ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | KOPPEL INC, VS. MAKATI ROTARY CLUB FOUNDATION, INC., G.R. NO. 198075, SEPTEMBER 4, 2013
KOPPEL
INC, VS. MAKATI ROTARY CLUB FOUNDATION, INC.,
G.R.
NO. 198075, SEPTEMBER 4, 2013
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
Under the doctrine of separability, an
arbitration agreement is considered as independent of the main contract. Being
a separate contract in itself, the arbitration agreement may thus be invoked
regardless of the possible nullity or invalidity of the main contract.
FACTS
The
dispute between the petitioner and respondent emanates from the rental
stipulations of the 2005 Lease Contract. The respondent insists upon the
enforceability and validity of such stipulations, whereas, petitioner, in
substance, repudiates them. It is from petitioner’s apparent breach of the 2005
Lease Contract that respondent filed the instant unlawful detainer action.
The
arbitration clause of the 2005 Lease Contract stipulates that “any
disagreement” as to the “interpretation, application or execution” of the 2005
Lease Contract ought to be submitted to arbitration.
The
following year, petitioner discontinued the payment of the rent and “donation”
under the 2005 Lease Contract.
Petitioner’s refusal to pay such rent
and “donation” emanated from its belief that the rental stipulations of the
2005 Lease Contract, and even of the 2000 Lease Contract, cannot be given
effect because they violated one of the “material conditions” of the donation
of the subject land, as stated in the Deed of Donation and Amended Deed of
Donation.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner may still invoke the
arbitration clause of the 2005 Lease Contract notwithstanding the fact that it
assails the validity of such contract.
RULING
Yes.
The court ruled that under the doctrine
of separability, an arbitration agreement is considered as independent of the
main contract. Being a separate contract in itself, the arbitration agreement
may thus be invoked regardless of the possible nullity or invalidity of the
main contract. Once again instructive is Cargill, wherein this Court held that,
as a further consequence of the doctrine of separability, even the very party
who repudiates the main contract may invoke its arbitration clause.
Here, the court ruled that Petitioner may still invoke the arbitration clause of the 2005 Lease Contract notwithstanding the fact that it assails the validity of such contract. This is due to the doctrine of separability. It is clear that under the law, the instant unlawful detainer action should have stayed; the petitioner and the respondent should have been referred to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause of the 2005 Lease Contract. The MeTC, however, did not do so in violation of the law — which violation was, in turn, affirmed by the RTC and Court of Appeals on appeal.