Korea Technologies vs.

Lerma

a. Issue 1— As signatory to the Arbitration Rules of the UNCITRAL Model Law on

International Commercial Arbitration of the United Nations Commission on
International Trade Law in the New York Convention on June 21, 1985, the
Philippines committed itself to be bound by the Model Law.
Issue 2— The RTC was designated and vested with specific authority and
jurisdiction to set aside, reject, or vacate a foreign arbitral award on the grounds
under the UNCITRAL Model Law.
Issue 3— Misunderstanding of what an Arbitration Institution is.

i. In the first issue it is disturbing because the Supreme Court referred the New
York Convention, the UNCITRAL Model Law and the UNCITRAL Arbitration
Rules as the same document which according to the author of the article was
different to each other considering the dates when it was produced and that such
document is not open for signature.

In the second issue, the court is not vested with authority neither jurisdiction to
set aside, reject, or vacate a foreign arbitral award. They can only refuse or may
not recognize the foreign arbitral award which means that they cannot be
enforced in the Philippines but may be enforced in other jurisdiction.

In the third issue, an arbitration institution does not render decisions, it merely
administer the arbitration proceedings, it may, if under and embodied in the
contract of the parties, appoint arbitrators or an arbitration panel.

ii. The first issue should have been resolved that an arbitral award which was
domestic in character is confirmed and the Philippine laws applies to it, but if the
arbitral award was render by foreign arbitration, the Philippine laws does not
apply and the court may refuse or recognized such award.

The second issue should have been decided that a court in the Philippines has
no power neither jurisdiction to reject, set aside, or vacate foreign arbitral award.

The third issue, the Supreme Court should have resolved it by stressing what an
arbitration institution is, that such institution has power to render decisions.

ABS-CBN vs. WINS

b. The Author of the Article talked about why RA 876 is the applicable law in
vacating the arbitral award when in fact the proceeding is domestic international
arbitration which may only be vacated under the UNCITRAL Model Law, also
ADR act of 2004 was applied retroactively to Korea case, while in ABS-CBN
case it was not. The court also take note that in korea case an award was
already rendered, while in ABS-CBN case there was none.
I. No. it seems that the reason why the court does not apply the ADR Act of 2004
to ABS-CBN is because before the passage of the law, there has been an award
rendered, therefore the only way to challenge it is under RA 876 which is the
existing law that time. It cannot also apply the UNCITRAL Model law because the
law of the Philippines only adopted it after the passage of ADR act of 2004.

II. In my own analysis, in order that the ADR act if 2004 may be retroactively
applied to ABS-CBN, there should be no award rendered. It will violate the
procedure if the law is applied retroactively because it will violate vested right to
the opposing party considering that an award was already rendered. In
comparison to Korea case, there is no award rendered, and if such have been
rendered then no vested right might be violated if the ADR Act of 2004 is applied
retroactively.