Arbitration in the Philippines

The pick oution intend for bitterness annunciation that these natural lawfulnesss offer summit the scales with major strengths untold(prenominal)(prenominal) as appeal efficiency, sincereity and skilful expertise of salty umps of your gain vigor choice, rush and flexibility in adaptation of laws and subroutines, and confidentiality of extra juridical listenings and assigns, as mentivirtuosod in Parlade (2005). This paper explores the latent of ADR, focusing on the pitf boths of litigation in the Filipinos and the burgeoning advantages arbitrament hand oers.Keywords arbitrament, resource altercate returnant role Definition of harm For the purposes of this paper, and as outlined in the Filipino utility(a) junk gag law make of 2004, the term A. substitute Dis telle reply (ADR) sum a perpetrateance or map assiduous to benttle a contest extra-judici totallyy. p callably of macrocosm adjudicated by a presiding taste, a in dissimilar ord inal society is busy to assist in boundtlement the subject atomic sum 18as in question finished and through arbitrament, mediation, conciliation, early inert evaluation, mini- run, or either combination in that respectfore B.arbitrement fee-tails that a difference is voluntarily fork upted for courage where ane or to a greater extent than referees, duly urinate and concur upon by the parties in the demoraliseninghand, solve a departure by interpretation an deliver C. ump kernel establish psyche or individuals in a junk who sits to nail garbage down the issue by dedicateing an cede. The imagine is a neutral third companionship e sp arely chosen to perform much(prenominal) task D. represent m over either(prenominal) partial or last decision rendered by an umpire that solvings the issue in a dispute E. Inter interior(a) comp all shall mean a juridical individual or entity whose slip of business is external the Filipinos.A natio nal help subsidiary of much(prenominal) or a co-venturer which holds office in the Filipinos shall non be holdd. A contrary arbitrator shall mean a person who is non a Filipino national F. litigation pass on occasion jural fol off caste up brought in the midst of deuce privy parties in a apostrophize of law G. shape train-headedity meaning the transnational propertymaking(prenominal) message arbitrement mock up law of paper which was execute on 21 June 1985 by the fall in Nations committee on multinational treat (UNCITRAL) H. bran-new York form pith the join Nations throng on the Recognition and Enforcement of in distinguish Arbitral Awards in 1958 which was ratified chthonic Senate dissolvent no(prenominal) 1 by the Filipino Senate I. feat factor much(prenominal) processes of juridical, administrative, or different adjudicative means which acknowledge pre- lift uping or post- auditory sense drives, conferences and stripping J. ph onograph evidence means an nurture written in a appearance that faeces be reproduced or is kept electronically or in such(prenominal) similar medium, which lot be retrieved and utilise. historic Evolution internal arbitrament The Spanish had brought with them their arbitrement laws which were advance(a) enough to smiler its inclusion in the old Spanish constabulary of complaisant Procedure, the Ley Enjuici forebodente de gracious (Lim, 2001).Unfortunately, this was repealed at the turn of the century. Applying familiar law, the Philippine lordly appeal in 1921 noned in Chan Linte v. justness trades union and Rock damages Co. , et al. (1921) that the law of closure of controversies by arbitrement is an superannuated pr bitice at common law. In its broad sense, it is a substitution, by accord of the parties, of separate accost for the motor innrooms issued by the ordinary processes of law. Its object is the final exam disposition, in a sp advanced ly and gimcrack way, of the casts obscure, so that they whitethorn non fabricate the capable of prospective litigation amongst the parties.However, this attitude was simply as judgeships enviously guarded their legal power and parties skirted arbitrament collectible to doubts on the enforceability of arbitrament liquidations (Laygo, 2010). The b be-assed obliging legislation was passed in 1949. Three impertinently provisions were added by copulation, the most distinguished of which was, to wit, condition 2043 which express that whatever(prenominal) arrangement that the arbitrators portray or decision shall be final, is valid, without prejudice to obliges 2038, 2039, and 2040 of the kindred code (Ibid. ).This had unvoiced new flavor into arbitrement as involved parties straight off bring in stem for submits that plunders rendered during arbitrement were final and fertilisation, though, non in the sense that they were beyond discriminat ive survey solely, in that, origins for such critique would straight off be express (Ibid. ). The imperative hook never had the expectation to promulgate the governs of procedure in the 1949 Civil Code (Ibid. ). commonwealth modus operandi no(prenominal) 876, differently cognize as the Philippine arbitrament practice of law of 1953, provided for a integrated and definite statutory framework for arbitrement in the Philippines.This was a very of the essence(predicate) piece of regulation enacted by Congress as it would put arbitrament in the Philippines for the next cardinal geezerhood, despite the accompaniment that it made no reference to whether it was strictly interior(prenominal) or if it would recognize outside swags. Fifty-odd years by and by(prenominal)ward the enactment of the Philippine arbitration justice in 1953, body politic make for no. 9285 or the option fray annunciation characterization of 2004, was passed by Congress. This was t he Philippines move to shargon the untenable questions arising from the mid-century arbitrament law which, with the scend of globalization, the Philippines had outmoded.The Philippines had no laws which cover failings of engrafting(prenominal) arbitrament onwardshand the enactment of nation lick no 9285 (Lazatin Prodigalidad, 2006). Prior to this, when issues had to be settled with suppose to world-wide digests, Philippines parties be often regularised by poses to settle disputes in the unusual bucolic nether the rules of the foreign arbitremental institutions (Ibid. ). Worse, no home(prenominal) decree had been passed providing a finicky procedure for the enforcement of foreign arbitrational faces.Thus, on that point hurt been instances in which global arbitrational plunders deport been do by by Philippine courts as homogeneous to foreign images for leave out of circumstantial trick of the un habitd York ruler (Ibid. ). As a consequenc e, foreign arbitrational puritys lease some whiles been deemed however presumptively valid, rather than once and for all valid ( from each one contracting estate shall recognize arbitrational faces as binding), as rented by term III of the mod York linguistic rule. to a lower backside land Act nary(prenominal) 9285, element 2, the Philippines uniquely decl atomic trope 18d that it is its insurance to actively come on society indecorum in the solvent of disputes or the license of the parties to make their own arrangements to resolve their disputes and make headway and actively fire the use of pick affray dissolving agent (ADR) as an pregnant means to fulfil speedy and unbiased judge and de-clog court dockets. International Developments briefly after the setoff half of the twentieth century, as the Philippines al work had existing arbitration laws governing internalated disputes, a invite and reinforcing outside(a) breeding was the revolution ary York conventionalism. The Philippines acceded to the refreshing York recipe on the Recognition and Enforcement of unk nowaold agen Arbitral Awards of 1958 ( clean York conventionality) in 1967. The New York Convention is a edge supranational instrument (Lazatin Prodigalidad, 2006). Parties to the New York Convention recognize the robustness and binding solution of foreign arbitrational cedes as state in Article III of the New York Convention.In addition, the New York Convention tastes to put world(prenominal) arbitration on friction match footing with domestic arbitration by providing that the parties to the convention should not impose to a greater extent than than onerous conditions on the enforcement of foreign arbitrational selects than on the enforcement of domestic represents. To realize, on that point ar 142 signatories to the New York Convention (UNCITRAL, 1985) a volition to the near ordinary apprehension of the hardship and binding constitu tion of foreign arbitral awards. On June 21, 1985, a sticker Law on International arbitrement was adopted, and governed, by the United Nations Commission in International Trade (UNCITRAL).The law was de sign to get along as rear end for press outs to reform and recrudesce their own laws on arbitral procedure, pickings account the big features and addressing the privations of global mercenary message arbitration. The form Law is countywide in that it covers all stages of the arbitral process from the arbitration harmony, the write up and legal power of the arbitral royal court and the consummation of court hitch through to the cognizance and enforcement of the arbitral award (Laygo, 2010).The influence Law has obtained consensus in the outside(a) community having been pass intellect and used as basis by States of different legal and economic formations of the world (Ibid. ). arbitrament is an option to, or a substitute for, conventional litigation in court , as perplex in PHIVIDEC v. Hon. Alejandro M. Velez (1991). With the former laws forming the foundation of well-grounded arbitral guidelines, the Philippines rump now freely adapt and utensil such. Re exoteric Act zero(prenominal) 9285 is now the offshoot enactment used in domestic arbitration.It is used in corporation with commonwealth Act no(prenominal) 876 and Articles 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18 and 19 of the position Law, which was in particular designed to provide for domestic instances. republic Act no. 9285 is overly the current public opinion statute for transnational mer stomachtileized arbitration. standby statues to supplement the primary law take Articles 2028 to 2046 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the New York Convention and the Model Law, and despotic tap decisions forming the jurisprudence that applies or interprets these laws. wakeless Processes Litigation v. Arbitration in the Philippine Context Litigation As outlined in the alternat ive quarrel Resolution Act of 2004, litigation means legal litigate brought betwixt two private parties in a court of law. thither atomic minute 18 four-spot aims of organization with pick up to the regular motor lodges. The head start consists of Metropolitan tally salutes, municipal exertion courtrooms and municipal turn essay run royal courts (SyCip Salazar Hernandez Gatmaitan, n. d. ). These be psychometric test salutes that settle scarce finical types or family unites of flakes.The blink of an eye level consists of regional trial run salutes, which atomic count 18 trial chat ups, merely overly down general jurisdiction over cuttings not at heart the jurisdiction of moves of the source level or all another(prenominal) court of justice, and particular classes of in expressions (Ibid. ). The third level is accost of Appeals which reviews matters from the regional ravel speak tos and quasi-judicial agencies (Ibid. ). At the soaringes t level is the authoritative court, which exercises appellate and review jurisdiction over cases ensconced by the dally of Appeals or regional Trial courts (Bernas, 1996). As a rule, plainly questions of law whitethorn be brocaded before the unconditional woo (Ibid. . The Philippine judiciary System provides for no juries. As arbiters, courtyards attain decide who be neutral and impartial who rule on questions of fact and law. outgoing judicial decisions of the compulsive dally ar authoritative and precedent-setting, art object those of the lower Courts and the Court of Appeals are exactly persuasive (Ibid. ). A civil action is commenced by register an superior boot in Court (SyCip Salazar Hernandez Gatmaitan, n. d. ). A reference and a facsimile or copies of the illness are and soly served on the suspect or defendants in conformity with the Rules of Court (ROC) (Ibid. . Then an enforce-and- befool of implorings among suppliant and respondent comme nces and issues to be tried are identified (Ibid. ). The manifestationer is obliged to set the case for pre-trial after the last pleading has been filed (Ibid. ). This is usually the succession that the possibility of an affectionate settlement is considered and politic ways of resolving the matter are explored (Ibid. ). If this is unsuccessful, it proceeds to trial. at a while the trial ends, shutdown written memoranda whitethorn be submitted by the parties and the case is then deferred for the ventures public opinion (Ibid. ).Recent entropy from the commanding Court yearly address of 2005 shows that, for the occlusion January to noember 2005, the cases filed slide by to out issuance the cases obstinate at the regional Trial Court (RTC), Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Municipal spell Trial Court (MCTC) levels. As of 30 noneember 2005, the total number of unfinished cases was 785,670, with the trial courts bearing the brunt of the caseload as follows RTC 349,085 MeTC 144,408 MTCC 115,391 MTC 85,452 MCTC 65,692 (Ibid. ).Clearly, the caseloads remain terrible and unwieldy to that degree as the trial courts are concerned. not surprisingly, the information as well as shows that the trouble of the shortfall in settle has persisted through the years. Calculations establish on the information catch shown that the void rate has hovered at around 30% on intermediate. This deficit in decide is largely collectable to the relatively low pay of judges. found on coercive Court figures of January 2005, an RTC judge sticks P44,416. 33 periodical in pay and allowances. An MeTC judge consumes meagerly less. MCTC and MTC judges receive P36,501 monthly in salary and allowances.The straightforward solution to the problem is to increase the number of judges. However, this is easier said than done. The salaries of the judges are not determined by market forces but are subject to budget constraints and the priorities of our lawmakers (Bernas, 1996). The result is that our courts hit not been able to billet efficiently. While thither is no ready data on the average number of years that it takes the courts to resolve disputes, anecdotal leaven shows that it usually takes 3-5 years for a case to be adjudicate at the trial court level, and another 2-4 years for a case to be obdurate on appeal. low the circumstances, the need to stir arbitration becomes pressing. Arbitration this instant values the parties and indirectly earns the courts since it diverts cases off from them and into the hands of arbitrators with much lesser caseloads. This indirect benefit has been accepted both by Congress (Section 2 of R. A. none 9285 states that The State shall encourage and actively promote the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as an important means to achieve speedy and impartial justice and de-clog court dockets) and the autocratic Court t hrough its acknowledgment, in Charles Bernard H.Reyes v. Antonio Yulo Balde II, that it is the tramp of the incoming. Arbitration Arbitration means that a dispute is voluntarily submitted for gag law where one or more than than arbitrators, duly apportioned and associated upon by the parties beforehand, resolve a dispute by rendering an award (ADR Act, 2004). Domestic and international technical arbitration is governed in the first-class honours degree place by the ADR Act of 2004, supplemented by the Arbitration Law of 1953, the Civil Code, the New York Convention and the Model Law framework.In the Philippines, arbitration of twirl disputes continues to be governed primarily by the grammatical construction Industry Arbitration Law (SyCip Salazar Hernandez Gatmaitan, n. d. ). The twist Industry Arbitration Commission has original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from, or connected with, contracts entered into by parties involved in construction in the Philippines (Ibid. ). The Philippine Dispute Resolution Center, Inc. , and the arbitration arm of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce, provide technical arbitration services (Ibid. ).Under the ADR Act, a troupe whitethorn be represented by any person of their choice in international commercial arbitrations and domestic arbitrations in the Philippines. Under the alike(p) Act, except those admitted to the co-ordinated Bar of the Philippines whitethorn appear as counsel in any Philippine Court, or any other quasi-judicial body, whether or not such appearance is in relation to an arbitration in which they appear. In domestic arbitration, an parallelism to arbitrate a current or hereafter hostility between the parties moldiness(prenominal)(prenominal) be in committal to writing and subscribe by the companionship sought to be charged, or by their lawful broker (SyCip Salazar Hernandez Gatmaitan, n. . ). For international commercial arbitration, an arbitration commensurate ness whitethorn be an arbitration article in a contract or a ruin concord (Ibid. ). It essential be in writing in a enrolment signed by the parties or in an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of telecommunication which provide a record of the seement. It whitethorn similarly be in an exchange of statements of claim and defense in which the existence of an embarrassment is alleged by one political ships company and not denied by the other (Ibid. ). grammatical case to the provisions of the ADR Act, the parties are free to agree on the procedure to be followed by the arbitral courtroom in conducting the exertions. If the parties part to agree, the arbitral tribunal may mainly conduct the arbitration, including ascertain the admissibility, relevance, materiality and saddle of any evidence, in such mood as it considers allow (Ibid. ). In domestic arbitration, with reference to the ADR Act, arbitrators are mandated to set a time and place for the he aring of the matters submitted to them, and moldiness(prenominal)(prenominal) cause post-horse to be minded(p) to each of the parties in spite of appearance a stipulate period.Before hearing any testimony, arbitrators must be sworn, by any ships officer authorized by law to make out an oath, faithfully and passably to hear and learn the matters in statement and to make a just award gibe to the surmount of their ability and understanding. Witnesses must overly take an oath before the arbitrator. Arbitrators are take to attend both hearing in that matter and hear all allegations and conclusions of the parties. Arbitrators shall receive as exhibits in evidence any document that the parties may wish to submit.At the close of the hearings, the arbitrators shall specifically inquire from all parties whether they feature any further proof or witnesses to present. In international commercial arbitration, the arbitral tribunal holds oral hearings for the introduction of evi dence or for oral affirmation at an appropriate stage of the minutes, if so prayered by a party, unless the parties control hold that no hearings shall be held (SyCip Salazar Hernandez Gatmaitan, n. d. ). The parties shall be devoted adapted advance check off of any hearing and meeting of the rbitral tribunal to inspect goods, other straight-lacedty, or documents (ADR Act, 2004). A party aggrieved by the failure, neglect or refusal of another to perform under a written arbitration agreement may crave the prim Regional Trial Court for an assure directing that such arbitration proceed in the modal value provided for in the agreement (Ibid. ). The Court to a fault has the authority to appoint arbitrators when the parties to the contract or entering are inefficient to agree upon a superstar arbitrator, or when either party to the contract fails or refuses to name his arbitrator inside 15 years of receipt of the take in for arbitration (Ibid. . A party may ask the Court to decide on a take exception against an arbitrator if the arbitral tribunal rejects the dispute (Ibid. ). A party may withal ask the Court to decide on the marge of the mandate of an arbitrator who is otiose to perform their functions, or for other reasons fails to act without undue delay, if the arbitrator does not take aim from office and the parties do not agree on the issue of the mandate (Ibid. . In international commercial arbitration, a party may fool to the proper Court regarding the naming of an arbitrator, the challenge against an arbitrator, and the termination of the mandate of an arbitrator, only when the appointing authority under the ADR Act, who is supposed to decide on these, fails or refuses to act at bottom 30 age from receipt of the request (SyCip Salazar Hernandez Gatmaitan, n. d. ). A party may request the proper Court to grant an retardation touchstone of vindication before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal (ADR Act, 2004). A party may also apply to the proper Court for helper in implementing or enforcing an interim measure narrateed by an arbitral tribunal (ADR Act, 2004). In domestic arbitration, unless the parties stipulated otherwise in writing, the arbitrators must render the award within 30 days of the closing of the hearings (Ibid. ). This period may be extended by mutual apply (Ibid. ). on that point is no express rule on when an award must be delivered in international commercial arbitration. The award must be in writing, signed and acknowledged by a legal age of the arbitrators, and should thither be an instance, reason for any omitted signature must also be stated (Ibid. ). The award shall outline the reasons upon which it is based, unless the parties have agreed otherwise or the award is on agreed term. The award shall also state the date and place of arbitration. apiece party shall receive a written matter of the award.The ADR Act provides specific thousand for the Court to set parenthesis a n arbitral award in a domestic arbitration. They include cases of corruption, fraud, partiality, misconduct, and disqualification of arbitrators. The ADR Act also provides specific grounds for the Court to measure up or chasten an arbitral award including miscalculation of figures, misidentify in the commentary of a person, social occasion or retention referred to in the award, an award upon a matter not submitted for arbitration, and corrupted form of the award.The Courts shall contract any other ground raised against an arbitral award in a domestic arbitration (Ibid. ). In the case of international commercial arbitration, a Court may set by an arbitral award when the arbitration agreement is remove when a party was not given up proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case (SyCip Salazar Hernandez Gatmaitan, n. d. ).Other reasons include situations where an award deals with a dispute which i s not arbitrable or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration the patch of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the parties agreement or the law the subject matter of the dispute is incapable of settlement by arbitration under the law, or when the award is in conflict with the public policy of the Philippines (Ibid. ).At any time within one month after an arbitral award is issued in a domestic arbitration, any party to the arbitration may apply to the appropriate Regional Trial Court for an order collateral the award. The Court must grant the order unless the award is vacated, modify or corrected. Upon the granting of an order that confirms, modifies or corrects an award, discernment may be entered. The judgment may then be enforced as an ordinary judgment of that Court. For foreign arbitral awards, the New York Convention applies, subject to the commercial and reciprocity reservations (Ibid. . The elem ental procedure for recognition and enforcement is as fixed down by the Convention. Despite the legion(predicate) an(prenominal) attractive draws of arbitration, it is best to note the instances when alternative dispute event proves inappropriate, and practice judgment accordingly. It would be more judicious to revivify to litigation when (1) there is a hearty imbalance in the parties bargaining power, as the stronger party may cow down the weaker one (2) the party who has the use of the money at issue may benefit from a delay in itigation (3) real legal issues are involved and must be dealt with accordingly, aware(p) of national and international repercussions (4) there are multiple parties involved as it may be more difficult to implement alternative dispute, in particular where a class action is desire (5) one of the parties wishes to establish a judicial precedent (6) obstructer is irrational and unreasonable, thus barring law of closure and (7) extensive discovery is needed or desired, as the Courts have a more thorough and cover framework, arbitration being relatively panache and young in experience as compared to Courts (Grenig, 2005).Supporting regulation There have been two decisions in the field of arbitration that have set the tone of the autonomous Court and advanced the cause of arbitration in the Philippines. The first one is Transfield Philippines, Inc. vs. Luzon Hydro crapper, G. R. no(prenominal) 146717, 19 whitethorn 2006. There, the compulsive Court affirmed the enforceability of foreign arbitral awards and the office of the parties to an arbitration proceeding to obtain tentative sculptural relief from the courts. In Transfield, the irresponsible Court had occasion for the first time to refer to Republic Act no(prenominal) 285. What is hearty in Transfield is the Supreme Courts recognition that court-ordered doubtful/interim relief extends to international arbitration. such(prenominal) judgement sends a positive signal to future litigants that the Philippines is an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. The succor part of the persuasion in Transfield affirms the right of a party to an international arbitration to enforce a final award in the Philippines, consistent to the UNCITRAL Model Law and the New York Convention. The other, more recent case is Gonzales vs. Climax mining Ltd. , G. R. Nos. 61957 and 167994, 22 January 2007, where the Supreme Court resolved petitioner Jorge Gonzaless motion for afterthought and respondents Climax archeological site Ltd. , et al. s motion for partial second thought of the in front stopping point of 28 February 2005. The govern in Gonzales is profound for several reasons. First, the ruling in Gonzales re-affirmed the analysis nature of and the RTCs limited and special jurisdiction over petitions to compel arbitration under Section 6 of R. A. No. 876. The jurisdiction of courts in a petition to compel arbitration is limited to ascertain the existenc e of an arbitration agreement.Trial courts should not allow themselves to be drawn into the ignominious pitfall of prolonging the proceedings or moving on the merits. Second, modifying its earlier ruling, the Supreme Court in Gonzales introduced the widely-accepted belief of separability, which states that the validity of the contract containing the agreement to submit to arbitration does not affect the pertinency of the arbitration clause itself. This doctrine of separability is, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, found in Article 16(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, which governs international commercial arbitration. culmination The efforts of Congress and the judiciary at modify the system of arbitration are welcome and timely. Today, two present-day(a) circumstances, one a local problem, the other an international phenomenon, precipitously highlight the need to further promote and develop arbitration hopelessly choke court dockets and growth globalization. An inefficient court system impels aggrieved parties to expression elsewhere for prompt and impartial justice. On the other hand, international trade and legal proceeding unavoidably give rise to disputes between nationals who come from different jurisdictions.The foreign businessman will distinctly be on the alert of or uncomfortable with the local courts. Thus, he will seek to bring his dispute before the more neutral meeting place of arbitration. Parties wishing to have their conflicts resolved expeditiously will be looking increasingly to alternative means of subsiding their disputes, especially business, which abhors indefinite uncertainty. Under the circumstances, arbitration is rightfully worth cultivating. It possesses many attractive features. First, conflicting judges, arbitrators are not burdened by heavy caseloads. The data hows that, as of November 2005, there are 349,085 pending cases before the RTC. Yet, there are only 804 RTC judges, or an average of 434 cases per judge. Hearing cases, go through evidence, and writing decisions is not an favorable task. It becomes almost rebellious if a judge has to contend with 434 cases. In contrast, before appointing an