Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

INSULAR SAVINGS BANK v. FAR EAST BANK

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 176973 2015-02-25	DAVID M. DAVID v. FEDERICO M. PARAGAS MENDOZA, J.
In Lotte Phil. Co., Inc. v. Dela Cruz,[33] the Court reiterated that an indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action, and who shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. The presence of indispensable parties is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction, which is "the authority to hear and determine a cause, the right to act in a case." [34]
	GR No. 196171 2012-12-10	RCBC CAPITAL CORPORATION v. BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Alternative dispute resolution methods or ADRs like arbitration, mediation, negotiation and conciliation are encouraged by this Court. By enabling parties to resolve their disputes amicably, they provide solutions that are less time-consuming, less tedious, less confrontational, and more productive of goodwill and lasting relationship.[102] Institutionalization of ADR was envisioned as "an important means to achieve speedy and impartial justice and declog court dockets."[103] The most important feature of arbitration, and indeed, the key to its success, is the public's confidence and trust in the integrity of the process.[104] For this reason, the law authorizes vacating an arbitral award when there is evident partiality in the arbitrators.
	GR No. 166260 2009-02-18	METROPOLITAN BANK v. CA NACHURA, J.
This erroneous move of the petitioner was fatal to its cause. The Court has already explained in Insular Savings Bank v. Far East Bank and Trust Company,[30] that the PCHC Rules cannot confer jurisdiction on the RTC to review arbitral awards, thus
	GR No. 169332 2008-02-11	ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP. v. WORLD INTERACTIVE NETWORK SYSTEMS JAPAN CO. CORONA, J.
Significantly, Insular Savings Bank v. Far East Bank and Trust Company[19] definitively outlined several judicial remedies an aggrieved party to an arbitral award may undertake: (1) a petition in the proper RTC to issue an order to vacate the award on the grounds provided for in Section 24 of RA 876; (2) a petition for review in the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court on questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law; and (3) a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court should the arbitrator have acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Nevertheless, although petitioner's position on the judicial remedies available to it was correct, we sustain the dismissal of its petition by the CA. The remedy petitioner availed of, entitled "alternative petition for review under Rule 43 or petition for certiorari under Rule 65," was wrong.