Dispute Resolution, Litigation, Arbitration

Jurisdiction as a Ground Against Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

A court may refuse enforcement of a foreign arbitral award when it deals with an issue not contemplated by the arbitration agreement. Related to this is the principle of competence-competence, which provides that an arbitral tribunal has the competence and first opportunity to rule on objections to its jurisdiction to hear and decide a dispute before it.

In Mabuhay Holdings Corporation v. Sembcorp Logistics Limited, the Supreme Court denied Petitioner Mabuhay’s claim that the Final Award should not be enforced because the dispute that gave rise to the award was an intra-corporate dispute – a dispute specifically excluded from the arbitration clause. The Court cited the Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution, which provides that courts shall not disturb an arbitral tribunals’ determination of facts and interpretation of law.

The Final Award, among others, disposed that the dispute was not an intra-corporate controversy. Thus, the factual and legal determination by the arbitral tribunal regarding its jurisdiction was no longer subject to review.


Read the other issues raised in the case:

Public Policy as a Ground Against Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards”

“Party-Autonomy as a Ground Against Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards”


Disclaimer: The information in this website is provided for general informational purposes only. No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from Platon Martinez or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through this post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances.