PHILIPPINES Law and Practice Contributed by: Ricardo Ma P G Ongkiko, John Christian Joy A Regalado and Ma Patricia B Paz-Jacoba, SyCip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan
Based on the parties’ submissions and/or hearing, the court will thereafter decide. Foreign Arbitral Award Rule 13 of the Special ADR Rules sets out the pro - cedure for recognising and enforcing foreign arbitral awards. The procedure outlined in the foregoing is essentially the same for foreign arbitral awards. The court shall only recognise and enforce a foreign arbi - tral award made in a country that is not a signatory to the New York Convention if such country extends comity and reciprocity to awards made in the Philip - pines. The contents of the verified petition, however, are not the same as those of a petition to recognise and enforce an international commercial arbitral award. In particular, the verified petition shall contain: • the addresses of the parties to arbitration; • the country where the arbitral award was made (if not indicated in the award) and whether such country is a signatory to the New York Convention; and • the relief sought. The following should also be attached to the verified petition: • an authentic copy of the arbitration agreement; • an authentic copy of the arbitral award; and • a translation of the foreign arbitral award or agree - ment – if such award or agreement is not in Eng - lish – which should be certified by (i) an official or sworn translator or (ii) a diplomatic or consular agent. Petition to Set Aside in the Foreign Seat If a foreign arbitral award has been set aside by the courts in the foreign seat of arbitration, Philippine courts may refuse recognition and enforcement of the same. The recognition of a foreign arbitration award may be refused on exclusive grounds, including where an award has: • not yet become binding on the parties; or
• been set aside or suspended by the court in which – or under the law of which – the award was made. If there is an ongoing setting-aside proceedings at the seat, Rule 13.10 of the Special ADR Rules authorises Philippine courts, before which a petition to recognise and enforce foreign arbitral award has been filed, to adjourn or defer rendering a decision pending resolu - tion of the proceedings at the seat. State Immunity State immunity is not among the grounds to set aside or resist the enforcement of an arbitral award under the Special ADR Rules. The Supreme Court ruled in China National Machinery & Equipment Corp v San- tamaria (GR No 185572, 7 February 2012) that: • an agreement to submit any dispute to arbitration may be construed as an implicit waiver of immunity from suit; and • the doctrine of state immunity cannot be extended to commercial, private and proprietary acts. However, money claims against the government are within the primary jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit (COA). The Supreme Court ruled in Department of Environment and Natural Resources v United Plan- ners Consultants, Inc (GR No 212081, 23 February 2015) that the settlement of any money claim against the Philippine government is still subject to the pri - mary jurisdiction of the COA, despite the finality of the confirmed arbitral award by the regional trial court pursuant to the Special ADR Rules. Thus, money claims must still be approved by the COA through a petition filed before them, unless an appro - priation law was already enacted to cover the prevail - ing party’s money claim against the government. Sig - nificantly, the Supreme Court ruled in a 2022 case that the COA cannot relitigate and re-examine the issues and evidence passed upon in a CIAC arbitral award, or reverse or modify such award. The COA’s jurisdic - tion is therefore limited only to determining the source of funds for settlement and validating the clerical or mathematical accuracy of the amounts in the award ( Sunway Builders v Commission on Audit , GR 252986, 20 September 2022). The COA’s limited jurisdiction was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Bases Conver-
619 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook