Scribd
Upload
33 views1 page

Equitable PCI Bank v. RCBC Arbitration Case

Equitable PCI Bank sold its interest in Bankard to RCBC Capital Corporation through a Share Purchase Agreement. Three years later, RCBC claimed it overpaid for the shares by over P616M and that Equitable PCI violated warranties. RCBC filed for arbitration with the ICC. The arbitration tribunal issued a Partial Award finding RCBC's claim was not time-barred. Equitable PCI sought to vacate the award. The RTC confirmed the award. Equitable PCI appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Court held the proper appeal was to the Court of Appeals under the 2004 ADR Act, not through Rule 45.

Uploaded by

Michelle Matubis
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
33 views1 page

Equitable PCI Bank v. RCBC Arbitration Case

Equitable PCI Bank sold its interest in Bankard to RCBC Capital Corporation through a Share Purchase Agreement. Three years later, RCBC claimed it overpaid for the shares by over P616M and that Equitable PCI violated warranties. RCBC filed for arbitration with the ICC. The arbitration tribunal issued a Partial Award finding RCBC's claim was not time-barred. Equitable PCI sought to vacate the award. The RTC confirmed the award. Equitable PCI appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Court held the proper appeal was to the Court of Appeals under the 2004 ADR Act, not through Rule 45.

Uploaded by

Michelle Matubis
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Remedial Law Digest: EQUITABLE PCI BANK V.

RCBC CAPITAL CORPORATION [G.R. NO. 182248,


December 18, 2008]
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.

You might also like