Documents

Digests

Description
digests rem
Categories
Published
of 2
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  La Naval v CA, 236 S 78 FACTS: Respondent Yao was the owner of a commercial building, a portion of which is leased to herein petitioner. Howeer, during the renewal of the contract of lease, the two disagreed on the rental rate, and to resole the controers!, the! submitted their disagreement to arbitration. Two arbitrators Alamare# and Sabile$ has been appointed b! the parties while the appointment of the third arbitrator Tupang$ was held in abe!ance because %a &aal 'rug instructed its arbitrator to defer the same until its (oard of 'irectors could conene and approed Tupang)s appointment. This was theori#ed b! the respondent as dilator! tactics, hence, he pra!ed that a summar! hearing be conducted and direct the * arbitrators to proceed with the arbitration in accordance with Contract of %ease and the applicable proisions of the Arbitration law, b! appointing and confirming the appointment of the Third Arbitrator+ and that the (oard of Three Arbitrators be ordered to immediatel! conene and resole the controers! before it. The respondent court announced that the two arbitrators chose rs. -loisa R. &arciso as the third arbitrator and ordered the parties to submit their position papers on the issue as to whether or not respondent Yaos claim for damages ma! be litigated upon in the summar! proceeding for enforcement of arbitration agreement. /n moing for reconsideration of the said 0rder, petitioner argued that in Special Case &o. 12*3, the respondent court sits as a special court e4ercising limited 5urisdiction and is not competent to act on respondent Yaos claim for damages, which poses an issue litigable in an ordinar! ciil action. Howeer, respondent court was not persuaded b! petitioners submission, hence, it denied the motion for reconsideration. 6hile the appellate court has agreed with petitioner that, under Section 1 of Republic Act &o. 781, a court, acting within the limits of its special 5urisdiction, ma! in this case solel! determine the issue of whether the litigants should proceed or not to arbitration, it, howeer, considered petitioner in estoppel from 9uestioning the competence of the court to additionall! hear and decide in the summar! proceedings priate respondents claim for damages, it petitioner$ haing itself filed similarl! its own counterclaim with the court a 9uo. /SS-;S: <.60& TH- C0RT HAS =R/S'/CT/0& 0>-R TH- ?-RS0&. *.60& TH- C0RT A @0 HAS =R/S'/CT/0& 0>-R TH- S(=-CT ATT-R RAT/0:  As to the first issue, it was held that 5urisdiction oer the person must be seasonabl! raised, i.e., that it is pleaded in a motionto dismiss or b! wa! of an affirmatie defense in an answer. >oluntar! appearance shall be deemed a waier of this defense.The assertion, howeer, of affirmatie defenses shall not be constructed as an estoppel or as a waier of such defense. With regard to the second issue, it was held that where the court itself clearly has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature of the action, the invocation of this defense may be done at any time. It is neither for the courts nor the parties to violate or disregard thatrule, let alone to confer that jurisdiction, this matter being legislative in character. Barring highly meritorious and exceptionalcircumstances, such as herein before exemplified, neither estoppel nor waiver shall apply. The court must then refrain from taking up theclaims of the contending parties for damages, which, upon the other hand, may be ventilated in separate regular proceedings. Samar // -lectric Cooperatie /nc. SA-%C0 //$ et al. s. Ananias Seludo =r.B.R. &o. <8732, April *D, *2<* FACTS: Respondent Seludo is a member of SA-%C0 //)s (0'. A board resolution wasissued disallowing respondent from attending meetings of the (0' effectieFebruar! *22D until the end of his term as directed and dis9ualified him for oneterm to run as candidate for director in the upcoming district elections. Respondentthen filed an rgent ?etition for ?rohibition against SA-%C0 // with the RTC inCalbiga, Samar. RTC granted a TR0 in faour of Seludo effectie for 8* hours andlater e4tended for another <8 da!s. ?etitioners then raised an affirmatie defense of lacE of lacE of 5urisdiction of RTC oer sub5ect matter, the same being with the&ational -lectrification Administration &-A$. RTC sustained its 5urisdiction oer thematter, motion for reconsideration was denied. CA affirmed the RTC. ./SS-: 'oes the &-A hae primar! 5urisdiction oer the 9uestion of the alidit! of the(oard Resolution issued b! SA-%C0 //R%/&B: Yes, pursuant to Subsection a$, Sec. *3, Chapter /// of ?' *1 as amended b! Sec.8, ?' <13D clearl! shows that, pursuant to its power of superision and control, &-Ais granted the authorit! to conduct inestigations and other similar actions as wellas to issue orders, rules and regulations with respect to all matters affecting electriccooperaties. /n addition, while the RTC has 5urisdiction oer the petition for prohibition, the &-A, in its e4ercise of its power of superision and control, hasprimar! 5urisdiction to determine the issue of the alidit! of the sub5ect resolution.  ?etition granted.
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks