ECOND DIVISION BCDA invited investors to participate in the railroad

project's financing and implementation. Among those

G.R. No. 173137, January 11, 2016 invited were D.M. Consunji, Inc. and Metro Pacific
Corporation.8 chanrob lesvi rtua llawlib ra ry

BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT On February 8, 1996, the Joint Venture Agreement was
AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. DMCI PROJECT amended to include D.M. Consunji, Inc. and/or its
DEVELOPERS, INC., Respondent. nominee as party.9 Under the amended Joint Venture
Agreement, D.M. Consunji, Inc. shall be an additional
G.R. NO. 173170 investor of Northrail.10 It shall subscribe to 20% of the
increase in Northrail's authorized capital stock.11 c hanro blesvi rtual lawlib rary

NORTH LUZON RAILWAYS

CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. DMCI PROJECT On February 8, 1996, BCDA and the other parties to the
DEVELOPERS, INC.Respondent. Joint Venture Agreement, including D.M. Consunji, Inc.
and/or its nominee, entered into a Memorandum of
Agreement.12 Under this agreement, the parties agreed
DECISION
that the initial seed capital of P600 million shall be infused
to Northrail.13 Of that amount, P200 million shall be D.M.
LEONEN, J.: Consunji, Inc.'s share, which shall be converted to equity
upon NorthraiPs privatization.14 Later, D.M. Consunji, Inc.'s
An arbitration clause in a document of contract may extend share was increased to P300 million.15c hanrob lesvi rtua llawlib ra ry

to subsequent documents of contract executed for the

same purpose. Nominees of a party to and beneficiaries of Upon BCDA and Northrail's request,16 DMCI Project
a contract containing an arbitration clause may become Developers, Inc. (DMCI-PDI) deposited P300 million into
parties to a proceeding initiated based on that arbitration NorthraiPs account with Land Bank of the Philippines.17 The
clause. deposit was made on August 7, 199618for its "future
subscription of the Northrail shares of stocks."19 In
On June 10, 1995, Bases Conversion Development NorthraiPs 1998 financial statements submitted to the
Authority (BCDA) entered into a Joint Venture Securities and Exchange Commission, this amount was
Agreement1 with Philippine National Railways (PNR) and reflected as "Deposits For Future Subscription."20 At that
other foreign corporations.2 chan roblesv irt uallawl ibrary
time, NorthraiPs application to increase its authorized
capital stock was still pending with the Securities and
Under the Joint Venture Agreement, the parties agreed Exchange Commission.21 chanro blesvi rtua llawli bra ry

to construct a railroad system from Manila to Clark with

possible extensions to Subic Bay and La Union and later, In letters22dated April 4, 1997, D.M. Consunji, Inc.
possibly to Ilocos Norte and Nueva Ecija.3 BCDA shall informed PNR and the other parties that DMCI-PDI
establish North Luzon Railways Corporation (Northrail) for shall be its designated nominee for all the
purposes of constructing, operating, and managing the agreements it entered and would enter with them in
railroad system.4 The Joint Venture Agreement contained connection with the railroad project. Pertinent portions
the following provision: of the letters provide:

ARTICLE XVI [I]n order to formalize the inclusion of [DMCI Project

ARBITRATION Developers, Inc.] as a party to the JVA and MOA, DMCI
would like to notify all the parties that it is designating PDI
as its nominee in both agreements and such other
agreements that may be signed by the parties in
16. If any dispute arise hereunder which
furtherance of or in connection with the PROJECT. By this
cannot be settled by mutual accord
nomination, all the rights, obligations, warranties and
between the parties to such dispute, then
commitments of DMCI under the JVA and MOA shall
that dispute shall be referred to
henceforth be assumed performed and delivered by
arbitration. The arbitration shall be held in
PDI.23 (Emphasis supplied)
whichever place the parties to the dispute
decide and failing mutual agreement as to
a location within twenty-one (21) days Later, Northrail withdrew from the Securities and Exchange
after the occurrence of the dispute, shall Commission its application for increased authorized capital
be held in Metro Manila and shall be stock.24 Moreover, according to DMCI-PDI, BCDA applied
conducted in accordance with the for Official Development Assistance from Obuchi Fund of
Philippine Arbitration Law (Republic Act Japan.25 This required Northrail to be a 100% government-
No. 876) supplemented by the Rules of owned and controlled corporation.26 cha nrob les virtua llawli bra ry

Conciliation and Arbitration of the

International Chamber of Commerce. All On September 27, 2000, DMCI-PDI started demanding
award of such arbitration shall be final and from BCDA and Northrail the return of its P300 million
binding upon the parties to the dispute.5 deposit.27 DMCI-PDI cited Northrail's failure to increase its
authorized capital stock as reason for the demand.28 BCDA
and Northrail refused to return the deposit29 for the
BCDA organized and incorporated Northrail.6 Northrail was following reasons:
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 22, 1995.7 chanroblesv irt uallawl ibra ry
a) At the outset, DMCI PDI/FBDC's participation in Northrail
was as a joint venture partner and co-investor in the Manila
Clark Rapid Railway Project, and as such, was granted Venture Agreement should cover all subsequent documents
corresponding representation in the Northrail Board. including the amended Joint Venture Agreement and the
Memorandum of Agreement. The three (3) documents
b) DMCI PDI/FBDC was privy to all the deliberations of the constituted one contract for the formation and funding of
Northrail Board and participated in the decisions made and Northrail.49
cha nrob lesvi rtua llawlib ra ry

policies adopted to pursue the project.

The trial court also ruled that even though DMCI-PDI was
c) DMCI PDI/FBDC had full access to the financial not a signatory to the Joint Venture Agreement and the
statements of Northrail and was regularly informed of the Memorandum of Agreement, it was an assignee of D.M.
corporation's financial condition.30 chan roble slaw Consunji, Inc.'s rights. Therefore, it could invoke the
arbitration clause in the Joint Venture Agreement.50 chan rob lesvirtual lawlib rary

Upon BCDA's request, the Office of the Government

In an Order51 dated June 9, 2006, the trial court denied
Corporate Counsel (OGCC) issued Opinion No. 116, Series
BCDA and Northrail's Motion for Reconsideration of the
of 200131 on June 27, 2001. The OGCC stated that "since
February 9, 2006 trial court Decision.
no increase in capital stock was implemented, it is but
proper to return the investments of both FBDC and
BCDA filed a Rule 45 Petition before this court, assailing the
DMCI[.]"32
February 9, 2006 trial court Order granting DMCI-PDI's
chanroble svi rtual lawlib rary

Petition to Compel Arbitration and the June 9, 2006 Order

In a January 19, 2005 letter,33 DMCI-PDI reiterated the
denying BCDA and Northrail's Motion for
request for the refund of its P300 million deposit for future
Reconsideration.52
Northrail subscription. On March 18, 2005, BCDA
cha nro blesvi rtua llawli bra ry

denied34 DMCI-PDI's request:

The issue in this case is whether DMCI-PDI may compel
BCDA and Northrail to submit to arbitration.
We regret to say that we are of the position that the P300
[million] contribution should not be returned to DMCI for BCDA argued that only the parties to an arbitration
the following reasons: agreement can be bound by that agreement.53 The
arbitration clause that DMCI-PDI sought to enforce was in
a. the P300 million was in the nature of a the Joint Venture Agreement, to which DMCI-PDI was not
contribution, not deposits for future a party.54 There was also no evidence that the right to
subscription; and compel arbitration under the Joint Venture Agreement was
assigned to DMCI-PDI.55 Assuming that there was such an
b. DMCI, as a joint venture partner, must assignment, BCDA did not consent to or recognize
share in profits and losses.35 it.56 Therefore, the trial court's conclusion that DMCI-PDI
was D.M. Consunji, Inc.'s assignee had no basis.57 In
BCDA's view, DMCI-PDI had no right to compel BCDA to
submit to arbitration.58
On August 17, 2005,36 DMCI-PDI served a demand for
chan roble svirtuallaw lib rary

arbitration to BCDA and Northrail, citing the arbitration

BCDA also argued that the trial court decided the Motion to
clause in the June 10, 1995 Joint Venture
Dismiss in violation of the parties' right to due process. The
Agreement.37 BCDA and Northrail failed to respond.38
trial court should have conducted a hearing so that the
chan roble s virtua llawli bra ry

parties could have presented their respective positions on

DMCI-PDI filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati39 a
the issue of assignment. The trial court merely accepted
Petition to Compel Arbitration40 against BCDA and
DMCI-PDI's allegations, without basis.59
Northrail, pursuant to the alleged arbitration clause in the
chanrob l esvirt uallawl ibra ry

