This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2013-09-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Much more instructive for our purposes, on the other hand, is the recent case of Cargill Philippines, Inc. v. San Fernando Regal Trading, Inc.[88] In Cargill, this Court answered the question of whether issues involving the rescission of a contract are arbitrable. The respondent in Cargill argued against arbitrability, also citing therein Gonzales. After dissecting Gonzales, this Court ruled in favor of arbitrability.[89] Thus, We held:Respondent contends that assuming that the existence of the contract and the arbitration clause is conceded, the CA's decision declining referral of the parties' dispute to arbitration is still correct. It claims that its complaint in the RTC presents the issue of whether under the facts alleged, it is entitled to rescind the contract with damages; and that issue constitutes a judicial question or one that requires the exercise of judicial function and cannot be the subject of an arbitration proceeding. Respondent cites our ruling in Gonzales, wherein we held that a panel of arbitrator is bereft of jurisdiction over the complaint for declaration of nullity/or termination of the subject contracts on the grounds of fraud and oppression attendant to the execution of the addendum contract and the other contracts emanating from it, and that the complaint should have been filed with the regular courts as it involved issues which are judicial in nature. | |||||