES Law and Practice Contributed by: Elaine A. Atienza and Bianca Georgia T. Paloma, Villaraza & Angangco
of further appeals to the Court of Appeals (one to three additional years) and the Supreme Court (another one to two years). For domestic arbitral awards, confir- mation proceedings before the RTC are designed to be summary in nature and are generally resolved within six months to one year, provided there is no serious challenge to the award on the limited avail- able grounds. For foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention, recognition and enforcement proceedings are similarly structured and, if unop- posed, can be completed within six months to one year. Contested proceedings take longer, and the pos- sibility of appellate review by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court means that total enforcement timelines may extend to three to five years in heavily contested cases. 9.4 Grounds for Resisting Enforcement The grounds for resisting enforcement differ depend- ing on whether the subject of enforcement is a foreign court judgment or an arbitral award. Foreign Court Judgment For foreign court judgments under the Rules of Court, a judgment debtor may resist enforcement by dem- onstrating: • lack of jurisdiction of the foreign court over the subject matter or the person of the defendant; • want of notice to the party against whom the judg- ment was rendered; • collusion between the parties; • fraud in the procurement of the judgment; or • a clear mistake of law or fact. Foreign Arbitral Awards For foreign arbitral awards, enforcement may be refused only on the grounds specified in the New York Convention: • that the arbitration agreement is invalid; • that the party against whom the award was made was not given proper notice or opportunity to pre- sent its case; • that the award exceeds the scope of the arbitration submission;
• that the composition of the arbitration authority or procedure was not in accordance with the agree- ment of the parties; or • that the award has not yet become binding or has been set aside or suspended.
10. Dispute Resolution and AI 10.1 Regulation
There is no Philippine law specifically regulating the use of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution. The Supreme Court of the Philippines has recognised the growing significance of AI in judicial processes and announced its plans to draft an AI Governance Framework for the Judiciaryin November 2024. This framework aims to set ethical standards and guide- lines for the responsible integration of AI across court operations, including human resource management, finance, security, legal research, document analysis, courtroom applications, and case management. 10.2 Impact Artificial intelligence is already having a discern- ible impact on dispute resolution in the Philippines, although the transformation is still in its early stages compared to more technologically advanced juris- dictions. Within the judiciary, the Supreme Court is developing AI-powered voice-to-text transcription systems to assist with the preparation of transcripts of stenographic notes and to facilitate the translation of testimonies from local dialects into English. The court has also begun exploring AI for case monitoring, prioritisation of aged cases, and assistance in legal research. In private practice, AI-powered document review, contract analysis, and legal research tools are increasingly adopted by law firms handling large- volume commercial and arbitration cases. These tools reduce the time and cost associated with document- intensive proceedings, such as discovery in complex intra-corporate disputes or construction arbitration. However, concerns remain about algorithmic bias, data privacy, and the accountability of AI-generated outputs in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that AI must remain a tool that enhances, rather than replaces, human judgement.
454 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook