Scribd
Upload
113 views1 page

2 OSPA V CA

The petitioners, four sugar planters' associations, filed a case against two sugar centrals claiming the centrals violated milling contracts with individual sugar planter members by giving non-member independent planters a larger share. The centrals filed a motion to dismiss arguing the associations were not parties to the milling contracts. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the centrals, finding that only 80 individual planter members had milling contracts and arbitration agreements with the centrals, so the associations did not have legal standing to demand arbitration or file suit.

Uploaded by

Jude Thaddeus Damian
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
113 views1 page

2 OSPA V CA

The petitioners, four sugar planters' associations, filed a case against two sugar centrals claiming the centrals violated milling contracts with individual sugar planter members by giving non-member independent planters a larger share. The centrals filed a motion to dismiss arguing the associations were not parties to the milling contracts. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the centrals, finding that only 80 individual planter members had milling contracts and arbitration agreements with the centrals, so the associations did not have legal standing to demand arbitration or file suit.

Uploaded by

Jude Thaddeus Damian
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

OSPA V CA

The petitioners in this case are: Ormoc Sugarcane Planters' Association, Inc. (Ospa),
Occidental Leyte Farmers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (OLFAMCA), Unifarm Multi-Purpose
Cooperative, Inc. (UNIFARM) and Ormoc North District Irrigation Multi-Purpose Cooperative,
Inc. (ONDIMCO). The respondents are: Hideco Sugar Milling Co., Inc. (Hideco) and Ormoc
Sugar Milling Co, Inc. (OSCO) - sugar centrals engaged in grinding and milling sugarcane
delivered to them by individual sugar planters. The petitioners assert that the relationship
between the respondents and the individual sugar planters is governed by milling contracts.
Petitioners assert that the relationship between respondents and the individual sugar planters is
governed by milling contracts. The petitioners claim that respondents violated the Milling
Contract when they gave independent planters not belonging to their association a 1% share,
instead of reverting this to the centrals and that the respondents gave independent Planters
more benefits. Hence, respondents must be penalized by increasing their member Planters’
share to 66%. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on ground of lack of cause of action
because petitioners had no milling contract with respondents. It was stated by the respondents
that only 80 planters were members who executed milling contracts with them. It was the
individual Planters who had legal standing to invoke the arbitration clause.

Issue:
Are the petitioners, the sugar planters’ associations, clothed with legal personality to file a suit
against, or demand arbitration from respondents? No.

SC Ruling:
The petitioners cannot demand arbitration as they are not parties to the milling contracts.
The petitioners did not have any agreement or contract to arbitrate with respondents. It was
discovered that only eighty (80) planters, who were all members of OSPA, were shown to have
such an agreement to arbitrate. It is provided under Section 4 of R.A. 876 that: “A contract to
arbitrate a controversy thereafter arising between the parties, as well as a submission to
arbitrate an existing controversy, shall be in writing and subscribed by the party sought to be
charged, or by his lawful agent.”
It cannot also be contended that the petitioners are mere agents of the 80 planters. The
main cause of action of petitioners in their request for arbitration with the RTC is the alleged
violation of the clause in the milling contracts involving the proportionate sharing in the proceeds
of the harvest. The party who would be injured or benefited by a decision in the arbitration
proceedings are the member planters involved and not petitioners. Also, there is no showing
that the petitioner had any intention to litigate the case in a representative capacity.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy