EQUITABLE PCI BANK V. RCBC CAPITAL CORPORATION
Facts:
Equitable PCI, as seller and RCBC as buyer executed a Share
Purchase Agreement for the purchase of Equitable PCI’s interest in Bankard.
After three years from the execution of the deed of sale, RCBC however informed
Equitable PCI of overpayment of over P616M for the purchase price of the
shares. RCBC claimed that Equitable PCI violated their warranty as sellers.
Following the unsuccessful attempts for settlement, RCBC
filed a request for Arbitration on May 12, 2004 with the International Chamber
of Commerce – International Court of Arbitration (ICC- ICA).
In its Answer, Equitable PCI denied RCBC’s averments,
claimed that the period for filing the claim has already lapsed, was guilty of
laches and was not entitled to rescission having had ample opportunity and
reasonable time to file a claim against Equitable PCI.
The Arbitral Tribunal rendered a Partial Award holding that
RCBC’s claim is not time-barred as it was filed within the 3 year period. It
also exonerated RCBC from laches and it considered impracticable the rescission
of the Agreements.
RCBC field with the RTC a Motion to Confirm Partial Award.
Equitable PCI countered through a Motion to Vacate the Partial Award.
RTC ordered confirming the Partial Award. Equitable PCI
sought reconsideration but RTC denied.
Thus, Equitable PCI filed a Petition for Review with the
Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE: Is Rule 45 the
proper remedy or the direct appeal to SC?
HELD:
NO. Rule 45 is not the remedy but an appeal before the CA pursuant to Sec. 46 of the ADR Act
of 2004 which was already effective at the time the arbitral proceeding
commenced or on May 12, 2004 through a request for arbitration with the ICC-ICA.
RA 9285 took effect on April 28, 2004.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento