Case Digest (G.R. No. 216600)
Facts:
Federal Express Corporation and Rhicke S. Jennings executed Global Service Program contracts with Airfreight 2100, Inc. and its chairman Alberto D. Lina, and submitted their commercial dispute to arbitration by Notice of Arbitration dated June 24, 2011; the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted October 3, 2011, and Jennings testified in an April 25, 2013 hearing. After Lina used portions of arbitration witness statements and the Transcript of Stenographic Notes to file a grave slander complaint against Jennings, petitioners sought a confidentiality/protective order from the RTC; the RTC denied the petition by Order dated May 7, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed on January 20, 2015, and petitioners brought the case to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Are Jennings' oral testimony and the witness statements made during arbitration confidential under R.A. No. 9285, specifically Section 3(h) and Section 23?
- May the confidentiality privilege attendant to arbitration be invoked to bar disclosure of such statements when a criminal complaint for grave slander is filed?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals decision, and ordered that the Petition for the Issuance of a Confidentiality/Protective Order be GRANTED. The Court held that the witness statements and Jennings' arbitration testimony constituted confidential information and were entitled to protection under the ADR law and Special ADR Rules.
Ratio:
The Court applied the statutory definition of "confidential information" in Section 3(h) of R.A. No. 9285, which expressly includes communications made in dispute resolution and witness statements, and noted the mandatory confidentiality of arbitration proceedings under Section 23; it relied on Rule 10.1 and Rule 10.8 of the Special ADR Rules empowering courts to enjoin disclosure and declaring confidential information inadmissible in adversarial proceedings. The parties had agreed in the Terms of Reference to keep the arbitration strictly confidential, and the Court interpreted "relative to the subject of arbitration" broadly as any communication connected to the dispute, concluding that using arbitration materials to support a separate criminal complaint violated that confidentiality and that Lina offered no independent non‑arbitral evidence to justify disclosure.
Doctrine:
- R.A. No. 9285, Section 3(h), defines as confidential any communication made in a dispute resolution proceeding, including witness statements.
- (Get Pro to unlock 5 more doctrines)