Chapter VIII: The Arbitral Award in Domestic Arbitration
(Similar to litigation where winning party files for
The Award in General
- Any partial or final decision by an arbitrator in resolving the
issue in controversy (RA 9285)
- Equivalent to a judgment in litigation
- Arbitration is the only mode of ADR where the neutral 3 rd
person is empowered by law to resolve the controversy of the
parties in a manner that will be binding upon them and can be
enforced like a court judgment.
- Arbitral award is the culmination of the arbitral process
- Any stipulation that the award shall be final is valid, without
prejudice to NCC 2038, 2039 and 2040.
DOMESTIC ARBITRAL AWARD
Form and Contents
- Written award of the arbitrators shall be rendered within 30
days after closing of the hearings
- If oral hearings waived: within 30 days after arbitrators
declared proceedings in lieu of hearing closed.
Reqs:
(1) In writing
(2) Signed and acknowledged by a majority of the arbitrators or
the sole arbitrator if only one
 EXC: parties may stipulate that award be signed by all
arbitrators. Why? supremacy of contract as the law
between parties, and policy of State to promote party
autonomy.
No default awards allowed (RA 876)
- Award shall not be made solely on the default of a party. Must
require other party to submit evidence as may be required.
Each party shall be furnished a copy of the award
- Arbitrators may grant any remedy or relief they deem just and
equitable
- Shall include specific performance of a contract
- As long as remedy or relief is WITHIN scope of the agreement
of the parties (impt)
- Agreement defines the jurisdiction of the AT. Hence,
arbitrators have power to decide only those matters which
have been submitted to them. And the terms of the award
shall be confined to such disputes.
- If AT decided on matter outside scope of AA, there exists a
ground to vacate the award.
- If parties settle their dispute during the course of arbitration,
settlement may be embodied in an award which shall be
signed by the arbitrators. No arbitrator shall act as a mediator
in any proceeding in which he is acting as arbitrator. All
negotiations towards settlement of dispute must take place
without presence of arbitrators.
Judicial Confirmation for enforcement of award
- Winning party becomes entitled to recover from the losing
party according to the terms of the award.
- Arbitral award by itself is valid and need no court approval.
- However, in the event that the losing party refuses to
voluntarily comply with the award, it may become necessary
for the winning party to obtain a judicial confirmation of the
award.
motion for execution of judgment to recover)
- At any time AFTER the lapse of 30 days from receipt by
petitioner of the award, he may file a Petition for Confirmation
with the RTC having jurisdiction over the place where one party
is doing business, where any party resides, or where arbit
proceedings were conducted. (SADR 2009)
- Party moving for an order confirming an award must file ff at
the time motion is filed for entry of judgment):
(1) SA or AA, appointment of arbitrator(s), and each written
extension of time to make award, if any
(2) Verified copy of the award
(3) Each notice, affidavit or other paper used upon the
application to confirm such award, and copy of each
order of the court upon such application
- Upon finding petition sufficient in form and substance, court
shall cause notice and copy to be delivered to the respondent.
 Res allowed to file comment or opposition: wn 15 days
 In lieu of opposition, res may file counter-petition to
vacate award
 Pet may file reply: wn 15 days
- Award enjoys presumption that it was made and released in
due course of arbitration and subject to confirmation by the
court
 Court shall confirm award unless vacated, modified, or
corrected
 But shall not disturb AT’s facts or interpretation of law
 Upon confirmation, judgment may be entered in
conformity therewith in the same court
 Costs of the application and proceedings subsequent
may be awarded by the court in its discretion. If
awarded, amount must be included in the judgment.
Romago v Siemens (2009)
- ROMAGO entered into an ESSI with SBTI, wherein SBTI
undertook to deliver the needed electrical equipment for the
project. SBTI made deliveries but ROMAGO failed to pay in full.
After delivering 99.81% of the equip, SBTI filed a request for
arbit with PDRCI. ROMAGO signed the agreement to submit
dispute to arbit. Sole arbit ruled for SBTI. SBTI filed a petition
for confirmation of arbitrator’s decision with the RTC.
ROMAGO opposed, arguing that the arbit displayed partiality in
hearing the case and rendering decision. RTC granted SBTI’s
petition. ROMAGO was furnished a copy twice. Yet, it filed its
answer way beyind the period prescribed by law. Thus, RTC
confirmed the decision of the arbitrator and issued writ of
exec. Despite receipt of the order, ROMAGO did not appeal.
ROMAGO’s new counsel withdrew and filed a petition for relief
from judgment. Upon denial by RTC, ROMAGO appealed to CA
on ground of lack of juris, arguing that SBTI is a construction
contract cognizable by CIAC. CA denied.
- SC: ESSA is not a construction contract. SBTI’s role was merely
to supply the needed equip for the project. It is a mere supply
contract and does not fall within orig and exclusive jurisdiction
of CIAC.
- The consortium agreement bet ROMAGO and SBTI contained
an arbit clause, agreeing to submit dispute for arbit under PCCI,
such as PDRCI. The clause is binding and parties expected to
abide in GF. Thus, ROMAGO’s contention that PDRCI has no
 jurisdiction is untenable. Moreover, issue is rendered moot by
ROMAGO’s active participation in the proceedings before
PDRCI and RTC. It filed a petition for relief from judgment, thus
estopping itself. Further, it was only on cert with CA and after
issuance of writ of execution that ROMAGO raised the issue of
lack of jurisdiction. Arbitrator’s decision, which was confirmed
by the RTC, had attained finality when ROMAGO failed to
appeal to the CA. Hence, it may now be executed.
Petition for Confirmation or Motion for Confirmation?
- Depends on whether a court case arising from the same
arbitrable dispute exists at the time of the issuance of the
arbitral award.
- If there is no existing court case which arose from the same
arbitrable dispute and it is necessary to file an initiatory
pleading in court in order to initiate court proceedings for
confirmation of the arbitral award, proper mode is for
confirmation of the award is to file a petition.
 Ex. 1st party sends demand for arbit. 2nd party accepts
demand and does not question propriety of settling
dispute by arbit. Both parties agree to appoint a specific
individual. Sole arbit renders award, but losing party
refuses to comply. Winning party necessarily has to
apply for jud confirmation.
- If there is already an existing court case which arose from the
same arbitrable dispute, there is no need to initiate another
court case. Hence, it is improper to file an initiatory petition.
 Ex. 1st party to the contract, instead of following the
procedure for commencement of arbit, decides to by-
pass the process and goes to court directly to file CA. 2nd
party files a motion to stay instead of an answer and asks
the court to refer the case to arbit. After award is
rendered, losing party refuses to voluntarily comply.
Thus, winning party must file a motion for confirmation
before the same court where the CA was initially filed.
- Said procedural rules also apply in seeking other jud relief
related to arbit--
 applying for court determination of the existence,
validity, or enforceability of an AA
 for interim relief from the court
 to appoint an arbitrator
 to decide the challenge of arbitrator(s)
 for decision on issue of termination of mandate
 for assistance in taking evid
 for jud correction or vacation of domestic arbit award
 to recognize, enforce, set aside or refuse an ICA award
 for confidentiality or protective orders
Asset Privatization v CA (1998)
- Order of the RTC in very clear terms stated that the “complaint
was dismissed.” The term “dismiss” means to dispose of an
action suit or motion without trial on the issues involved.
Although the correct procedure was for the parties to go back
to the court where the case was pending to have the award
confirmed. However, the RTC made a fatal mistake of issuing a
final order dismissing the case. While it should have merely
suspended and not dismissed it, neither of the parties
questioned said dismissal. Thus, both parties are bound by
such error.
- By its own motion, TC had lost jurisdiction over the case and
could not have validly reacquired jurisdiction on a mere motion
of one of the parties. As there was no pending action to speak
of, a pet for confirmation should have been filed as a new case.
Effect of Judicial Confirmation of Arbit Award
- Docketed as if it were rendered in an action
- Same force and effect in all respects as a FJ and may be
enforced in the same manner as final and exec decisions of the
RTC
- Baptizes and transforms the award into a judgment
- Consistent with the character of the office of the arbit which
becomes functus officio upon rendering the arbit award. The
court is necessary to consummate the dispute resolution
process by enforcing the award. Once confirmed by the court,
the award becomes the court’s own judgment.
