Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    Addtl Bartolome ADR GonzalesvsClimaxMining

    Uploaded by

    Joicey Catamio
    The arbitration agreement is independent of the main contract according to the doctrine of separability. Even if the main contract is invalid, the arbitration agreement remains valid and enforceable. In this case, two petitions arose from an addendum contract between parties. The court initially ruled the DENR Panel of Arbitrators did not have jurisdiction over a complaint to annul the contract. However, the court later held that arbitration was the proper recourse, as the invalidity of the main contract does not affect the validity of the separate arbitration agreement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Addtl Bartolome ADR GonzalesvsClimaxMining

    Uploaded by

    Joicey Catamio
    12 views1 page
    The arbitration agreement is independent of the main contract according to the doctrine of separability. Even if the main contract is invalid, the arbitration agreement remains valid and enforceable. In this case, two petitions arose from an addendum contract between parties. The court initially ruled the DENR Panel of Arbitrators did not have jurisdiction over a complaint to annul the contract. However, the court later held that arbitration was the proper recourse, as the invalidity of the main contract does not affect the validity of the separate arbitration agreement.

    Original Description:

    dds

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The arbitration agreement is independent of the main contract according to the doctrine of separability. Even if the main contract is invalid, the arbitration agreement remains valid and enforceable. In this case, two petitions arose from an addendum contract between parties. The court initially ruled the DENR Panel of Arbitrators did not have jurisdiction over a complaint to annul the contract. However, the court later held that arbitration was the proper recourse, as the invalidity of the main contract does not affect the validity of the separate arbitration agreement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    12 views1 page

    Addtl Bartolome ADR GonzalesvsClimaxMining

    Uploaded by

    Joicey Catamio
    The arbitration agreement is independent of the main contract according to the doctrine of separability. Even if the main contract is invalid, the arbitration agreement remains valid and enforceable. In this case, two petitions arose from an addendum contract between parties. The court initially ruled the DENR Panel of Arbitrators did not have jurisdiction over a complaint to annul the contract. However, the court later held that arbitration was the proper recourse, as the invalidity of the main contract does not affect the validity of the separate arbitration agreement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    JORGE GONZALES and PANEL OF ARBITRATORS vs. CLIMAX MINING LTD., CLIMAXARIMCO MINING CORP.

    , and AUSTRALASIAN PHILIPPINES MINING INC.


    G.R. No. 161957 January 22, 2007 J. Tinga
    The doctrine of separability or severability enunciates that an arbitration agreement is
    independent of the main contract. The arbitration agreement is to be treated as a separate
    agreement and the arbitration agreement does not automatically terminate when the contract of
    which it is part comes to an end.
    FACTS:
    Two petitions arise from one addendum contract entered into by the parties. In one, the
    Court held that the DENR Panel of Arbitrators has no jurisdiction over the complaint for the
    annulment of the said contract as it should have been brought to the regular courts. The
    petitioner claims that the DENR Panel had jurisdiction as the case involves a mining dispute.
    Climax claims that it should not be brought for arbitration under RA 876 on the ground that the
    arbitration clause in the Addenum Contract should be treated mutually exclusive from the other
    terms of the contract and a claimed recission of the main contract does not avoid the duty to
    arbitrate.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not arbitration is the proper recourse in the case at bar.
    RULING:
    YES. Arbitration is the proper recourse.
    The Court held that R.A. No. 876 explicitly confines the court's authority only to the
    determination of whether or not there is an agreement in writing providing for arbitration. In the
    affirmative, the statute ordains that the court shall issue an order "summarily directing the
    parties to proceed with the arbitration in accordance with the terms thereof." If the court, upon
    the other hand, finds that no such agreement exists, "the proceeding shall be dismissed." The
    cited case also stressed that the proceedings are summary in nature.
    Implicit in the summary nature of the judicial proceedings is the separable or independent
    character of the arbitration clause or agreement. The doctrine of separability or severability
    enunciates that an arbitration agreement is independent of the main contract. The arbitration
    agreement is to be treated as a separate agreement and the arbitration agreement does not
    automatically terminate when the contract of which it is part comes to an end.
    The separability of the arbitration agreement is especially significant to the determination
    of whether the invalidity of the main contract also nullifies the arbitration clause. Indeed, the
    doctrine denotes that the invalidity of the main contract, also referred to as the container
    contract, does not affect the validity of the arbitration agreement. Irrespective of the fact that
    the main contract is invalid, the arbitration clause/agreement still remains valid and enforceable.
    The Court added that when it declared that the case should not be brought for arbitration,
    it should be clarified that the case referred to is the case actually filed by Gonzales before the
    DENR Panel of Arbitrators, which was for the nullification of the main contract on the ground of
    fraud, as it had already been determined that the case should have been brought before the
    regular courts involving as it did judicial issues.

    You might also like