Case Digest: BF Corporation vs. CA

G.R. No. 120105 March 27, 1998

BF CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SHANGRI-LA PROPERTIES, INC., RUFO B. COLAYCO, ALFREDO C. RAMOS, MAXIMO G. LICAUCO III and BENJAMIN C. RAMOS

RULING:

The court sustained the Court of Appeals decision against petitioner, BF Corporation. The court upheld the propriety of the filing of the special civil action of certiorari by respondent, reasoning that what was in question was the alleged premature assumption of jurisdiction by the trial court. In settling the issue, another had to be first determined: the existence of an ‘arbitration clause’.

As opposed to petitioner’s contention that there was no valid ‘Arbitration Clause’ in the contract with respondent because said contract only contained initials of the former’s representatives and none of the latter’s, the court held that failure of the respondents to affix their initial in the “Conditions of Contract” containing the arbitration clause did not affect the compliance with the formal requirements (RA 876, Sec4) for arbitration agreements. The Court held that the subject portion of the covenant between the parties was included by reference in the Articles of Agreement.

The Court also noted the attempt of respondent in pursuing arbitration through the July 12-conference and that the lapse of time from said conference to the day the respondent’s invoked the ‘arbitration clause’ was ‘reasonable’.

The Court therefore denied the petition for certiorari by BF Corporation.

Categories: 1998, arbitration clause, Case Digest: BF Corporation vs. CA, G.R. No. 120105, March 27, SPECIAL CRIMINAL LAW, special penal law