G.R. No. 215644 - TRI-MARK FOODS, INC.,[i], VS. GINTONG PANSIT, ATBP., INC., LUCY TAN YU,[ii], CATHERINE NG CHUNGUNCO,[iii], KATHLEEN GO-OCIER,[iv], RAYMOND[v] NG CHUNGUNCO AND MARY JENNIFER YAP ANG,[vi].

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing discussions, the Sole [Arbitrator] finds the established claims of TRI-MARK as follows: a) Four million seven hundred eighty-two thousand one hundred ninety-seven pesos and 74/100 (Php4,782,197.74) covering food and supplies purchases; b) Nine hundred forty thousand seven hundred ninety-eight pesos and 79/100 (Php940,798.79) for manpower services; c) Five hundred eighty-nine thousand five hundred forty pesos and 24/100 (Php589,540.24) for royalty fees; and d) Twenty-three thousand four hundred sixteen pesos and 66/100 (Php23,416.66) for SWMS and local adds or a total of Six Million Three Hundred Thirty-five Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty-Three pesos and 40/100 (Php6,335,953.40). However, as discussed earlier, the amounts of Six Hundred Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty-Three Pesos and 22/100 (Php608,853.22) and Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php200,000.00) representing the amounts paid by respondent during the takeover of TRI-MARK and the share of claimant in the value of the remaining life of the franchise agreement, respectively shall be deducted from the claims of TRI-MARK. Hence, GINTONG PANSIT and the other Respondents are directed to pay TRI-MARK the amount of Five Million Five Hundred Twenty-Seven Thousand One Hundred Pesos and 20/100 (Php5,527,100.20). In view of the solidary liability of the individual respondents, claimant TRI-MARK may implement the award accordingly." On October 13, 2010, respondents Gintong Pansit, et al., filed a petition to vacate final award with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City within the 30-day period provided under the Special Rules of Court on ADR. Respondents contended that: 1) the arbitral tribunal was guilty of evident partiality in completely disregarding the evidence of overpricing and Tri-Mark's refusal to deliver the foods and other supplies, which acts constitute breach of the franchise agreement; 2) the arbitral tribunal exceeded its powers in issuing the final award in manifest disregard of laws and public policies, despite respondent Tri-Mark's breach of the franchise agreement; and 3) the final award was procured through fraud and other undue means. Respondent[s] Gintong Pansit, et al., maintained that the arbitral tribunal violated their right to due process when it ignored their evidence, i.e., Cost Analysis or comparative table of prices showing marked differences in pricing of foods and supplies for different Ling Nam branches: statement of accounts and sales invoices; testimonies of witnesses, particularly Tri-Mark's president Peter Fung who admitted the overpricing for the Ling Nam branch operated by Gintong Pansit, et al. Respondents argued that by overpricing its products, Tri-Mark did not allow them the opportunity to recover their business investments, which was a blatant violation of the franchise agreement, thus, respondents prayed that the final award dated September 8, 2010 be nullified and vacated, and that Tri-Mark be held liable for