October 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 198239 : October 03, 2011]
POLYMAX WORLDWIDE LIMITED V. NPC INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, ET AL.
G.R. No. 198239 (Polymax Worldwide Limited v. NPC International Limited, et al.).
RESOLUTION
After review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed reversible error when it affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision to first, suspend the proceedings before it because of the pending arbitration proceedings in another jurisdiction pursuant to the arbitration clause stated in the agreements of the parties and second, deny the motion for issuance of a protective order for a) being, in truth, an application for injunction but failing to meet the requisites for an injunctive relief and b) being the wrong remedy because assuming that there was mismanagement, the proper procedure is for petitioner, as minority stockholder, to file a derivative suit.
According to the case of Korea Technologies Co., Ltd v. Lerma:[1]
The arbitration clause was mutually and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties. It has not been shown to be contrary to any law, or against morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. There has been no showing that the parties have not dealt with each other on equal footing. We find no reason why the arbitration clause should not be respected and complied with by both parties. In Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd.[2] we held that submission to arbitration is a contract and that a clause in a contract providing that all matters in dispute between the parties shall be referred to arbitration is a contract.
It is also untrue that the existence of an arbitral clause would make the whole dispute between the parties beyond the reach of our courts. A foreign arbitral award is treated like a decision rendered by a foreign court. While it is mutually stipulated by the parties in the arbitration clause to be final and binding it is not immediately enforceable or cannot be implemented until recognized by a competent court in our jurisdiction. This is the reason the RTC merely suspended the proceedings before it until the arbitration panel comes out with an arbitral award.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] G.R. No. 143581, January 7, 2008, 542 SCRA 1, 21-22.[2] G.R. No. 161957 and G.R. No. 167994, January 22, 2007, 512 SCRA 148, 167-168, citing Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Transportation Co., 57 Phil. 600, 603 (1932).