TITLE: ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION vs. WORLD INTERACTIVE NETWORK SYSTEMS (WINS) JAPAN CO., LTD. [G.R. No.

169332, February 11, 2008] By: Justine Lyne Borbe TOPIC: PONENTE: Corona

1. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation entered into a licensing agreement with World Interactive Network Systems (WINS) Japan Co., Ltd.,(Japan corporation) for the exclusive license to distribute and sublicense the distribution of the television service known as The Filipino Channel (TFC) in Japan. 2. WINS allegedly insert nine episodes of WINS WEEKLY (a television program) without authorization from ABS. Hence, the latter issued a notice of termination of the said agreement because of breach of contract. 3. WINS, in turn, filed an arbitration suit contending that the airing is with approval and that ABS only wanted to renegotiate the terms to demand higher fees. 4. The parties appointed Professor Alfredo F. Tadiar to act as sole arbitrator. The arbitrator found in favor of respondent. He held that petitioner gave its approva. He also ruled that there had been a material breach of the agreement. 5. ABS filed in the CA a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court or, in the alternative, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the same Rules, with application for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction. It alleged serious errors of fact and law and/or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the arbitrator. 6. WINS filed a petition for confirmation of arbitral award before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. Consequently, ABS filed a supplemental petition to enjoin the RTC of Quezon City from further proceeding with the hearing of WINS petition for confirmation of arbitral award. 7. After the petition was admitted, the RTC ordered to hold in abeyance any further action on WINS petition as the assailed decision of the arbitrator had already become the subject of an appeal in the CA. WINS filed a MR but no resolution has been issued. 8. CA dismissed the petition of ABS for lack of jurisdiction. It ruled that:

o The arbitrator's decision is final and unappealable and the petition for review must fail. o The RTC has jurisdiction over questions relating to arbitration. o The only instance it can exercise jurisdiction over an arbitral award is an appeal from the trial court's decision confirming, vacating or modifying the arbitral award. o A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is proper in arbitration cases only if the courts refuse or neglect to inquire into the facts of an arbitrator's award. 9. Hence, the present petition. ABS contends that the CA committed serious error. ISSUES: 1. WON an aggrieved party in a voluntary arbitration dispute may avail of, directly in the CA NO 2. WON a petition for review and a petition for certiorari is applicable as an alternative remedies. NO RATIO: I. RA 876 clearly provides that the RTC must issue an order vacating an arbitral award only in any one of the . . . cases enumerated under the law. As RA 876 did not expressly provide for errors of fact and/or law and grave abuse of discretion as grounds for maintaining a petition to vacate an arbitral award in the RTC, it necessarily follows that a party may not avail of the latter remedy on the grounds of errors of fact and/or law or grave abuse of discretion to overturn an arbitral award. According to Jurisprudence, the proper remedy from the adverse decision of a voluntary arbitrator, if errors of fact and/or law are raised, is a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Thus, ABS contention that it may avail of a petition for review under Rule 43 under the circumstances of this case is correct. As to petitioner's arguments that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may also be resorted to, we hold the same to be in accordance with the Constitution and jurisprudence. Although, ABS position was correct, SC sustained 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. SC ruled that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AND

II.

NOT ALTERNATIVE OR SUCCESSIVE.

Proper issues that may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 43 pertain to errors of fact, law or mixed questions of fact and law, while a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 should only limit itself to errors of jurisdiction, that is, grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction. Moreover, it cannot be availed of where appeal is the proper remedy or as a substitute for a lapsed appeal. A careful reading of the assigned errors reveals that the real issues calling for the CA's resolution were less the alleged grave abuse of discretion exercised by the arbitrator and more about the arbitrators appreciation of the issues and evidence presented by the parties. Therefore, the issues clearly fall under the classification of errors of fact and law questions which may be passed upon by the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43. Petitioner cleverly crafted its assignment of errors in such a way as to straddle both judicial remedies, that is, by alleging serious errors of fact and law (in which case a petition for review under Rule 43 would be proper) and grave abuse of discretion (because of which a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 would be permissible).

For reference: 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.