Cited Laws
Accordingly, Crawford requested for further negotiations but was rejected by PhilPhos. [14] Meanwhile, on September 17, 2015, PhilPhos initiated rehabilitation proceedings through a Petition for Voluntary Rehabilitation, [15] which was later assigned to the RTC as rehabilitation court, and where Atty. Gulapa was appointed as the court-appointed receiver. [16] The insurers' continued refusal to settle PhilPhos's claim prompted Atty. Gulapa to file the Motion invoking his duty, as rehabilitation receiver, to preserve and maximize the value of PhilPhos's assets. In support of his Motion, Atty. Gulapa argued, among others, that: (a) Section 26 of Republic Act No. (RA) 10142 or the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act of 2010 [17] vests the RTC, sitting as a rehabilitation court, the authority to refer any dispute relating to the rehabilitation proceedings pending before it to arbitration; [18] (b) Item No. 22 of the Insurance Policy Conditions provides that all differences as to the amount of any loss or damage covered thereby shall be referred to the decision of an arbitrator; [19] and (c) the appraisal of the BME and the corresponding valuation of indemnity require special attention and technical expertise, hence, should be heard by a specialized tribunal. [20] Notably, despite absence of hearing, the RTC took cognizance of the Motion. [21] In defense, the insurers argued that Atty. Gulapa's Motion is completely bereft of merit. In their Opposition Ad Cautelam (Opposition) filed on September 18, 2017, [22] the insurers mainly submitted that the RTC, a court of limited jurisdiction sitting as a rehabilitation court, does not have jurisdiction over the insurers and the subject matter of PhilPhos's insurance claim. [23] The RTC Ruling In an Order [24] dated September 12, 2017 (assailed Order)before MAPFRE even filed its Opposition to the Motion on September 18, 2017 [25] the RTC granted the Motion and ordered MAPFRE, among others, to submit to arbitration with PhilPhos to determine the remaining insurance indemnity balance due. The RTC likewise directed the parties to immediately constitute the arbitration panel and proceed promptly with the arbitration proceedings in accordance with the arbitration clause of the insurance policy and thereafter make a report to the Court upon conclusion of the arbitration. [26] Echoing the view of Atty. Gulapa, the RTC explained that the resolution of the matter relating to the accuracy of the amount of PhilPhos's claim for indemnity would be resolved expeditiously and efficiently if heard in an arbitration proceeding instituted especially for the purpose, given the special attention and technical expertise it may provide relative to the issue. [27] More importantly, the RTC gave due deference to Item No. 22 of the Insurance Policy Conditions which unequivocally declared that all differences as to the amount of any loss or damage shall be referred to arbitration. [28] Aggrieved, MAPFRE, along with other insur