Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 175048 2009-02-10	EXCELLENT QUALITY APPAREL v. WIN MULTI RICH BUILDERS TINGA, J.
abide by it in good faith.[41] Clearly, the RTC should not have taken cognizance of the collection suit. The presence of the arbitration clause vested jurisdiction to the CIAC over all construction disputes between Petitioner and Multi-Rich. The RTC does not have jurisdiction.[42]
	GR No. 143581 2008-01-07	KOREA TECHNOLOGIES CO. v. ALBERTO A. LERMA VELASCO JR., J.
Consistent with the above-mentioned policy of encouraging alternative dispute resolution methods, courts should liberally construe arbitration clauses. Provided such clause is susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute, an order to arbitrate should be granted. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of arbitration. [40]
	GR NO. 152471 2006-08-18	FIESTA WORLD MALL CORPORATION v. LINBERG PHILIPPINES SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
It bears stressing that such arbitration agreement is the law between the parties. Since that agreement is binding between them, they are expected to abide by it in good faith.[7] And because it covers the dispute between them in the present case, either of them may compel the other to arbitrate.[8] Thus, it is well within petitioner's right to demand recourse to arbitration.