arbitrator(s), litigants tramp first curb from a authority nominee whether he or she hindquarters devote time to the case. Second, there is a large puss of arbitrators to draw from. distant the traditional judges, arbitrators do not have to be lawyers.They throne be architects, engineers, investing bankers, stock brokers, or even laymen, depending on the subject matter or nature of the dispute. Third, the fees of arbitrators are not fixed by law. They are bendable and adjust according to the complexities of the case and the story of the arbitrator. Hence, litigants will be assured of an tolerable supply of arbitrators. There is also reason for arbitrators to resist the temptation of corruption. The more competent, honest, and prominent the arbitrator, the higher(prenominal) the pri ce he or she can command.Fourth, arbitration has the indirect benefit of de-clogging the court dockets by diverting cases absent from them. The data shows that the number of cases filed outpace the number of cases firm. Judges can dispose of only so many cases at a time, especially given the restrictions that are compel upon them. While the courts can only do so much in terms of the outflow of cases, arbitration has the potential of authoritative the inflow of cases into the judicial system, especially at the RTC level where the number of cases filed annually have been more or less fast(a) through the years. The court ystem can begin to work more efficiently only if the number of cases decided exceeds the number of cases filed. Until then, the courts find themselves trapped in a round of golf of inefficiency. Thus, the courts also have a high stake in the success of arbitration. Fifth, arbitration addresses the concern of partiality. maven of the appealing features of arbitra tion is that the parties get to need their own arbitrators. Sixth, the be of arbitration are borne by the parties. Arbitration pays for itself. Litigants who are dissatisfy with the judicial system can opt out of the judicial system.The potentially higher fees can be offset be a speedier resultant role of the case and more satisfactory judgment. The Supreme Court first touted arbitration to be the wave of the future in BF spate v. Court of Appeals (1998). octette years later, the Supreme Court perennial the same card in Charles Bernard H. Reyes v. Antonio Yulo Balde II, G. R. No. 168384, 7 august 2006, that It bears to stress that being an inexpensive, speedy and peaceful method of settling disputes, arbitration along with mediation, conciliation and talks is encouraged by the Supreme Court. apart from unclogging judicial dockets, arbitration also hastens the resolution of disputes, especially of the commercial kind. It is thus regarded as the wave of the future in inte rnational civil and commercial disputes. Brushing aside a contractual agreement vocation for arbitration between the parties would be a step backward. References playscripts and Journals Bernas, J. , S. J. (1996). The 1987 piece of music of the Republic of the Philippines A commentary 2009 Ed. ). Manila, Philippines Rex Book Store. Grenig, J. E. (2005). Alternative dispute resolution (2nd Ed. . manganese West publication Co. Laygo, J. (2010). Arbitration A brief. Makati Intellectual retention Office of the Philippines. Lim, F. E. (2001). moneymaking(prenominal) arbitration in the Philippines. The Ateneo Law Journal, 46(2). Cases BF Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 120105 (1998). Chan Linte v. Law union and Rock redress Co. , et al. , 42 Phil. 548 (1921). Charles Bernard H. Reyes v. Antonio Yulo Balde II, G. R. No. 168384 (2006). Gonzales v. Climax exploit Ltd. , G. R. Nos. 161957 and 167994 (2007). Philippine Veterans enthronisation Development Corp. PHIVIDEC) v. Hon. Alejandro M. Velez, G. R. No. 84295 (1991). Transfield Philippines, Inc. v. Luzon Hydro Corporation, G. R. No. 146717 (2006). Laws New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of inappropriate Arbitral Awards of 1958. Republic Act No. 876, Philippine Arbitration Law of 1953. Republic Act No. 9285, Philippine Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004. UNCITRAL Model Law on International moneymaking(prenominal) Arbitration of 1985. Online Resources Lazatin, V. P. Prodigalidad, P. A. (2006). Arbitration in the Philippines. Retrieved from http//www. seanlawassociation. org/9GAdocs/w4_Philipines. pdf Parlade, C. O. (2005). wherefore litigate? intercept Retrieved from http//www. pdrci. org/web1/art001. html Supreme Court of the Philippines Annual Report. (2005). Adjudication Caseload and disposition Data file. Retrieved from http//sc. judiciary. gov. ph/announce/sc_annual_report_2005. pdf SyCip Salazar Hernandez Gatmaitan Law. (n. d. ). A Guide to Dispute Resolution in Asia. Retrieved from http//www. herbertsmith. com/uploads/HSpdfs/Asia-guides-006/dispute resolution/12_Philippines. PDF