| CONTACT: |
| Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
| (632) 8524-2706 |
| libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
(NAR) VOL. 19 NO. 1 / JANUARY - MARCH 2008
[ CIAC RESOLUTION NO. 13-2007, December 27, 2007 ]
CLARIFYING THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION IN THE SCRUTINY OF AWARDS AND RELEASE/STAY OF WRITS OF EXECUTION
WHEREAS, to help ensure the quality of CIAC arbitral awards/decisions and in accord with international arbitration practices, the Commission, in its 54th Regular Meeting held on 17 November 1999, passed Resolution No. 08-1999, prescribing a policy guideline on the security of awards by the Commission;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20 of E.O. 1008 (the Construction Industry Arbitration Law) and Rules 18.5 and 18.6 of the CIAC Rules of Procedure Governing Construction Arbitration, the concurrence of the Commission is required for the issuance by arbitrator/s of writs of execution and approval of bond to stay execution;
WHEREAS, to dispel any confusion or misinterpretation on the role of the Commission in its scrutiny of arbitral awards and concurrence to writs of execution/stay of execution, the Commission recognizes the need to clearly define these functions and their purposes;
NOW, THEREFORE, WE THE UNDERSIGNED COMMISSIONERS, after due deliberations in the 103th and 104th CIAC Regular Meetings, HEREBY RESOLVE, as it is HEREBY RESOLVED, to clarify the role of the Commission in the scrutiny of arbitral awards/decisions and concurrence to writs of execution or orders staying execution issued by the arbitrators, as follows;
A. Scrutiny of arbitral awards
The purpose of scrutiny by the Commission of arbitral awards/decisions, without affecting the arbitrator/s' liberty of decision, is to give the arbitrator/s the opportunity, prior to promulgation, to modify or correct errors or inadequacies in the award, if any, with respect to its form and/or substance such as, but not limited to, the following:
Notwithstanding the Commission's disagreement with the substance or merit of the award/decision, if execution is ripe or proper under the CIAC Rules, it shall release the writ of execution issued by the arbitrator/s. Hence, once an award/decision becomes executory, the release of the writ of execution by the Commission is purely ministerial, regardless of whether or not the arbitrator/s considered the comment of the Commission, or any of its members, on points of substance in the award during scrutiny.
As to the approval by the arbitrator/s of the bond to stay execution, the concurrence of the Commission is only for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the requirements set by the CIAC for bond approval.
This resolution supersedes and amends Rules 18.5 and 18.6 of the CIAC Rules of Procedures Governing Construction Arbitration, CIAC Resolution No. 06-2002 (Policy guidelines to Clarify the Policy Guidelines Regarding Execution of a Final Award During Appeal, Amending Resolution No. 05-2002), and all other previous issuances inconsistent herewith.
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adopted: 27 Dec. 2007
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20 of E.O. 1008 (the Construction Industry Arbitration Law) and Rules 18.5 and 18.6 of the CIAC Rules of Procedure Governing Construction Arbitration, the concurrence of the Commission is required for the issuance by arbitrator/s of writs of execution and approval of bond to stay execution;
WHEREAS, to dispel any confusion or misinterpretation on the role of the Commission in its scrutiny of arbitral awards and concurrence to writs of execution/stay of execution, the Commission recognizes the need to clearly define these functions and their purposes;
NOW, THEREFORE, WE THE UNDERSIGNED COMMISSIONERS, after due deliberations in the 103th and 104th CIAC Regular Meetings, HEREBY RESOLVE, as it is HEREBY RESOLVED, to clarify the role of the Commission in the scrutiny of arbitral awards/decisions and concurrence to writs of execution or orders staying execution issued by the arbitrators, as follows;
A. Scrutiny of arbitral awards
The purpose of scrutiny by the Commission of arbitral awards/decisions, without affecting the arbitrator/s' liberty of decision, is to give the arbitrator/s the opportunity, prior to promulgation, to modify or correct errors or inadequacies in the award, if any, with respect to its form and/or substance such as, but not limited to, the following:
a. typographical and/or grammatical errors;B. Release/Stay of Writs of Execution
b. errors in computation/mathematical calculations;
c. mistakes or imprecise/incorrect description of any party, person, date, amount, thing or property referred to in the award/decision;
d. failure to state the basis for, or reasons to justify, the grant or denial of a claim/counterclaim;
e. failure to resolve formulated issues in the Terms of Reference (TOR);
f. award on an issue not submitted for resolution; and
g. other imperfections in form and content not affecting the merits of the controversy.
The award/decision shall be promulgated/released if there are no comments coming from any of the Commissioners after five (5) working days from receipt thereof by the Commission. If, however, there are adverse comments affecting the merits or substance of the award/decision from any of the Commissioners, the arbitrator/s shall, within five (5) working days from receipt of the comments, revise their decision accordingly, if at all. Thereafter, the award/decision shall be promulgated/released after five (5) working days from receipt of the revised award/decision or the lapse of the period to revise the same.
Notwithstanding the Commission's disagreement with the substance or merit of the award/decision, if execution is ripe or proper under the CIAC Rules, it shall release the writ of execution issued by the arbitrator/s. Hence, once an award/decision becomes executory, the release of the writ of execution by the Commission is purely ministerial, regardless of whether or not the arbitrator/s considered the comment of the Commission, or any of its members, on points of substance in the award during scrutiny.
As to the approval by the arbitrator/s of the bond to stay execution, the concurrence of the Commission is only for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the requirements set by the CIAC for bond approval.
This resolution supersedes and amends Rules 18.5 and 18.6 of the CIAC Rules of Procedures Governing Construction Arbitration, CIAC Resolution No. 06-2002 (Policy guidelines to Clarify the Policy Guidelines Regarding Execution of a Final Award During Appeal, Amending Resolution No. 05-2002), and all other previous issuances inconsistent herewith.
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adopted: 27 Dec. 2007
The Commission: | |
(SGD.) JOSUE N. BELLOSILLO | |
Chairman | |
(SGD.) ISAAC S. DAVID | (SGD.) SAMSON C. LAZO |
Member | Member |