KOREA
TECHNOLOGIES vs. LERMA
FACTS
Petitioner Korea Technologies Co., Ltd. (KOGIES) is a Korean
corporation which is engaged in the supply and installation of Liquefied
Petroleum Gas (LPG) Cylinder manufacturing plants, while private respondent
Pacific General Steel Manufacturing Corp. (PGSMC) is a domestic corporation.
On March 5, 1997, PGSMC and KOGIES executed a contract in the
Philippines whereby KOGIES would set up an LPG Cylinder Manufacturing Plant in
Carmona, Cavite. On April 7, 1997, in
Korea, the parties executed Contract No. KLP-970301 dated March 5, 1997
amending the terms of payment. On
October 14, 1997, PGSMC entered into a Contract of Lease with Worth Properties,
Inc. (Worth) for use of Worth’s 5,079-square meter property with a 4,032-square
meter warehouse building to house the LPG manufacturing plant.
On January 22, 1998, it was shown in the Certificate that, after
the installation of the plant, the initial operation could not be conducted as
PGSMC encountered financial difficulties affecting the supply of materials,
thus forcing the parties to agree that KOGIES would be deemed to have
completely complied with the terms and conditions of the March 5, 1997
contract.
For the remaining balance of USD306,000 for the installation and initial
operation of the plant, PGSMC issued two post dated checks. When KOGIES deposited the checks, these were
dishonored for the reason "PAYMENT STOPPED." Thus, on May 8, 1998,
KOGIES sent a demand letter to PGSMC threatening criminal action for violation
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 in case of non payment. On the same date, the
wife of PGSMC’s President faxed a letter dated May 7, 1998 to KOGIES’ President
who was then staying at a Makati City hotel. She complained that not only did
KOGIES deliver a different brand of hydraulic press from that agreed upon but
it had not delivered several equipment parts already paid for.
On May 14, 1998, PGSMC replied that the two checks it issued
KOGIES were fully funded but the payments were stopped for reasons previously made
known to KOGIES.
On June 1, 1998, PGSMC informed KOGIES that PGSMC was canceling
their Contract dated March 5, 1997 on the ground that KOGIES had altered the
quantity and lowered the quality of the machineries and equipment it delivered
to PGSMC, and that PGSMC would dismantle and transfer the machineries,
equipment, and facilities installed in the Carmona plant. Five days later,
PGSMC filed before the Office of the Public Prosecutor an Affidavit-Complaint
for Estafa docketed as I.S. No. 98-03813 against Mr. Dae Hyun Kang,
President of KOGIES.
On June 15, 1998, KOGIES wrote PGSMC informing the latter that
PGSMC could not unilaterally rescind their contract nor dismantle and transfer
the machineries and equipment on mere imagined violations by KOGIES. It also
insisted that their disputes should be settled by arbitration as agreed upon in
Article 15, the arbitration clause of their contract.
On June 23, 1998, PGSMC again wrote KOGIES reiterating the
contents of its June 1, 1998 letter threatening that the machineries,
equipment, and facilities installed in the plant would be dismantled and
transferred on July 4, 1998. Thus, on July 1, 1998, KOGIES instituted an
Application for Arbitration before the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board
(KCAB) in Seoul, Korea pursuant to Art. 15 of the Contract as amended.
On July 3, 1998, KOGIES filed a Complaint for Specific
Performance, against PGSMC before the Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court
(RTC). The RTC granted a temporary restraining order. In its complaint, KOGIES
alleged that PGSMC had initially admitted that the checks that were stopped
were not funded but later on claimed that it stopped payment of the checks for
the reason that "their value was not received" as the former
allegedly breached their contract by "altering the quantity and lowering
the quality of the machinery and equipment" installed in the plant and
failed to make the plant operational although it earlier certified to the
contrary as shown in a January 22, 1998 Certificate. Likewise, KOGIES averred
that PGSMC violated Art. 15 of their Contract, as amended, by unilaterally
rescinding the contract without resorting to arbitration. KOGIES also asked
that PGSMC be restrained from dismantling and transferring the machinery and
equipment installed in the plant which the latter threatened to do on July 4,
1998.
On July 9, 1998, PGSMC filed an opposition to the TRO arguing that
KOGIES was not entitled to the TRO since Art. 15, the arbitration clause, was
null and void for being against public policy as it ousts the local courts of
jurisdiction over the instant controversy.
On July 23, 1998, the RTC issued an Order denying the application
for a writ of preliminary injunction, reasoning that PGSMC had paid KOGIES USD
1,224,000, the value of the machineries and equipment as shown in the contract
such that KOGIES no longer had proprietary rights over them. And finally, the
RTC held that Art. 15 of the Contract as amended was invalid as it tended to
oust the trial court or any other court jurisdiction over any dispute that may
arise between the parties. KOGIES’ prayer for an injunctive writ was denied.
PGSMC filed a Motion for Inspection of Things to determine whether
there was indeed alteration of the quantity and lowering of quality of the
machineries and equipment, and whether these were properly installed. KOGIES
opposed the motion positing that the queries and issues raised in the motion
for inspection fell under the coverage of the arbitration clause in their
contract. KOGIES asserted that the Branch Sheriff did not have the technical
expertise to ascertain whether or not the machineries and equipment conformed
to the specifications in the contract and were properly installed. The trial
court granted the motion. On November
11, 1998, the Branch Sheriff filed his Sheriff’s Report finding that the enumerated machineries and
equipment were not fully and properly installed.
Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court and declared the
arbitration clause against public policy.
ISSUE
W/N the arbitration clause is against public policy – NO.
RULING
Established in this jurisdiction is the rule that the law of the
place where the contract is made governs. Lex loci contractus. The
contract in this case was perfected here in the Philippines. Therefore, our
laws ought to govern. Nonetheless, Art. 2044 of the Civil Code sanctions the
validity of mutually agreed arbitral clause or the finality and binding effect
of an arbitral award. Art. 2044 provides, "Any stipulation that the
arbitrators’ award or decision shall be final, is valid, without prejudice
to Articles 2038, 2039 and 2040." (Emphasis supplied.)
Arbitration clause not contrary to public policy: The arbitration clause
which stipulates that the arbitration must be done in Seoul, Korea in
accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the KCAB, and that the
arbitral award is final and binding, is not contrary to public policy.
Having said that the instant arbitration clause is not against
public policy, we come to the question on what governs an arbitration clause
specifying that in case of any dispute arising from the contract, an arbitral
panel will be constituted in a foreign country and the arbitration rules of the
foreign country would govern and its award shall be final and binding.
RA 9285 incorporated the UNCITRAL Model law to which we are a
signatory: For domestic arbitration
proceedings, we have particular agencies to arbitrate disputes arising from
contractual relations. In case a foreign arbitral body is chosen by the
parties, the arbitration rules of our domestic arbitration bodies would not be
applied. As signatory to the Arbitration Rules of the UNCITRAL Model Law on
International Commercial Arbitration of the United Nations Commission on
International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) in the New York Convention on June 21, 1985,
the Philippines committed itself to be bound by the Model Law. We have even
incorporated the Model Law in Republic Act No. (RA) 9285, otherwise known as
the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 entitled An Act to Institutionalize
the Use of an Alternative Dispute Resolution System in the Philippines and to
Establish the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution, and for Other Purposes,
promulgated on April 2, 2004. And while
RA 9285 was passed only in 2004, it nonetheless applies in the instant case
since it is a procedural law which has a retroactive effect.
Among the pertinent features of RA 9285 applying and incorporating
the UNCITRAL Model Law are the following:
(1) The RTC must refer to arbitration in
proper cases
(2) Foreign arbitral awards must be
confirmed by the RTC
(3) The RTC has jurisdiction to review foreign
arbitral awards
(4) Grounds for judicial review different in
domestic and foreign arbitral awards
(5) RTC decision of assailed foreign arbitral
award appealable
PGSMC has remedies to protect its interests: Thus, based on the
foregoing features of RA 9285, PGSMC must submit to the foreign arbitration as
it bound itself through the subject contract. While it may have misgivings on
the foreign arbitration done in Korea by the KCAB, it has available remedies
under RA 9285. Its interests are duly protected by the law which requires that
the arbitral award that may be rendered by KCAB must be confirmed here by the
RTC before it can be enforced.
With our disquisition above, petitioner is correct in its
contention that an arbitration clause, stipulating that the arbitral award is
final and binding, does not oust our courts of jurisdiction as the
international arbitral award, the award of which is not absolute and without
exceptions, is still judicially reviewable under certain conditions provided
for by the UNCITRAL Model Law on ICA as applied and incorporated in RA 9285.
Finally, it must be noted that there is nothing in the subject
Contract which provides that the parties may dispense with the arbitration
clause.
Unilateral rescission improper and illegal: Having ruled that the
arbitration clause of the subject contract is valid and binding on the parties,
and not contrary to public policy; consequently, being bound to the contract of
arbitration, a party may not unilaterally rescind or terminate the contract for
whatever cause without first resorting to arbitration.
In addition, whatever findings and conclusions made by the RTC
Branch Sheriff from the inspection made on October 28, 1998, as ordered by the
trial court on October 19, 1998, is of no worth as said Sheriff is not
technically competent to ascertain the actual status of the equipment and
machineries as installed in the plant.
RTC has interim jurisdiction to protect the rights of the parties:
While the issue of the proper installation of the equipment and
machineries might well be under the primary jurisdiction of the arbitral body
to decide, yet the RTC under Sec. 28 of RA 9285 has jurisdiction to hear and
grant interim measures to protect vested rights of the parties
While the KCAB can rule on motions or petitions relating to the
preservation or transfer of the equipment and machineries as an interim
measure, yet on hindsight, the July 23, 1998 Order of the RTC allowing the
transfer of the equipment and machineries given the non-recognition by the
lower courts of the arbitral clause, has accorded an interim measure of
protection to PGSMC which would otherwise been irreparably damaged. KOGIES is
not unjustly prejudiced as it has already been paid a substantial amount based on the contract. Moreover,
KOGIES is amply protected by the arbitral action it has instituted before the
KCAB, the award of which can be enforced in our jurisdiction through the RTC.
Besides, by our decision, PGSMC is compelled to submit to arbitration pursuant
to the valid arbitration clause of its contract with KOGIES.
PGSMC to preserve the subject equipment and machineries: While PGSMC may have been granted the right
to dismantle and transfer the subject equipment and machineries, it does not
have the right to convey or dispose of the same considering the pending
arbitral proceedings to settle the differences of the parties. PGSMC therefore
must preserve and maintain the subject equipment and machineries with the
diligence of a good father of a family until final resolution of the arbitral
proceedings and enforcement of the award, if any.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento