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
Corporation (GR No 204197, 23 November 2016), the Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot delve into the merits of an arbitral award and substitute their judgment with regard to the findings of fact and the interpretation and application of laws. The same prin - ciple was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Bases Conversion and Development Authority v CJH Devel- opment Corporation (GR No 219421, 23 April 2024), where the court emphasised that a contrary rule would render an arbitral award the commencement, rather than the end, of litigation. In GS Yuasa Corporation ( GYC ) and GS Yuasa Interna- tional Ltd v Ramcar , Inc (GR No 252787, 7 May 2025), the Supreme Court held that judicial review of an arbi - tral award should be confined strictly to the limited exceptions under Rule 12.4 of the Special ADR Rules on Recognition and Enforcement or Setting Aside of an International Arbitration Award, which incorporates Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. As regards construction disputes resolved through CIAC arbitration, as held by the Supreme Court in Global Medical Center of Laguna , Inc v Ross Systems International , Inc (GR No 230112, 11 May 2021), such awards rendered may be appealed to: • the Supreme Court on questions of law, through a petition for review; or • the Court of Appeals on questions of fact, through a petition for certiorari, provided that the appellant (i) challenges the integrity of the CIAC arbitral tribu - nal; or (ii) alleges that the arbitral tribunal violated the Philippine Constitution or positive law. Courts can set aside or vacate an arbitral award only on the grounds provided under the Special ADR Rules and the ADR Act. Notably, these grounds do not con - cern the correctness of the arbitral award. Rather, they address the validity of the arbitration agreement and/ or the regularity of the arbitration proceedings.
Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”) on 6 July 1967. The Philippines declared that, on the basis of reciprocity, it will only apply the New York Convention to: • the recognition and enforcement of awards made in the territory of another contracting state; and • differences arising from legal relationships – wheth - er such relationships are contractual or otherwise – that are considered commercial relationships by the national law of the state making the declara - tion. 12.2 Enforcement Procedure International Commercial Arbitral Award Rule 12 of the Special ADR Rules provides that a veri - fied petition can be filed to recognise and enforce an arbitral award at any time after the award is received, unless a timely petition to set aside an arbitral award is filed, in which case the opposing party must file in the same proceedings, and in opposition thereto, the petition for recognition and enforcement of the same award within the period for filing an opposition. The verified petition must be filed with the relevant regional trial court based on: • where the arbitration proceedings were conducted; • where any of the assets to be attached or levied are located; • where the act to be enjoined will be or is being performed; or • where any of the parties resides or has its place of business. Alternatively, it can be filed in the National Capital Judicial Region. The verified petition must state the following: • the registered addresses, or any change thereto, of the parties to arbitration; • that the arbitration agreement or submission exists; • the names of the arbitrators and proof of their appointment; • that an arbitral award was issued and when the petitioner received it; and • the relief sought.
12. Enforcement of an Award 12.1 New York Convention
The Philippines ratified the 1958 New York Conven - tion on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign
712 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook