Facts:

On September 27, 1999, ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "ABS-CBN"), the petitioner in this case, entered into a licensing agreement with World Interactive Network Systems (WINS) Japan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "WINS"), the respondent, a foreign corporation duly licensed in Japan. Under this agreement, WINS was granted exclusive rights to distribute and sublicense the television service known as "The Filipino Channel" ("TFC") within Japan. As part of their contractual obligations, ABS-CBN was responsible for transmitting the programming signals for TFC, which WINS would then distribute to its subscribers in Japan.

The dispute arose between the parties when ABS-CBN accused WINS of improperly broadcasting nine episodes of "WINS WEEKLY," a 35-minute community news program meant for Filipinos in Japan, during the TFC programming from March to May 2002 without authorization, thereby committing a

...

Facts:

Licensing Agreement and Relationship Between Parties

• On September 27, 1999, ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (petitioner) entered into a licensing agreement with World Interactive Network Systems (WINS) Japan Co., Ltd. (respondent), a foreign corporation licensed under Japanese law.
• Under the agreement, WINS was granted the exclusive license to distribute and sublicense the distribution of the television service known as aThe Filipino Channel (TFC) in Japan.
• ABS-CBN was responsible for transmitting the TFC programming signals, which were received and subsequently distributed by WINS to its subscribers.

Emergence of the Dispute

• A controversy arose when ABS-CBN accused WINS of inserting nine episodes of the program WINS WEEKLY—a weekly, 35-minute community news show—into the TFC programming from March to May 2002.
• ABS-CBN claimed that these "unauthorized insertions" constituted a material breach of the licensing agreement.
• On May 9, 2002, ABS-CBN notified WINS of its intention to terminate the agreement, effective June 10, 2002.

Arbitration Proceedings

• In response to the termination notice, WINS initiated an arbitration suit under the arbitration clause contained in the agreement, contending that:
• The airing of WINS WEEKLY was done with ABS-CBN’s prior approval, as evidenced by a series of written exchanges.
• ABS-CBN’s termination threat was a ploy to force a renegotiation for higher fees.
• WINS was entitled to damages, especially after alleging that ABS-CBN had granted an exclusive distribution license to another entity, NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation).
• Both parties agreed to appoint Professor Alfredo F. Tadiar as the sole arbitrator and stipulated the issues (Terms of Reference) for his determination, namely:
• Whether the broadcast of WINS WEEKLY was duly authorized by ABS-CBN.
• Whether the broadcast constituted a material breach of the contract under Section 13(a).
• If there was a breach, whether it was seasonably cured.
• Which party was entitled to damages and other reliefs claimed.

The Arbitrator’s Decision

• The arbitrator ruled in favor of WINS by finding that ABS-CBN had indeed given its approval for the airing of WINS WEEKLY, as shown by relevant written correspondence between the parties.
• He opined that even if a material breach had occurred, ABS-CBN should have terminated the agreement outright rather than merely sending a notice of termination.
• The decision further noted that even if WINS had breached the agreement, the breach was cureable within the contractual timeframe.
• Consequently, the arbitrator awarded WINS temperate damages, attorney’s fees, and half of the arbitrator’s fee.

Judicial and Appellate Proceedings

• ABS-CBN filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, or alternatively, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, with applications for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals (CA).
• In its petition, ABS-CBN contended there were serious errors of fact and law and alleged grave abuse of discretion by the arbitrator, arguing that the CA’s jurisdiction should extend directly to such matters.
• Concurrently, WINS filed a petition for confirmation of the arbitral award before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 93.
• As a result, ABS-CBN filed a supplemental petition in the CA to enjoin the RTC from further proceedings regarding the confirmation of WINS’ petition.

Court of Appeals’ Decision

• On February 16, 2005, the CA dismissed ABS-CBN’s petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, emphasizing that:
• The Terms of Reference in the arbitration clearly stipulated that the arbitrator’s decision shall be final and unappealable, and no motion for reconsideration was allowable.
• The RTC was the proper forum for matters concerning the vacatur of arbitral awards, as mandated by RA 876.
• A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is applicable only when a court neglects to investigate the facts that constitute the basis of the arbitrator’s award.
• The CA further noted that the only instance when the CA could intervene was on appeal from a trial court’s decision regarding a confirmation, vacation, or modification of an arbitral award.
• ABS-CBN’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied, leading to the present petition.

Legal Arguments Raised by ABS-CBN

• ABS-CBN argued that it should have first filed a petition to vacate the award in the RTC and, only upon denial, elevate the appeal to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43.
• The petitioner further contended that an aggrieved party in a voluntary arbitration dispute must have the direct option of appealing to the CA under Rule 43 or through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, even if the issues raised involve errors in fact, errors in law, or allegations of grave abuse of discretion.
• ABS-CBN alleged multiple errors in the arbitrator’s decision ranging from the approval of WINS WEEKLY and the determination of material breach to the assessment of damages and attorney’s fees, characterizing these errors as beyond a mere error in judgment and tantamount to a grave abuse of discretion.

Issue:

Jurisdictional Issue

• Does an aggrieved party in a voluntary arbitration dispute have the right to directly file a petition for review under Rule 43 or a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA, instead of filing a petition to vacate the award in the RTC?
• How does the express provision in the arbitration clause (that the arbitrator’s decision is final and unappealable) affect the availability of direct judicial remedies?

Appropriateness of the Mode of Appeal

• Is the alternative petition for review filed by ABS-CBN, which straddles both errors of fact/law and grave abuse of discretion, the proper mode of appeal?
• Should ABS-CBN have adhered to the specific grounds enumerated under Section 24 of RA 876 for a petition to vacate an arbitral award?

Distinction Between Judicial Remedies

• What are the distinctions between a petition for review under Rule 43 and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 concerning errors of fact/law versus jurisdictional errors, respectively?
• Can the remedies of appeal (Rule 43) and certiorari (Rule 65) be considered alternative or successive, or are they mutually exclusive in the context of challenging an arbitral award?

Validity of Arbitration Clause Limitations

• Does a stipulation in the arbitration agreement that “the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and unappealable” preclude a party from pursuing judicial review on grounds such as grave abuse of discretion or errors in fact and law?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Statutory Interpretation of RA 876

• Section 24 of RA 876 enumerates specific grounds for vacating an arbitral award, which include corruption, evident partiality, procedural misconduct, or the arbitrators exceeding their powers.

• The legal maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” was applied to determine that, because the law expressly provides for only certain grounds, allegations of errors in fact or law or grave abuse of discretion not among the enumerated grounds are not sufficient to vacate the award in the RTC.

Distinction Between Judicial Remedies

• The Court clarified that a petition for review under Rule 43 is appropriate to challenge errors of fact, of law, or mixed questions, whereas a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is strictly limited to errors of jurisdiction, specifically grave abuse of discretion.
• Since the issues raised by ABS-CBN largely pertained to an evaluation of factual evidence and legal assessment (such as the authorization for broadcasting and the appreciation of contractual breaches), these fall squarely within the ambit of a Rule 43 appeal rather than a Rule 65 petition.

Finality of the Arbitration Agreement

• The arbitration clause explicitly stating that the arbitrator’s decision is “final and unappealable” reinforced the limited scope of judicial review.
• Any attempt to circumvent this clause by crafting an alternative appeal which conflates different grounds was considered impermissible because it undermined the clear statutory and contractual provisions governing arbitration.

Jurisdiction and the Role of the CA

• The CA’s jurisdiction in reviewing questions of fact and law, arising from decisions made by quasi-judicial entities (including voluntary arbitrators), was acknowledged.
• However, the CA was clear that its jurisdiction does not ex

...continue reading