Joint Venture Agreement.41 DMCI-PDI prayed for "an order

In a separate Petition for Review,60 Northrail argued that it
directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance
cannot be compelled to submit itself to arbitration because
with the terms and conditions of the agreement."42
it was not a party to the arbitration agreement.61
chanroble s virtua llawli bra ry

chan ro blesvi rtual lawlib rary

BCDA filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that there 43

Northrail also argued that DMCI-PDI cannot initiate an
was no arbitration clause that DMCI-PDI could enforce since
action to compel BCDA and Northrail to arbitration because
DMCI-PDI was not a party to the Joint Venture Agreement
DMCI-PDI itself was not a party to the arbitration
containing the arbitration clause.44 Northrail filed a
agreement. DMCI-PDI was not D.M. Consunji, Inc.'s
separate Motion to Dismiss45 on the ground that the court
assignee because BCDA did not consent to that
did not have jurisdiction over it and that DMCI-PDI had no
assignment.62
cause for arbitration against it.46
chanrob lesvi rtua llawlib ra ry

chanro bl esvirt uallawl ibra ry

In its Comment63 on BCDA's Petition, DMCI-PDI argued that

In the Decision47 dated February 9, 2006, the trial court
Rule 45 was a wrong mode of appeal.64 The issues raised
denied BCDA's and Northrail's Motions to Dismiss and
by BCDA did not involve questions of law.65
granted DMCI-PDI's Petition to Compel Arbitration. The
chanrobles virtua llawli bra ry

dispositive portion of the decision reads:

DMCI-PDI pointed out that BCDA breached their agreement
when it failed to apply the P300 million deposit to Northrail
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The parties are subscriptions. It turned out that such application was
ordered to present their dispute to arbitration in accordance rendered impossible by the alleged loan requirement that
with Article XVI of the Joint Agreement. Northrail be wholly owned by the government and by
Northrail's withdrawal from the Securities and Exchange
SO ORDERED.48 chanrobles law

Commission of its application for an increase in authorized

capital stock.66 chanrob lesvi rtua llawlib ra ry

The trial court ruled that the arbitration clause in the Joint
DMCI-PDI also argued that it is an assignee and nominee private sector participation in the settlement of disputes
of D.M. Consunji, Inc., which is a party to the contracts. through ADR. This Act shall be without prejudice to the
Therefore, it is also a party to the arbitration clause.67 chanrob lesvirtual lawlib rary adoption by the Supreme Court of any ADR system, such
as mediation, conciliation, arbitration, or any combination
DMCI-PDI contended that the arbitration agreement thereof as a means of achieving speedy and efficient means
extended to all documents relating to the project.68Even of resolving cases pending before all courts in the
though the agreement was expressed only in the Joint Philippines which shall be governed by such rules as the
Venture Agreement, its effect extends to the amendment Supreme Court may approve from time to time. (Emphasis
to the Joint Venture Agreement and Memorandum of supplied)
Agreement.69 chan roblesv irt uallawl ibra ry

Our policy in favor of party autonomy in resolving disputes

DMCI-PDI emphasized that BCDA had always recognized it
has been reflected in our laws as early as 1949 when our
as D.M. Consunji's assignee in its correspondences with the
Civil Code was approved.77 Republic Act No. 87678 later
OGCC and with the President of DMCI, Mr. Isidro
explicitly recognized the validity and enforceability of
Consunji.70 In those letters, BCDA described DMCI-PDI's
parties' decision to submit disputes and related issues to
participation as being the "joint venture partner . . . and
arbitration.79
co-investor in the Manila Clark Rapid Railway
chan roble svirtuallaw lib rary

Project[.]"71 Hence, it is now estopped from denying its

Arbitration agreements are liberally construed in favor of
personality in this case.72
proceeding to arbitration.80 We adopt the interpretation
chan roble svirtuallaw lib rary

that would render effective an arbitration clause if the

We rule for DMCI-PDI.
terms of the agreement allow for such
chanRoblesvi rtua lLawl ibra ry

interpretation.81 In LM Power Engineering Corporation v.

I Capitol Industrial Construction Groups, Inc.,82 this court
The state has a policy in favor of arbitration said:

At the outset, we must state that BCDA and Northrail

Consistent with the above-mentioned policy of encouraging
invoked the correct remedy. Rule 45 is applicable when the
alternative dispute resolution methods, courts should
issues raised before this court involved purely questions of
liberally construe arbitration clauses. Provided such clause
law. In Villamor v. Balmores:73
is susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted
chan roble svi rtual lawlib rary

dispute, an order to arbitrate should be granted. Any doubt

[t]here is a question of law "when there is doubt or should be resolved in favor of arbitration.83
controversy as to what the law is on a certain [set] of facts."
chan robles law

