PHILIPPINES Trends and Developments Contributed by: Ricardo Ma P. G. Ongkiko, John Christian Joy A. Regalado and Ma Patricia B. Paz-Jacoba, SyCip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan
or, in the absence of an agreement, with the appli - cable law; • the subject matter of the dispute cannot be settled by arbitration under the law of the state; or • the award is in conflict with the public policy of the state. The first four require proof by the party making the application, while the last two may be determined by the court on its own, without need of such proof. Similarly, the Construction Industry Arbitration Law (Executive Order No 1008, 4 February 1985) expressly states that an award by a tribunal of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) will be binding upon the parties and will be final and unappealable, except on questions of law, which must be brought before the Supreme Court. However, the CIAC Rules of Procedure, up until their recent amendment was clarified in 2023, had provided that CIAC arbitral awards could be appealed to the Court of Appeals on questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law, and to the Supreme Court on questions of law. The amendment was prompted by the Philippine Supreme Court’s decision in Global Medical Center of Laguna , Inc v Ross Systems International , Inc (GR No 230112, 11 May 2021)(“ Global Medical Center ”), which clari - fied that the Philippine Court of Appeals may only conduct a factual review of the arbitral award upon sufficient proof that the tribunal’s integrity had been compromised, or that the tribunal committed uncon - stitutional or illegal acts in the arbitration process. The Philippine Supreme Court’s recent decisions col - lectively demonstrate the judiciary’s continuing policy to accord substantial deference to arbitral awards by refraining from reviewing factual findings or the mer - its of the dispute, and limiting judicial intervention to narrowly tailored exceptions provided under the rel - evant laws. In GS Yuasa Corporation and GS Yuasa International Ltd v Ramcar , Inc (GR No 252787, 7 May 2025)(“ GS Yuasa ”), the Philippine Supreme Court explained that an international arbitral award may not be appealed and subsequently vacated because the tribunal supposedly committed errors of fact, law, or of fact and law, and that a party’s exclusive recourse is an application to set aside the award based on the grounds under the Model Law. In Roxaco - Asia Hos-
pitality Corp v Gulf Canary Construction and Develop- ment , Inc (GR Nos 246250–51, 29 September 2025), the Philippine Supreme Court confined its review of the CIAC Arbitral Tribunal’s final award to the lone legal question raised, and refused to rule on the fac - tual matters, because the arbitral tribunal’s partiality was not sufficiently proved. Similarly, in Grand Exploit Builder Development , Inc v Hoegaarden Realty Cor- poration (GR No 267541, 2 April 2025), the Philippine Supreme Court applied Global Medical Center and found that the Court of Appeals exceeded its juris - diction when it conducted a factual review of the final award of the CIAC Arbitral Tribunal because of its purported evident partiality, which the Supreme Court found to be nonexistent. Review of international arbitral awards GS Yuasa, Ramcar, Inc (“Ramcar”) and Yuasa Battery Co, Ltd (“YBC”) entered into a joint venture agree - ment (JVA) to form Oriental Yuasa Battery Corpora - tion (OYBC), 70% of which will be owned by Ramcar, while the remaining 30% will be owned by YBC. The JVA contained a non-compete clause, which bound the parties’ successors and assigns. YBC thereafter changed its corporate name to Yuasa Corporation (YC) and, along with Ramcar and OYBC, entered into Technical Assistance Agreements (TAAs) whereby Ramcar was granted exclusive rights to manufacture and sell batteries with the trademark “Yuasa” in the Philippines. The controversy arose with the establish - ment of GS Yuasa Corporation (GYC), a holding com - pany wherein YC held shares of stock. YC spun off the assets, rights, liabilities, and obligations of its inter - national operations, including its 30% share in OYBC to GS Yuasa International Ltd (GYIL), a wholly owned subsidiary of GYC. Accordingly, Ramcar served a demand for arbitration upon GYC and its successors, agents and assigns on the ground that they breached the non-compete clause of the JVA. The arbitral tribunal ruled that Ramcar was not the real party-in-interest to question the alleged violation of the non-complete clause, as such clause was only for the benefit of OYBC. Moreover, the arbitral tribunal held that GYC and GYIL did not violate the provisions of the JVA and the TAAs because they were able to prove that OYBC had already ceased manufacturing
719 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook