Categories
Case Digest

Case Digest: Magellan Capital vs. Rolando Soza, G.R. No. 129916

MAGELLAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION vs. ROLANDO M. ZOSA , et. al

G.R. No. 129916            March 26, 2001

Facts:

This is a case of involving the validity of arbitration clause as provided in the “Employment Agreement” among Magellan Capital Holdings Corporation 

[MCHC], Magellan Capital Management Corporation [MCMC] and Rolando M. Zosa designating Zosa as President and Chief Executive Officer of MCHC. 

The Arbitration Clause provides in portion, “Arbitration shall be effected by a panel of three arbitrators. The Manager, Employee and Corporation shall designate one (1) arbitrator who shall, in turn, nominate and elect who among them shall be the chairman of the committee. 

Facts:

Whether the arbitration clause is valid and binding. 

Ruling

No. 

From the foregoing arbitration clause, it appears that the two (2) defendants [petitioners] (MCMC and MCHC) have one (1) arbitrator each to compose the panel of three (3) arbitrators. As the defendant MCMC is the Manager of defendant MCHC, its decision or vote in the arbitration proceeding would naturally and certainly be in favor of its employer and the defendant MCHC would have to protect and preserve its own interest; hence, the two (2) votes of both defendants (MCMC and MCHC) would certainly be against the lone arbitrator for the plaintiff [herein defendant]. 

We need only to emphasize in closing that arbitration proceedings are designed to level the playing field among the parties in pursuit of a mutually acceptable solution to their conflicting claims. Any arrangement or scheme that would give undue advantage to a party in the negotiating table is anathema to the very purpose of arbitration and should, therefore, be resisted. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.