PHILIPPINES Trends and Developments Contributed by: Rowena L Garcia-Flores, Patricia Kay L Tysmans-Clemente, Joseph Anthony I Malaya and Roslyn Bianca R Mangaser, Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz
authority to promulgate its own rules on prelimi- nary investigation. Accordingly, the Department of Justice issued the 2024 Department of Justice-National Pros- ecution Service (DOJ-NPS) Rules on Preliminary Investigations and Inquest Proceedings through Department Circular No 015, dated 16 July 2024. The DOJ-NPS repealed provisions in the Rules of Court that are inconsistent with the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. The DOJ- NPS also required a stricter quantum of evidence – that is, “reasonable certainty of conviction” – to exist before criminal cases are filed in court. Compared to the previous threshold requirement that mere “probable cause exists to file informa- tion against an accused”, this new quantum of evidence ensures that trumped-up or frivolous criminal complaints have less chances of being filed in court. The DOJ-NPS also provides rules for virtual pre- liminary investigation, e-inquest proceedings and e-filings, which afford litigants convenience and expediency in getting their cases resolved. Public Policy Considerations in the Enforcement and Recognition of Foreign and Domestic Arbitral Awards It is the declared policy of the Philippines to “actively promote party autonomy in the resolu- tion of disputes or the freedom of the party to make their own arrangements to resolve their disputes”. The use of alternative dispute reso- lution (ADR) is thus encouraged and actively promoted as an important means for achieving speedy and impartial justice and unclogging court dockets. Several rules are thus in place catering to judgments, both domestic and inter- national, rendered in arbitration proceedings.
Generally, arbitral awards are final and bind- ing. Courts are to refrain from making their own findings of fact, and should instead uphold the State’s policy regarding arbitration. As there are exclusive grounds for recognition and enforce- ment – as explained in Tuna Processing, Inc v Philippine Kingford Inc, GR No 185582, 29 February 2012 – only limited grounds exist where Philippine courts are allowed to vacate or refuse the enforcement of arbitral awards. If the Regional Trial Court is asked to set aside an arbitral award in a domestic or international arbitration on any ground other than those pro- vided in the Special Alternative Dispute Resolu- tion Rules (“Special ADR Rules”), the court shall entertain such ground for the setting-aside or non-recognition of the arbitral award only if it amounts to a violation of public policy. A domestic arbitral award – that is, one which is not international as defined in Article 3 of the Model Law – can be confirmed by a court in the Philippines at any time within one month after the award is made. The court must confirm such award unless it is vacated, modified or correct- ed. Once confirmed, the arbitral award shall be enforced in the same manner as for final and executory decisions of the Regional Trial Court. However, under the Special ADR Rules, the only grounds for vacating an award in a domestic arbitration are as follows: • the arbitral award was procured through cor- ruption, fraud or other undue means; • there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitral tribunal or any of its members; • the arbitral tribunal was guilty of misconduct or any form of misbehaviour that has materi - ally prejudiced the rights of any party, such as refusing to postpone a hearing upon sufficient cause shown or to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy;
1121 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook