ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | LM POWER ENGINEERING CORP., V. CAPITOL INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION GROUP G.R. NO. 141833, MARCH 26, 2003
LM
POWER ENGINEERING CORP., V. CAPITOL INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION GROUP
G.R. NO.
141833, MARCH 26, 2003
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
Brushing aside a contractual agreement calling for arbitration between the parties would be a step backward.
FACTS
Petitioner LM Power Engineering Corporation and Respondent
Capitol Industrial Construction Groups, Inc. entered into a “Subcontract
Agreement” involving electrical work at the Third Port of Zamboanga. Respondent
took over some of the work contracted to petitioner. Allegedly, the latter had
failed to finish it because of its inability to procure materials.
Upon completing its task under the Contract, petitioner
billed respondent in the amount of P6,711,813.90.8 Contesting the accuracy of
the amount of advances and billable accomplishments listed by the former, the
latter refused to pay. Respondent also took refuge in the termination clause of
the Agreement. That clause allowed it to set off the cost of the work that
petitioner had failed to undertake—due to termination or take-over—against the
amount it owed the latter.
Petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a
Complaint for the collection of the amount representing the alleged balance due
it under the Subcontract. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging that
the Complaint was premature, because there was no prior recourse to
arbitration. the RTC denied the Motion on the ground that the dispute did not
involve the interpretation or the implementation of the Agreement and was,
therefore, not covered by the arbitral clause.
In the case before us, the Subcontract has the following
arbitral clause:
The
Parties hereto agree that any dispute or conflict as regards to interpretation
and implementation of this Agreement which cannot be settled between
[respondent] and [petitioner] amicably shall be settled by means of arbitration
x x x.
ISSUE
Whether Dispute Is Arbitrable.
RULING
Yes.
The court held that it sides with respondent. Essentially,
the dispute arose from the parties’ incongruent positions on whether certain
provisions of their Agreement could be applied to the facts. The instant case
involves technical discrepancies that are better left to an arbitral body that
has expertise in those areas. In any event, the inclusion of an arbitration
clause in a contract does not ipso facto divest the courts of jurisdiction to
pass upon the findings of arbitral bodies, because the awards are still
judicially reviewable under certain conditions. Aside from unclogging judicial
dockets, arbitration also hastens the resolution of disputes, especially of the
commercial kind. It is thus regarded as the “wave of the future” in
international civil and commercial disputes. Clearly, the resolution of the
dispute between the parties herein requires a referral to the provisions of
their Agreement. Within the scope of the arbitration clause are discrepancies
as to the amount of advances and billable accomplishments, the application of
the provision on termination, and the consequent set-off of expenses. Brushing aside
a contractual agreement calling for arbitration between the parties would be a
step backward.