DFA and BSP v. Hon. Franco T. Falcon, Presiding Judge of RTC Br. 71 of Pasig City. G.R. No.

176657, September 1, 2010

“Whether or not the e-Passport Project is within the ambit R.A. No. 8975 prohibiting lower courts to issue
TRO” – So that’s considered as a government project that is why. What is the nature of a build operate and
transfer project? Who will fund them? In BOT project, it is funded by the two while public infrastructure
projects are funded by the government. So that is the reason why. Kasi ang nangunguna jan, private corp. at
the end of the day after the completion of the time frame of the contract, it will be transferred to the
government. So in case, let’s assume, BSP and DFA na, so will RA 8975 rely? YES kasi the one who will fund is
the government kasi BSP na. But going back to our subject ADR, #2 is very important that is connected with
our topic. So, BASIC INTERIM RELIEF IS ALLOWED PRIOR TO THE CONSTITUTION OF AN ARBITRAL
TRIBUNAL. Yun lang ang pinaka main focus ng case na ito.

Jorge Gonzales and Panel of Arbitrators v. Climax Mining Ltd., et al., G.R. No. 161957, January
22, 2007

Very clear.

Korea Technologies Co., Ltd. (KOGIES) v. Hon. Alberto A. Lerma, Presiding Judge of Br. 256, RTC
Muntinlupa, G.R. No. 143581, January 7, 2008

There is actually a foreign element in the controversy correct? And that is the Korean Company. So the
contract was perfected here and then there is an arbitration clause. Any justiciable controversy, punta sila sa
Korea, nakalagay duon yung institutional arbitration company na mag hahandle ng controversy. Now, if there
is an award, sabi dun, final and valid/binding. It is not contrary with regards to our civil code provisions
wherein immediately executory. Binding and final, among the parties. Paano siya i-eexecute? Kailangan mong
yung award nay un dalhin ng Korean Company Kojie in the Philippines go to the RTC mag fa-file siya ng
petition for recognition of a foreign arbitral award. Kasi yun yung nasa batas natin- ADR 2004. Ngayon there
are remedies sabi nga niya ng local company either to let’s say, the vacation of the award or you can modify
the award, merong mga remedies hanggang sa lahat pa ng mga remedies. Appeal up to the CA, kase papasok
na yjng 1997 ROC, tapos kung matalo siya dun pwede siyang umakyat 45, so ang dami niyang remedies. But
the court will not be divested of its jurisdiction. Ang problema, merong criminal element yung nangyare diba?
Nag demanda siya ng BP22 kasi tumalbog siya eh. Pero actually, pinatalbig niya talaga diba ano yung ginawa
niya? Stop payment. Bakit niya pina istop payment? So sa kontrata, substandard yung pinadala kaya nag
demanda na muna siya ng what kind of criminal action? Estafa because there is fraud. Bakit still the RTC will
directly set the parties to arbitrate? E may mga criminal consideration yung kanilang controversies arbitrable
parin paba yun? Estafa? BP22? The parties agreed here, primarily it’s the state na not the private parties
because the court will have jurisdiction to this criminal cases filed within the jurisdiction of the court..estafa,
BP 22, oh bakit subject for arbitration parin ito? Civil in nature pero may pumasok na criminal cases eh and
the primary party agreed this is the state. Bakit pwede pang i-arbitrate miski na may criminal element etong
case na ito between the 2 parties? Can the resolution on the parties submitting themselves to arbitration can
it resolve the civil aspect of the estafa and BP22? Pwede bnag ma resolve yung civil aspect nung criminal case
na BP22 at estafa? Let’s say the award was accepted by the parties na civil wherein connected sa civil aspect
of the criminal cases na resolve.. nagbibigay lang ako ng scenario let’s say sinubmit sila sa arbitration tapos
yung award, satisfied silang dalawa with connected with the criminal cases filed with each other? So if they
are satisfied, do you think they will still pursue the criminal cases? Criminal liability is not under arbitration
pero pag yung civil liability ay na settle, the party not anymore interested to pursue the criminal aspect. Is
there any foot to stand in relation to the criminal aspect of this controversy? Balik tayo sa pinaka umpisa
nating subject ha, let’s say estafa, BP22, if you file a case in the auspices of the government under the judiciary,
diba, after the arraignment prior to the pretrial san sila dadalhin? Court annex mediation to settle the civil
aspect and pag na settle na yung cicil aspect, they will desist. And then the criminal liability will not stand
anymore. Pero, pano kung hinid arbitrable yung criminal case shempre itutuloy yan. Unless, we will go with
the process of execution of criminal affidavit of desistance, wala ring mangyayare. Okay clear ba yun? Yes sir!
BUT…diko naman tatanungin yun.