The test is "whether the appellate court can determine the

issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence." This manner of interpreting arbitration clauses is made
Meanwhile, there is a question of fact when there is "doubt explicit in Section 25 of Republic Act No. 9285:
... as to the truth or falsehood of facts." The question must
involve the examination of probative value of the evidence SEC. 25. Interpretation of the Act.-In interpreting the Act,
presented.74 cha nrob lesvi rtua llawli bra ry the court shall have due regard to the policy of the law in
favor of arbitration. Where action is commenced by or
against multiple parties, one or more of whom are parties
BCDA and Northrail primarily ask us to construe the
to an arbitration agreement, the court shall refer to
arbitration clause in the Joint Venture Agreement. They
arbitration those parties who are bound by the arbitration
assert that the clause does not bind DMCI-PDI and
agreement although the civil action may continue as to
Northrail. This issue is a question of law. It does not require
those who are not bound by such arbitration agreement.
us to examine the probative value of the evidence
presented. The prayer is essentially for this court to
determine the scope of an arbitration clause. Hence, we resolve the issue of whether DMCI-PDI may
compel BCDA and Northrail to submit to arbitration
Arbitration is a mode of settling disputes between proceedings in light of the policy in favor of arbitration.
parties.75 Like many alternative dispute resolution
processes, it is a product of the meeting of minds of parties BCDA and Northrail assail DMCI-PDI's right to compel them
submitting a pre-defined set of disputes. They agree among to submit to arbitration based on the assumption that
themselves to a process of dispute resolution that avoids DMCI-PDI was not a party to the agreement containing the
extended litigation. arbitration clause.

The state adopts a policy in favor of arbitration. Republic Three documents � (a) Joint Venture Agreement, (b)
Act No. 928576 expresses this policy: amended Joint Venture Agreement, and (c) Memorandum
of Agreement � represent the agreement between BCDA,
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared the Northrail, and D.M. Consunji, Inc. Among the three
policy of the State to actively promote party autonomy in documents, only the Joint Venture Agreement contains the
the resolution of disputes or the freedom of the parties to arbitration clause. DMCI-PDI was allegedly not a party to
make their own arrangements to resolve their the Joint Venture Agreement.
disputes. Towards this end, the State shall encourage and
actively promote the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution To determine the coverage of the arbitration clause, the
(ADR) as an important means to achieve speedy and relation among the three documents and DMCI-PDI's
impartial justice and declog court dockets. As such, the involvement in the execution of these documents must first
State shall provide means for the use of ADR as an efficient be understood.
tool and an alternative procedure for the resolution of
appropriate cases. Likewise, the State shall enlist active The Joint Venture Agreement was executed by BCDA, PNR,
and some foreign corporations.84 The purpose of the Joint ARTICLE I
Venture Agreement was for the construction of a railroad DEFINITION OF TERMS
system from Manila to Clark with a possible extension to
Subic Bay and later to San Fernando, La Union, Laoag, . . . .
Ilocos Norte, and San Jose, Nueva Ejica.85 Under the Joint
Venture Agreement, BCDA agreed to incorporate Northrail, 1.5 "PROJECT" means the construction, operation and
which shall have an authorized capital stock of F5.5 management of a double-track railway system from Manila
billion.86 The parties agreed that BCDA/PNR shall have a to Clark with an extension to Subic Bay, and a possible
30% equity with Northrail.87 Other Filipino partners shall extension to San Fernando, La Union, as the second phase,
have a total of 50% equity, while foreign partners shall and finally to Laoag, Ilocos Norte and to San Jose, Nueva
have at most 20% equity.88 Pertinent provisions of the Joint Ecija, as the third phase of the PROJECT.
Venture Agreement are as follows:
1.6 "North Luzon Railways Corporation
JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT (NORTHRAIL)["] means the joint venture corporation to
be established in accordance with Article II hereof.
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: .... chanRoblesvirt ual Lawlib rary

This Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) made and ARTICLE II

executed at Makati, Metro Manila, this__ day of June 1995 THE NORTH LUZON RAILROAD CORPORATION
by and between:

The BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2.1 BASECON shall establish and incorporate in accordance
with the laws of the Republic of the Philippines a corporation
. . . hereinafter referred to as BASECON; to be known as NORTH LUZON RAILWAYS
CORPORATION (NORTHRAIL) with an initial
The PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS ...; capitalization of one hundred million pesos (PI
00,000,000.00).
The following corporations collectively referred to as
the Foreign Group: 2.2 NORTHRAIL shall eventually have an authorized capital
stock of FIVE BILLION FIVE HUNDRED MILLION PESOS (P
a) CONSTRUCCIONES Y AUXILIAR DE 5.5 Billion) divided into 55,000,000 shares with par value
FERROCARRILES, S.A... .; of P 100 per share.
.... chanRoblesvirt ual Lawlib rary

b) ENTRECANALES Y TAVORA, SA . . .;
ARTICLE III
c) CUBIERTAS MZOV, S.A. . . .;
PURPOSE OF NORTHRAIL
d) COBRA, S.A....; and
A. PRIMARY PURPOSE
e) Others who may later participate in the JVA. chanRoblesvi rtual Lawli bra ry

3.1 To construct, operate and manage a railroad system to

-and- serve Northern and Central Luzon; and to develop,
construct, manage, own, lease, sublease and operate
EUROMA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION . . . establishments and facilities of all kinds related to the
railroad system;
WITNESSETH: .... chanRoblesvirt ual Lawlib rary

ARTICLE IV
. . . .
PARTICIPATION/TRANSFER/ENCUMBRANCE OF
WHEREAS, a project identified pursuant to the aforesaid SHARES
policy is the establishment of a Premier International
Airport Complex located at the former Clark Air Base as 4.1 NORTHRAIL shall increase its authorized capital stock
expressed in Executive Order 174 s. 1994 in order to upon the subscription thereon by the parties to this JVA in
accommodate the expected heavy flow of passenger and accordance with the following equity
cargo traffic to and from the Philippines, to start the proportion/participation:
development of the Northern Luzon Grid and to accelerate
the development of Central Luzon and finally to decongest Foreign Group��������������� � � �� �� up
Metro Manila of its vehicular traffic; to 20%
Euroma/Filipino partners�����������������
WHEREAS, in order to implement and provide such a mass 50%
transit and access system, the parties hereto agreed to BASECON/PNR������������������� � � �
construct a double-trac[k] railway system from Manila to � �� 30%
Clark with a possible extension to Subic Bay and later to
San Fernando, La Union, as the second phase, and finally
to Laoag, Ilocos Norte and to San Jose, Nueva Ecija, as the . . . .
third phase of the project, hereinafter referred to as
the PROJECT; 4.4 The shares owned by Filipino stockholders including
BASECON, PNR, EUROMA Development Corporation and
hereinafter to be owned by Filipino corporations shall not
be less than sixty percent (60%) at any given time. COBRA INSTALACIONES Y SERVICIOS, S.A.. . .; and
.... chanRoblesvirt ual Lawlib rary

Other investors who may later participate in the Joint

ARTICLE XVI Venture;chanRoblesv irt ual Lawlib rary

ARBITRATION
and
16. If any dispute arise hereunder which cannot be settled
by mutual accord between the parties to such dispute, then
Other local investors to be represented by EUROMA
that dispute shall be referred to arbitration. The arbitration
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION . . .
shall be held in whichever place the parties to the dispute
decide and failing mutual agreement as to a location within
and
twenty-one (21) days after the occurrence of the dispute,
shall be held in Metro Manila and shall be conducted in
P.M. CONSUNJI. INC. and/or its nominee . . .
accordance with the Philippine Arbitration Law (Republic
Act No. 876) as supplemented by the Rules of Conciliation
and Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce. WITNESSETH THAT
All award of such arbitration shall be final and binding upon
the parties to the dispute. WHEREAS, a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) was executed
on the 10th of June 1995 between BASECON, PNR,
FOREIGN GROUP, and EUROMA;
ARTICLE XVII
. . . .
ASSIGNMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the
foregoing premises and of the mutual covenant contained
17.1 No party to this Agreement may assign, transfer or
therein, THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE that the JVA
convey this Agreement, create or incur any encumbrance
should be amended as follows:
of its rights or any part of its rights and obligations
hereunder or any shares of stocks of NORTHRAIL to any
person, firm or corporation without the prior written 1. In Article 1.3, D.M. CONSUNJI,
consent of the other parties or except as provided in the INC. shall be included as strategic
Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws of NORTHRAIL and partner, being one of the
this Agreement. Philippine registered companies
selected by BASECON, PNR and
17.2 This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be the Lead Group on the basis of its
binding upon the parties hereto and their respective qualifications for the
successors and permitted assignees and designees or implementation of the Project.
nominees whenever possible.89 chan roble slaw

2. Article 4.1 should read as

follows:
The Joint Venture Agreement was amended on February 8,
199690 to include D.M. Consunji, Inc. and/or its nominee as
"NORTHRAIL shall increase its
party.91 The participations of the parties in Northrail were
authorized capital stock upon the
also modified. Pertinent provisions of the amended Joint
subscription thereon by the
Venture Agreement are reproduced as follows:
Parties to this JVA in accordance
with the following equity
This Amendment to the Joint Venture Agreement dated proportion/participation:
10th of June 1995 (the Agreement) made and executed
at_____________ , Metro Manila, on this 8th day of
February 1996 by and among: SRG.............................
................. up to 10%
chanRob lesvi rtual Lawl ibra ry

DMCI...........................
BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY . . .
.......................... 20%
hereinafter referred to as BASECON;
BASECON/PNR..............
............... up to 30%
with
Others.........................
............................
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS ...
40%
and

The following corporations collectively referred to as

the FOREIGN GROUP: 3. In Article 4.4, the Filipino
corporations whose total shares
CONSTRUCCIONES Y AUXILIAR DE FERROCARRILES, in NORTHRAIL's capital stock,
S.A.. . .; which should not be less than
sixty percent (60%) at any given
ENTRECANALES Y TAVORA, S.A....; CUBIERTAS Y time, shall include D.M.
MZOV, S.A. . . .; CONSUNJI, INC.93 (Underscoring
supplied)
 BCDA/PNR...................... PHP 300 Million
On February 8, 1996, the same date of the execution of the DMCI..................................................... PHP 200
amended Joint Venture Agreement, the same parties Million
executed a Memorandum of Agreement94 "to set up the SRG...................................................... PHP 100
mechanics for raising the seed capitalization needed by Million
NORTHRAIL[.]"95 Pertinent provisions of the Memorandum TOTAL................................................... PHP 600
of Agreement are reproduced as follows: Million
. . . .
WITNESSETH THAT
2.3 The amounts contributed by BCDA/PNR, DMCI, SRG,
WHEREAS, the Manila - Clark Rapid Railway System and others are committed to be converted to equity when
Project, hereinafter referred to as the Project, was NORTHRAIL is privatized.96
identified as one of the major infrastructure projects to
chan roblesv irt uallawlib ra ry

accelerate the development of Central Luzon, particularly

the former U.S. bases at Clark and Subic; There is no rule that a contract should be contained in a
. . . . single document.97 A whole contract may be contained in
several documents that are consistent with one other.98 chanrobl esvirt uallawl ibra ry

WHEREAS, the North Luzon Railways Corporation

(NORTHRAIL) was organized and incorporated to Moreover, at any time during the lifetime of an agreement,
implement the development, construction, operation and circumstances may arise that may cause the parties to
maintenance of the railway system in Northern Luzon; change or add to the terms they previously agreed upon.
Thus, amendments or supplements to the agreement may
WHEREAS, NORTHRAIL is wholly owned and controlled by be executed by contracting parties to address the
BASECON; circumstances or issues that arise while a contract subsists.

WHEREAS, the privatization of NORTHRAIL is necessary in When an agreement is amended, some provisions are
order to accelerate the implementation of the Project by changed. Certain parts or provisions may be added,
tapping the financial resources and expertise of the private removed, or corrected. These changes may cause effects
sector; that are inconsistent with the wordings of the contract
. . . . before the changes were applied. In that case, the old
provisions shall be deemed to have lost their force and
WHEREAS, the Parties of the Joint Venture Agreement effect, while the changes shall be deemed to have taken
(JVA) of 10 June 1995, namely BASECON, PNR, SPANISH effect. Provisions that are not affected by the changes
RAILWAY GROUP and EUROMA, agreed to invite other usually remain effective.
private investors to help in the financing and
implementation of the Project, and to raise the required When a contract is supplemented, new provisions that are
equity in order to accelerate the privatization of not inconsistent with the old provisions are added. The
NORTHRAIL; nature, scope, and terms and conditions are expanded. In
that case, the old and the new provisions form part of the
WHEREAS, DMCI and other private investors. . . have contract.
manifested their desire to be strategic partners in
implementing the Project; A reading of all the documents of agreement shows that
they were executed by the same parties. Initially, the Joint
WHEREAS, DMCI and other private investors have the Venture Agreement was executed only by BCD A, PNR, and
financial capability to implement the Project; the foreign corporations. When the Joint Venture
Agreement was amended to include D.M. Consunji,
WHEREAS, Phase I of the Project covers the Manila - Clark Inc. and/or its nominee, D.M. Consunji, Inc. and/or its
section of the North Luzon railway network as defined by nominee were deemed to have been also a party to the
the JVA of 10 June 1995 . . .[;] original Joint Venture Agreement executed by BCDA, PNR,
.... chanRoblesvirt ual Lawlib rary
and the foreign corporations. D.M. Consunji, Inc. and/or its
nominee became bound to the terms of both the Joint
ARTICLE I Venture Agreement and its amendment.
PURPOSE
Moreover, each document was executed to achieve the
1.1 Purpose. This Agreement is entered into by the Parties single purpose of implementing the railroad project, such
in order to set up the mechanics for raising the seed that documents of agreement succeeding the original Joint
capitalization needed by NORTHRAIL to accelerate the Venture Agreement merely amended or supplemented the
implementation of the Project. provisions of the original Joint Venture Agreement.
....
The first agreement � the Joint Venture Agreement �
chanRoblesvirt ual Lawlib rary

defined the project, its purposes, the parties, the parties'

ARTICLE II
equity participation, and their responsibilities. The second
TERMS OF AGREEMENT
agreement � the amended Joint Venture Agreement �-
only changed the equity participation of the parties and
. . . .
included D.M. Consunji, Inc. and/or its nominee as party to
the railroad project. The third agreement � the
2.1 The Parties agree to put up the necessary seed
Memorandum of Agreement � raised the seed
capitalization needed by NORTHRAIL to fast-track the
capitalization of Northrail from P100 million as indicated in
implementation of the Rapid Rail Transit System Project
the first agreement to P600 million, in order to accelerate
according to the following schedule:
the implementation of the same project defined in the first with
agreement.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS . . . chanRoblesvi rtual Lawli bra ry

The Memorandum of Agreement is an implementation of

the Joint Venture Agreement and the amended Joint and
Venture Agreement. It could not exist without referring to
the provisions of the original and amended Joint Venture . . . .
Agreements. It assumes a prior knowledge of its terms.
Thus, it referred to "North Luzon railway network as defined D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. and/or its nominee, a domestic
by the JVA of 10 June 1995[.]"99 chanrob lesvi rtua llawli bra ry
corporation duly organized and created pursuant to the
laws of the Republic of the Philippines . . .103 (Emphasis
In other words, each document of agreement represents a supplied) chanRob lesvi rtua lLawl ibra ry

step toward the implementation of the project, such that

the three agreements must be read together for a complete MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
understanding of the parties' whole agreement. The Joint
Venture Agreement, the amended Joint Venture This Agreement made and executed at Pasig, Metro Manila,
Agreement, and the Memorandum of Agreement should be Philippines on this 8[th] day of February 1996 by and
treated as one contract because they all form part of a among:
whole agreement.
BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY . .
Hence, the arbitration clause in the Joint Venture .
Agreement should not be interpreted as applicable only to
chanRoblesv irt ual Lawlib rary

the Joint Venture Agreement's original parties. The

with
succeeding agreements are deemed part of or a
continuation of the Joint Venture Agreement. The
arbitration clause should extend to all the agreements and
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS ...
its parties since it is still consistent with all the terms and
chanRoblesvi rtua lLawl ibra ry

conditions of the amendments and supplements.

and
chanRoblesvi rtual Lawli bra ry

II
D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. and/or its nominee, a domestic
BCDA and Northrail argued that they did not consent to
corporation duly organized and created pursuant to the
D.M. Consunji, Inc.'s assignment of rights to DMCI-PDI.
laws of the Republic of the Philippines . . .104 (Emphasis
Therefore, DMCI-PDI did not validly become a party to any
supplied)
of the agreement. Section 17.1 of the Joint Venture
Agreement provides that rights under the agreement may
not be assigned, transferred, or conveyed without the Based on DMCI-PDFs letter to BCDA and Northrail dated
consent of the other party.100 Thus: April 4, 1997, D.M. Consunji, Inc. designated DMCI-PDI as
its nominee for the agreements it entered into in relation
17.1 No party to this Agreement may assign, transfer or to the project:
convey this Agreement, create or incur any encumbrance
of its rights or any part of its rights and obligations [I]n order to formalize the inclusion of [DMCI Project
hereunder or any shares of stocks of NORTHRAIL to any Developers, Inc.] as a party to the JVA and MOA, DMCI
person, firm or corporation without the prior written would like to notify all the parties that it is designating PDI
consent of the other parties or except as provided in the as its nominee in both agreements and such other
Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws of NORTHRAIL and agreements that may be signed by the parties in
the Agreement.101 chan roblesv irt uallawl ibra ry furtherance of or in connection with the PROJECT. By this
nomination, all the rights, obligations, warranties and
commitments of DMCI under the JVA and MOA shall
However, Section 17.2 of the Joint Venture Agreement
henceforth be assumed performed and delivered by
provides that the agreement shall be binding on nominees:
PDI.105 (Emphasis supplied)

17.2 This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be

binding upon the parties . . . and their respective Thus, lack of consent to the assignment is irrelevant
successors and permitted assignees and designees or because there was no assignment or transfer of rights to
nominees whenever applicable.102 (Emphasis supplied) DMCI-PDI. DMCI-PDI was D.M. Consunji, Inc.'s nominee.

Section 17.2 of the Joint Venture Agreement clearly shows

The principal parties to the agreement after its amendment an intent to treat assignment and nomination differently.
include D.M. Consunji, Inc. and/or its nominee:
17.2 This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be
AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT binding upon the parties . . . and their respective
successors and permitted assignees and designees or
This Amendment to the Joint Venture Agreement dated nominees whenever applicable.106 (Emphasis supplied)
10th of June 1995 (the Agreement) made and executed at
_____________ , Metro Manila, on this 8th day of February
1996 by and among: Assignment involves the transfer of rights after the
perfection of a contract. Nomination pertains to the act of
BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY . . . naming the party with whom it has a relationship of trust
or agency.
In Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. Therefore, Northrail cannot deny understanding that its
(COCOFED) v. Republic,107 this court defined "nominee" as existence, purpose, rights, and obligations are tied to the
follows: agreements. When Northrail demanded for the amount of
D.M. Consunji, Inc.'s subscription based on the agreements
In its most common signification, the term "nominee'' and later accepted the latter's funds, it proved that it was
refers to one who is designated to act for another usually bound by the agreements' terms. It is also deemed to have
in a limited way; a person in whose name a stock or bond accepted the term that such funds shall be used for its
certificate is registered but who is not the actual owner privatization. It cannot choose to demand the enforcement
thereof is considered a nominee." Corpus Juris of some of its provisions if it is in its favor, and then later
Secundum describes a nominee as one: by whim, deny being bound by its terms.

". . . designated to act for another as his representative in Hence, when BCDA and Northrail decided not to proceed
a rather limited sense. It has no connotation, however, with Northrail's privatization and the transfer of
other than that of acting for another, in representation of subscriptions to D.M. Consunji, Inc., any obligation to
another or as the grantee of another. In its commonly return its supposed subscription attached not only to BCDA
accepted meaning the term connoted the delegation of as party to the agreement but primarily to Northrail as
authority to the nominee in a representative or nominal beneficiary that impliedly accepted the terms of the
capacity only, and does not connote the transfer or agreement and received D.M. Consunji, Inc.'s funds.
assignment to the nominee of any property in, or ownership
of, the rights of the person nominating him."108 (Citations There is, therefore, merit to DMCI-PDI's argument that if
omitted) the Civil Code113 gives third party beneficiaries to a contract
the right to demand the contract's fulfillment in its favor,
the reverse should also be true.114A beneficiary who
Contrary to BCDA and Northrail's position, therefore, the communicated his or her acceptance to the terms of the
agreement's prohibition against transfers, conveyance, and agreement before its revocation may be compelled to abide
assignment of rights without the consent of the other party by the terms of an agreement, including the arbitration
does not apply to nomination. clause. In this case, Northrail is deemed to have
communicated its acceptance of the terms of the
DMCI-PDI is a party to all the agreements, including the agreements when it accepted D.M. Consunji, Inc.'s funds.
arbitration agreement. It may, thus, invoke the arbitration
clause against all the parties. chanRoblesv irt ual Lawlib rary

Finally, judicial efficiency and economy require a policy to

avoid multiplicity of suits. As we said in Lanuza:
III
Moreover, in Heirs ofAugusto Salas, this court affirmed its
Northrail, although not a signatory to the contracts, is also policy against multiplicity of suits and unnecessary delay.
bound by the arbitration agreement. This court said that "to split the proceeding into arbitration
for some parties and trial for other parties would "result in
In Lanuza v. BF Corporation,109 we recognized that there multiplicity of suits, duplicitous procedure and unnecessary
are instances when non-signatories to a contract may be delay." This court also intimated that the interest of justice
compelled to submit to arbitration.110 Among those would be best observed if it adjudicated rights in a single
instances is when a non-signatory is allowed to invoke proceeding. While the facts of that case prompted this court
rights or obligations based on the contract.111 chanrobl esvirt uallawl ibra ry

to direct the trial court to proceed to determine the issues

of that case, it did not prohibit courts from allowing the case
The subject of BCDA and D.M. Consunji, Inc.'s agreement to proceed to arbitration, when circumstances warrant.115 chan robles law

was the construction and operation of a railroad system.

Northrail was established pursuant to this agreement and
its terms, and for the same purpose, thus: WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED. The February 9,
2006 Regional Trial Court Decision and the June 9, 2006
Regional Trial Court Order are AFFIRMED.
ARTICLE III
SO ORDERED.
PURPOSE OF NORTHRAIL
cralawlawlibra ry

A. PRIMARY PURPOSE

3.1. To construct, operate and manage a railroad system

to serve Northern and Central Luzon; and to develop,
construct, manage, own, lease, sublease and operate
establishments and facilities of all kinds related to the
railroad system[.]112cha nrob leslaw

Northrail's capitalization and the composition of its

subscribers are also subject to the provisions of the original
and amended Joint Venture Agreements, and the
subsequent Memorandum of Agreement. It was pursuant
to the terms of these agreements that Northrail demanded
from D.M. Consunji, Inc. the infusion of its share in
subscription.