4/10/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly On the basis of the foregoing, the Court finds no error in the ruling of the CA that the voluntary arbitrator has jurisdiction over the instant case. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 76489 dated July 11, 2005 and April 18, 2006, respectively, are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Abad, Villarama, Jr.,** Mendoza, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur. Peralta, J., (Acting Chairperson),* * Per Special Order No. 1228 dated June 6, 2012. ** Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., per Special Order No. 1229 dated June 6, 2012. [1] Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., with Associate Justices Arturo G. Tayag and Normandie B. Pizarro, concurring; rollo, pp. 14-26. [2] Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Normanide B. Pizarro, concurring; id. at 109-111. [3] Rollo, pp. 15-19. [4] Id. at 25. [5] See Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune Tobacco Corporation, G.R. No. 141309, June 19, 2007, 525 SCRA 11, 22-23. [6] Records, p. 73. [7] Vivero v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138938, October 24, 2000, 344 SCRA 268, 281. [8] ABAKADA Guro Party List v. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008, 562 SCRA 251, 288-289. [9] Id; Landbank of the Philippines v. Honeycomb Farms Corporation, G.R. No. 169903, February 29, 2012. [10] Navarro III v. Damasco, G.R. No. 101875, July 14, 1995, 246 SCRA 260, 264. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/54854 7/8