Anda di halaman 1dari 6

Alternative Dispute

Resolution System
RA No. 9285 – “AN ACT TO INSTITUTIONALIZE THE USE OF AN
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES AND
TO ESTABLISH THE OFFICE FOR ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”
Republic Act No. 9285 – Alternative Dispute
Resolution
• Legislation passed a law in order to help declog court dockets which is RA
No. 9285 or “AN ACT TO INSTITUTIONALIZE THE USE OF AN ALTERNATIVE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES AND TO ESTABLISH THE
OFFICE FOR ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES”. This is to encourage and actively promote the use of
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as an important means to achieve
speedy and impartial justice Likewise, the State shall enlist active private
sector participation in the settlement of disputes through ADR.
• This Act shall be without prejudice to the adoption by the Supreme Court
of any ADR system, such as mediation, conciliation, arbitration, or any
combination thereof as a means of achieving speedy and efficient means of
resolving cases pending before all courts in the Philippines which shall be
governed by such rules as the Supreme Court may approve from time to
time.
Salient Feature of ADR
• One of the important features of this law is that it is considered as a
Condition Precedent in filing an action in court. All valid conditions
precedent to the institution of a particular action, whether prescribed
by statue, fixed by agreement of the parties, or implied by law must
be complied with before commencing the action.
• It must be pleaded
• Failure to comply with a condition precedent is a ground for a motion
to dismiss. (Sec. 1(1), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court).
Examples of Conditions Precedent
• Arbitration
• Barangay Conciliation
• Exhaustion of Administrative remedies
• Preliminary Investigation
• No suit between family members unless earnest efforts at
compromise have been made but the same has failed. (Art. 222,
Family Code)
G.R. No. 185582
Tuna Processing Inc., v Philippine Kingford, Inc.
• In Tuna Processing Inc., v. Philippine Kingford, Inc., the court held that, under Rule
13.1 of the Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution provides that
any party to a foreign arbitration may petition the court to recognize and enforce
a foreign arbitral award.
• Arbitration, as an alternative mode of settlement, is gaining adherents in legal
and judicial circles here and abroad. If its tested mechanism can simply be
ignored by an aggrieved party, one who, it must be stressed, voluntarily and
actively participated in the arbitration proceedings from the very beginning, it
will destroy the very essence of mutuality inherent in consensual contracts.
• Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to
actively promote party autonomy in the resolution of disputes or the freedom of
the party to make their own arrangements to resolve their disputes. Towards this
end, 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 declog court dockets. xxx
G.R. No. 175404
Cargill Philippines, Inc., v San Fernando Regala
Trading, Inc.
• The Supreme Court held that the provision to submit to arbitration any dispute arising
between the parties is part of the contract and is itself a contract. The arbitration
agreement is to be treated as a separate agreement and does not automatically
terminate when the contract of which it is a part comes to an end. To reiterate a contrary
ruling would suggest that a party's mere repudiation of the main contract is sufficient to
avoid arbitration; that is exactly the situation that the separability doctrine seeks to
avoid.

• San Fernando Regala Trading filed a complaint for rescission of contract and damages
with the trial court. In so doing, it alleged that a contract existed. It was that contract
which provided for an arbitration clause which expressed the parties' intention that any
dispute to arise between them, as buyer and seller, should be referred to arbitration. It is
for the arbitrator and not the court to decide whether a contract between the parties
exists or is valid. Under the circumstances, the argument that rescission is judicial in
nature is misplaced.