Interim measures of protection in aid of arbitration

The preference for arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods — such as mediation, negotiation, and conciliation — over litigation is well-established (Stemship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Limited v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 196027, Sept. 20, 2017).

- AMICUS CURIAE KHURSHID C. KALABUD, JR.

Republic Act No. 9285, otherwise known as the “Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004” (ADR Act), declares the policy that the “State shall encourage and actively promote the use of ADR as an important means to achieve speedy and impartial justice and declog court dockets.” Similarly, A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC or the “Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution” affirms the State’s commitment “to actively promote the use of various modes of ADR and to respect party autonomy or the freedom of the parties to make their own arrangements in the resolution of disputes with the greatest cooperation of and the least intervention from the courts.”

Arbitration agreements embody the contractual commitment of parties to submit to arbitration the disputes covered therein (Cagayan de Oro City Water District v. Hon. Pasal, G.R. No. 202305, Nov. 11, 2021). Hence, as the Supreme Court elucidated in Fruehauf Electronics Philippines Corp. v. Technology Electronics Assembly and Management Pacific Corp. (G.R. No. 204197, Nov. 23, 2016), “arbitration is a purely private mode of dispute resolution... As a private alternative to court proceedings, arbitration is meant to be an end, not the beginning, of litigation.”