- The court has power to use compulsory and coercive
processes, such as writ of exec, to enforce the award.
Correction or Modification of Domestic Arbit Award
- Upon application of any party to the controversy which was
arbitrated
- In any of the ff cases:
(1) Evident miscalculation of figures or evident mistake in the
description of any person, thing, prop referred to in the
award
(2) Arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to
them
(3) Arbitrators omitted to resolve an issue submitted to them
for resolution; or
(4) Award is imperfect in a matter of form not affecting the
merits of the controversy (and if it had been a
commissioner’s report, the defect could have been
amended or disregarded by the court)
- Must also file the same papers filed in a pet for confirmation of
award (SA or AA, verified copy of award, etc)
- Object in application for correction or modification is either
evident or does not affect the merits of what has already been
decided in the award.
- Period: wn 30 days from receipt of arbit award
- File with RTC having jurisdiction over the place in which one of
the parties is doing business, where any of the parties reside,
or where arbit proceedings conducted.
- Upon finding pet sufficient in form and substance, court shall
cause notice and copy of pet to be delivered to res.
 May file comment or opposition wn 15 days
 In lieu thereof, may file a counter-pet in opposition
 Pet may file reply wn 15 days
- Judgment granting correction or modification shall be
docketed as if it were rendered in an action. Same force and
effect and may be enforced as if it had been rendered in court
in which it is entered
- Whether petition or motion is to be filed also depends on wn a
court case arising from the same arbitral dispute exists at the
time of issuance of the award (same rules with pet/motion for
confirmation)
Vacation of Domestic Arbit Award
- Any party to a domestic arbit may petition the court to vacate
award NOT LATER than 30 days from receipt of award
- File petition with RTC having jurisdiction over the place in
which one of the parties is doing business, where any of the
parties reside, or where arbit proceedings conducted.
- Grounds to vacate: (Rule 11.4 of SADR)
(1) Procured through corruption, fraud, or other undue
means  integrity
(2) Evident partiality or corruption in the AT or any of its
members
(3) AT was guilty of misconduct or any form of misbehavior
that has materially prejudiced the rights of any party
 i.e. refusing to postpone a hearing upon sufficient
cause shown or to hear evid pertinent and material
to the controversy
(4) 1 or more arbits disqualified to act as such and willfully
refrained from disclosing such qualification
(5) AT exceeded its powers or imperfectly executed them
such that a complete final and definite award upon the
SM was not made
(6) AA did not exist, is invalid for any ground for the
revocation of contract, or is unenforceable
(7) Party to arbit is a minor or a person jud declared to be
incompetent
 Pet shall be filed only on behalf of the minor or
incompetent and shall allege:
a. The other party to arbitration had knowingly
entered into SA or AA with such minor or
incompetent, or
b. The submission to arbit was made by a
guardian (or g ad litem) who was not
authorized to do so by a competent court.
Adamson v CA (1994)
- Section 24 of the Arbit Law provides for the grounds for
vacating award. Petitioners herein failed to prove their
allegation of partiality on the part of the arbitrators. That they
were disadvantaged by the decision of the Arbitration
Committee does not prove evident partiality. The arbitrators’
resort to contract interpretation did not constitute a ground for
vacating the award bec under the circumstances, the same was
necessary to settle the controversy between the parties
regarding the amount of the NAV. In any case, the
interpretation made by the arbitrators did not create a new
contract, as alleged by petitioners but was a faithful application
of the provisions of the Agreement. Neither was the award
arbitrary for it was based on the statements prepared by
auditors chosen by both parties.
- CA reversed the TC herein not because the CA reviewed the
award, but because it found that the TC had no legal basis for
vacating the award.
Presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions
- Complaining party has the burden of proving existence of any
grounds for vacating award
- Allegations of “evident partiality” without proof to back it up
cannot be sustained where the factual findings of the arbitrator
is supported by substantial evid and the conclusions stated in
the decision are not clearly against law and jurisprudence
- RTC must issue order vacating award ONLY in any of the cases
enumerated therein (Sec 24, RA 876). RA 876 did not expressly
provide for errors of fact and/or law and grave abuse of
discretion as grounds, thus such are not acceptable grounds to
vacate an arbitral award.
 Courts have no power to amend or overrule merely bec
of disagreement with matters of law or facts determined
by the arbits
- Exceptions:
 Arbits cannot resolve issues beyond the scope of the
submission agreement. Parties to such agreement are
bound by the award only to the extent and manner
prescribed by the contract, and only if the award is
rendered in conformity thereto.
 Although they are precluded from overturning, if an
examination of the record reveals no support whatever
for the arbitrator’s determinations, the award may be
vacated.
 Award was made in manifest disregard of the law
(Asset Privatization Trust v CA)
o Asset Privatization Trust leaves an area for
academic debate. Case was promulgated in 1998,
wherein the only law which provides for grounds
to vacate was RA 876. Manifest disregard of law is
not one of them
- Characterization of the nature of an arbitral award was
maintained by the SADR when it took effect in 2009. Rule 11.9
of SADR provides “the court shall not disturb the AT’s
determination of facts and/or interpretation of law.”
- What constitutes manifest disregard of the law: The applicable
legal principle is clearly defined and not subject to reasonable
debate AND the arbitrators refused to heed that legal principle.
 Very narrow standard of review. A mere error in the
interpretation or application of law is insufficient.
 To justify vacation on this ground, arbitrator’s findings
must clearly and unequivocally violate an established
legal precedent.
 However, when SADR (2009) consolidated the grounds
for vacating a domestic award (expanded from 4 to 7
grounds), it did not include manifest disregard of the law
in the consolidated listing. Moreover, the provision
concludes that “the court shall disregard any other
ground than those enumerated above.”
Contents of Petition to Vacate Domestic Arbit Award
- Pet must state:
(1) Addresses of parties and any change thereof
(2) Jurisdictional issues raised by party during arbit
proceedings
(3) Grounds relied upon by the parties in seeking vacation of
award
(4) Statement of the date of receipt of the award and the
circumstances under which it was received
- Must attach to pet the ff:
(1) Authentic copy of AA
(2) Authentic copy of arbit award
(3) CNFS
(4) Authentic copy of appointment of AT
- If pet to vacate is sufficient in form and substance, court shall
cause notice and copy of pet to be delivered to the res,
allowing him to file a comment or opposition wn 15 days from
receipt of pet, or counter-pet in lieu thereof. Pet may file a
reply wn 15 days.
Chap IX: The Arbitral Award in ICA
ICA in the Philippines
- Governed by the Model Law of 1985 (Sec. 19 of RA 9285)
Making of Award in ICA
- AT shall decide dispute in accordance with the rules of law as
CHOSEN by the parties
 Any designation of law or legal system shall be
construed as referring to the substantive law of that
State. Unless otherwise expressed.
 Failing any designation by the parties, AT shall apply
law determined by conflict of law rules.
- AT shall decide ex aequo et bono (from equity and
conscience; according to the right and good) only if the
parties have expressly authorized it to do so. In all cases, the
AT shall decide according to the terms of the contract and
shall take into account usages of trade applicable to the
transaction.
- In arbitral proceedings with more than 1 arbitrator, any
decision of the AT shall be made by a MAJORITY of all its
members. Unless otherwise agreed.
 However, questions of procedure may be decided by a
presiding arbitrator, if authorized by parties or all
members of the AT.
Award of Agreed Terms
- If the parties settle the dispute, the AT shall:
(1) TERMINATE the proceedings and
(2) RECORD the settlement in the form of an arbitral
award on agreed terms – if requested by the parties
and not objected to by the AT
- Made in accordance with provisions of Art 31 of the Model
Law and shall state that it is an award
- Same status and effect as any other award on the merits of
the case
Form and Contents of Award in ICA
- In writing
- Signed by the arbitrator(s)
 Signature of majority of all members of AT shall suffice,
provided that the reason for any omitted signature is
stated
- State the reasons upon which it is based
 Unless the parties have agreed that no reasons are to
be given or the award is an award on agreed terms
under Art 30 of the Model Law
- State the date and place of arbitration
 Art 20(1) of the Model Law: Parties are free to agree
on the place of arbitration. Failing such agreement, the
place of arbitration shall be determined by the AT,
having regard to the circumstances of the case,
including convenience of the parties.
- After award is made, a copy signed by the arbitrators
delivered to each party
Termination of Proceedings
- Arbitral proceedings terminated by:
 Final award, or
 Order of the AT for the termination of the
proceedings, when—
a. When claimant WITHDRAWS claim
a. Unless res objects and AT recognizes
legitimate interest on his part in obtaining a
final settlement of the dispute
b. Parties AGREE on the termination
c. AT finds that continuation has for any other
reason become UNNECESSARY or IMPOSSIBLE
- Mandate of the AT terminates with the termination of the
proceedings, subject to FURTHER proceedings—
 For the correction and interpretation of the award or
for additional award
 For the purpose of eliminating the grounds for setting
aside the award
Correction and Interpretation of Award; Additional Award
- Within 30 days from receipt of award (unless another period
agreed upon):
(1) A party may request AT to CORRECT any errors in
computation, clerical or typographical errors, or any
errors of similar nature
 With notice to the other party
(2) May request AT to give an INTERPRETATION of a
specific point or party of the award
 If so agreed by the parties
 With notice to the other party
- If AT considers request justified, shall make correction or give
interpretation within 30 DAYS from receipt of request. Such
shall form part of the award.
Procedure in Recognition, Enforcement and Setting Aside the ICA
Award
- Any party to an ICA in the Phils may file in the proper court
either—
(1) Petition for enforcement and recognition
 May be filed anytime FROM receipt of the
award
 Opposed to by a counter-petition to set aside, if
not yet time-barred
(2) Petition to set aside
 May only be filed WITHIN 3 MONTHS from time
petitioner receives a copy
a. Can no longer be filed after the lapse of 3
month period
b. But dismissal of such petition for being time
barred shall NOT automatically result in the
approval of the counter-petition for
recognition and enforcement of the same
award
 If a timely request is made with AT for
correction, interpretation or additional award: 3
month counted from receipt of RESOLUTION of
that request by pet
 Opposed to by a counter-petition for
recognition and enforcement, within period of
filing an opposition
 Failure to file pet to set aside shall preclude
party from raising grounds to resist
enforcement of the award
 - Petition to recognize and enforce or set aside an arbitral
award may, at the option of the petition, be filed with the
RTC:
 where arbit proceedings conducted
 where any of the assets be attached or levied is
located
 where act to be enjoined is or will be performed
 where any of the parties reside or has place of bus
 in the NCJR
Contents of Petition
- Whether filed as an initiatory petition or as a counter-
petition, shall state:
(1) Address of record of the parties, or any change
(2) Statement that AA or SA exists
(3) Names of the arbitrators and proof of appointment
(4) Statement that an arbit award was issued and when
pet received it
(5) Relief sought
- Apart from other submissions, pet shall attach:
(1) Authentic copy of AA
(2) Authentic copy of arbit award
(3) Verification and CNFS
(4) Authentic copy of appointment of AT
- Pet shall be VERIFIED by person with personal knowledge of
the facts stated therein
- If pet to set aside is on the ground that pet is a MINOR or
INCOMPETENT, attach certified copies of documents
showing such fact.
 Pet shall also show that the guardian who entered into
the SA or AA was not authorized by a competent court
to sign such SA or AA.
- If another court was previously requested to resolve or has
resolved on appeal the AT’s preliminary determination in
favor of its own jurisdiction, pet shall APPRISE the court
before which the pet is pending of the STATUS of the appeal
or its resolution
Court Action
- Upon finding the petition sufficient in form and substance,
court shall cause NOTICE and a COPY of the pet to delivered
to the res, directing him to file an opposition within 15 DAYS
from receipt of pet.
 In lieu of opposition, may file counter-pet.
 Pet may file a reply, within 15 days from receipt of
counter-pet.
- If court finds that the issue is mainly one of LAW, parties may
be required to submit briefs of legal arguments
 Not more than 15 days from receipt of order
 Sufficiently discussing legal issues and legal basis for
the relief prayed for
- If court finds issues of FACT relating to the grounds relied
upon, it shall require parties to submit affidavits of all
witnesses
 Not more than 15 days from receipt of order
 Submit reply affidavits within 10 days from receipt of
affidavits
 Attach all docs relied upon in support of statements of
fact in such affidavit
- Court shall set oral hearing if it finds that there is a need on
basis of the petition, opposition, or affidavits
 This case shall have preference over all other cases,
except crim cases
 During the hearing, affidavits of witnesses shall take
the place of direct testimonies and shall immediately
be subj to cross exam.
 Court shall have full control over the proceedings
Presumption in favor of Enforcement
- Presumed that an arbit award was made and released in due
course and is subject to enforcement by the court
- Unless adverse party is able to establish ground to set aside
or not enforce award
Grounds for Setting Aside
- Recourse to a court against an arbit award shall be made
ONLY through a pet to set aside and on grounds prescribed
by law governing ICA (Model Law, Art 34(1))
- Court shall disregard any other ground to set aside other
than those prescribed by law
 Any other recourse, such as appeal, pet for rev or pet
for cert  dismissed by the court.
- GROUNDS to set aside or refuse enforcement:
A. Upon PROOF that:
(1) Validity of Arbit Agreement
a. Party was under some incapacity, or
b. Arbit agreement itself is not valid under the
applicable law (which parties subjected it to,
or failing indication, under Phil law)
(2) Due Process Issue
a. Party making the application was not given
proper notice of the appointment of an
arbitrator, or
b. Not given proper notice of the proceedings
c. Party unable to present his case
(3) Jurisdictional Compliance with AA
a. Award deals with a dispute not
contemplated nor failing within terms of
the SA, or
b. Contains decisions on matters beyond
scope of the SA
o Provided: if decisions on matters
submitted to arbit can be separated
from those not submitted, only that
part containing matters not
submitted can be set aside and only
those submitted can be enforced
(4) Procedural Compliance with AA
a. Composition of the AT, or
b. Procedure was not in acc with the
agreement of the parties
o Unless agreement was in conflict with
provision of Phil law from which
parties cannot derogate; or failing
such agreement, Phil law.
B. Court finds that:
(1) Arbitrabilty of the dispute
  SM is not capable of settlement by arbit
under Phil law
(2) Public Policy Issue
 Recognition or enforcement of award
would be contrary to pub pol

- Pet to set aside on ground that pet is a minor or incompetent

filed only on behalf of such, and shall allege:
 Other party had knowingly entered into SA or AA with
the minor or incompetent, OR
 SA was made by a guardian not authorized to do so by
competent court

Suspension of Proceedings to Set Aside

- Court may suspend proceedings for a period of time
determined by it:
 To give AT an opportunity to resume the arbit
proceedings, or take such other action as AT opines
will eliminate grounds to set aside (REFER BACK TO AT)
 Where appropriate
 Upon request of a party
 However, in referring back, may NOT direct it to
revise its award in a particular way or revise its
findings of fact or conclusions of law, or
otherwise encroach upon the independence of
the AT.
 Court may also suspend proceedings to set aside when
the preliminary ruling of an AT affirming its jurisdiction
to act on the matter before it had been appealed by
the aggrieved party to the court—to AWAIT ruling of
the court on such pending appeal, or in the alternative,
consolidate the proceedings to set aside with the
earlier appeal.

Judgment of the Court

- Presumed that an arbitral award was made and released in
due course and is subject to enforcement by the court
 Unless the adverse party is able to establish a ground
for setting aside or not enforcing an arbit award
 Court shall DISMISS pet to set aside if ground not fully
established.
- If there was a counter-pet to recognize and enforce: court
shall either set aside or enforce arbit award
- Court shall not disturb the AT’s determination of facts /
interpretation of law
- At the time case is submitted to the court for decision, party
praying for recognition and enforcement or setting aside
shall submit a statement under oath confirming the costs he
has incurred in such proceedings.
 Costs shall include atty’s fees party has paid or
committed to pay to his counsel of record
 Prevailing party entitled to an award of costs against
the unsuccessful party
CHAP X