Case Summary (G.R. No. 220250)
Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioner: IP E-Game Ventures, Inc.
Respondent: Beijing Perfect World Software Co., Ltd.
Key Dates
– 2008: Publishing Agreement executed; open beta launched December 2008; full launch March 2009
– August 2010: IPEGV ceased game operations
– January 2011: BPW filed Request for Arbitration (ICC)
– March 2011: Parties agreed to SIAC venue; arbitration began May 2011
– November 19, 2012: Final Award in favor of BPW
– December 2, 2013: BPW filed petition for recognition and enforcement (RTC Manila)
– July 25, 2014: RTC granted enforcement; October 25, 2014: RTC denied IPEGV’s reconsideration; writ of execution issued
– February 5 and August 28, 2015: CA dismissed IPEGV’s petition for review under Special ADR Rules
– September 7, 2020: Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
1987 Philippine Constitution; Republic Act No. 9285 (Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004); Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution (Special ADR Rules); 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure (A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC).
Facts and Procedural History
IPEGV halted game service alleging technical defects and market unsuitability unaddressed by BPW. BPW initiated arbitration, which concluded with an award ordering IPEGV to pay specified amounts plus interest and costs. BPW then sought judicial recognition and enforcement before the RTC. After the RTC’s favorable decision and denial of IPEGV’s motion for reconsideration, BPW obtained a writ of execution. IPEGV appealed to the CA, which dismissed its petition as procedurally defective. IPEGV elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.
Issues Presented
IPEGV contends the CA erred by:
- Disregarding the continuing applicability of the Special ADR Rules;
- Dismissing its petition without addressing merits;
- Applying the Miranda doctrine on courier filings;
- Discounting its Secretary’s Certificate; and
- Not treating its post-filing submission of certified pleadings as substantial compliance.
Applicability of the Special ADR Rules
Section 46 of RA 9285 empowers appeals from RTC decisions on arbitral awards to the CA under rules promulgated by the Supreme Court. The Special ADR Rules expressly cover recognition and enforcement of foreign and international commercial awards (Rules 1.1(i),(j); 2.1; 19.8; 19.12–19.25). The CA’s initial reliance on Rule 19.16 confirms its applicability; its later reversal was erroneous.
Mode of Filing via Courier and the Miranda Doctrine
Under Rule 1.8(a) of the Special ADR Rules, initiatory and subsequent pleadings may be filed “directly with the court” by personal service or courier, with proof by acknowledgment or proof of delivery. This authorizes courier filing. Moreover, A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC permits accredited courier filings and proof by affidavit and courier receipt, superseding the Heirs of Numeriano Miranda, Sr. v. Miranda doctrine.
Mandatory Attachments and Substantial Compliance
Rules 19.16 and 19.17 mandate that a petition for review include certified true copies of the RTC decision and material portions of the record. The word “shall” renders these requirements mandatory. Unlike liberal interpretations under the Rules of Court or in labor and agrarian disputes
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 220250)
Facts of the Case
- In 2008, IPEGV (a Philippine corporation) and BPW (a Chinese game developer-publisher) entered into a Publishing Agreement for the game “Zhu Xian Online,” including an arbitration clause.
- IPEGV conducted an open beta launch in December 2008; full launch occurred in March 2009.
- In August 2010, IPEGV suspended operations allegedly due to persistent bugs and BPW’s refusal to modify game features for the Philippine market.
Arbitration Agreement and Proceedings
- January 2011: BPW filed a Request for Arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce per the Agreement’s arbitration clause.
- March 2011: Venue changed, at IPEGV’s request, to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.
- May 2011–November 2012: Both parties fully participated in the arbitration before Sole Arbitrator Lye Kah Cheong.
- November 19, 2012: Final Award rendered in favor of BPW, ordering IPEGV to pay specified sums, plus interest and costs.
- BPW demanded payment in writing; IPEGV did not comply.
Recognition and Enforcement in the RTC
- December 2, 2013: BPW filed a Petition for Recognition and Enforcement of the Final Award with the RTC of Manila.
- July 25, 2014: RTC granted BPW’s petition in a Decision by Judge Magdoza-Malagar.
- October 25, 2014: RTC denied IPEGV’s motion for reconsideration.
- RTC issued writ of execution for US$1,078,695.78, HK$430,542.05, SG$71,080.55 (plus 12% interest p.a.), and P33,304.11 costs.
Appeals before the Court of Appeals
- IPEGV filed a petition for review under Rule 19.12(j) of the Special ADR Rules.
- February 5, 2015 Resolution: CA dismissed IPEGV’s petition as procedurally infirm—no proof of authorization of counsel, failure to submit certified pleadings, and late filing via private courier.
- March 11, 2015 Motion for Reconsideration: IPEGV argued applicability of Special ADR Rules to filing by courier and rectification of defects; BPW opposed.
- August 28, 2015 Resolution: CA denied reconsideration, held Special ADR Rules inapplicable at CA stage, and