Key takeaway
Under the old CIAC Rules, a petition for review from a final award may be taken by filing such petition before the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, which may raise issues of fact or law or both.
Under the amended CIAC Rules, recourse against a final award may only be taken through either of the following modes:
- Where a party seeks to raise purely legal questions, by appeal to the Supreme Court through a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
- Where a party seeks to appeal factual issues but only on the limited grounds that pertain to either a challenge on the integrity of the CIAC arbitral tribunal (i.e., allegations of corruption, fraud, misconduct, evident partiality, incapacity or excess of powers within the Tribunal) or an allegation that the arbitral tribunal violated the Constitution or positive law in the conduct of the arbitral process, by a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals in accordance with the provisions of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, on grounds of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess in jurisdiction.
Other notable amendments
Under the amended CIAC Rules, a final arbitral award shall become executory upon the lapse of 15 days from receipt thereof by the parties, even if recourse is taken to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. However, if a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction is issued by the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, the award shall become executory only upon the issuance of the entry of judgment, or upon the lapse/lifting of the temporary restraining order or the dissolution of the preliminary injunction.
The amended CIAC Rules likewise removed the arbitral tribunal's authority to issue a writ of execution on its own initiative and clarified that execution can only be done upon motion of the prevailing party. Specifically, the amended CIAC Rules provide that the prevailing party may file a motion for execution of the final award, unless the prevailing party itself has sought recourse against such award or any portion thereof.
Why this amendment is significant
When the Global Medical decision was issued, the old CIAC Rules conflicted with the same, which resulted in confusion among litigants before the CIAC. This amendment addresses this confusion by adopting the appeal procedure and grounds in the Global Medical decision.
Actions to consider
Parties to construction disputes should be mindful of this amendment, as they consider the possible remedies following the issuance of the CIAC arbitral award.
*Authored by Quisumbing Torres, a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International, a Swiss Verein. Please contact QTInfoDesk@quisumbingtorres.com for inquiries.
VISIT QUISUMBING TORRES SITE
