Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • (G.R. No. 161957) Gonzales vs. Climax Mining (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Ryan Leocario
    997 views2 pages
    [G.R. No. 161957] Gonzales vs. Climax Mining (digest)

    Original Title

    [G.R. No. 161957] Gonzales vs. Climax Mining (digest)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    [G.R. No. 161957] Gonzales vs. Climax Mining (digest)

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    997 views2 pages

    (G.R. No. 161957) Gonzales vs. Climax Mining (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Ryan Leocario
    [G.R. No. 161957] Gonzales vs. Climax Mining (digest)

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    [G.R. No.

    161957] January 22, 2007

    JORGE GONZALES and PANEL OF ARBITRATORS, Petitioners,


    vs.
    CLIMAX MINING LTD., CLIMAX-ARIMCO MINING CORP., and AUSTRALASIAN
    PHILIPPINES MINING INC., Respondents.

    Facts:

    This case is a consolidation of two petitions rooted in the same disputed Addendum
    Contract entered into between petitioner Jorge Gonzales and the respondent mining companies.

    The first case is a Motion for Reconsideration filed by both parties. Gonzales challenges
    the decision of the Supreme Court ruling that the DENR Panel of Arbitrators (Panel) had no
    jurisdiction over the complaint for the annulment of the Addendum Contract on grounds of
    fraud and violation of the Constitution, which should have been filed with the regular courts.

    Gonzales contends that that the Panel has jurisdiction because the case involves a
    mining dispute that properly falls within the ambit of its authority.

    In the second case, Gonzales challenged the order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
    requiring him to proceed with the arbitration proceedings while the complaint for the
    nullification of the Addendum Contract was pending before the Panel. He averred that any
    issue as to the nullity, inoperativeness, or incapability of performance of the arbitration
    clause/agreement raised by one of the parties to the alleged arbitration agreement must be
    determined by the court prior to referring them to arbitration.

    Issue:

    Whether or not nullification of the addendum agreement must be determined first by


    the court prior to arbitration.

    Ruling:

    No. Implicit in the summary nature of the judicial proceedings is the separable or
    independent character of the arbitration clause or agreement. The Supreme Court had the
    opportunity to expound on the doctrine of separability, which provides that an arbitration
    agreement is independent of the main contract. The arbitration agreement is to be treated as a
    separate agreement. Hence, the arbitration agreement does not automatically terminate when
    the contract of which it is part comes to an end.
    The separability of the arbitration agreement is especially significant to the determination of
    whether the invalidity of the main contract also nullifies the arbitration clause. Indeed, the
    doctrine denotes that the invalidity of the main contract, also referred to as the "container"
    contract, does not affect the validity of the arbitration agreement. Irrespective of the fact that
    the main contract is invalid, the arbitration clause/agreement still remains valid and
    enforceable.

    You might also like