Admit. [XXX] the allegations in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the complaint, with the qualification that the alleged dispute subject of the plaintiff's Request for Arbitration dated October 20, 2004 is not an arbitrable issue, considering that the provision on pre- termination fee in the Power Sales and Purchase Agreement (PSPA), is gravely onerous, unconscionable, greatly disadvantageous to the government, against public policy and therefore invalid and unenforceable.
Admit. [XXX] the allegation in paragraph 5 of the complaint with the qualification that the refusal of the defendant to arbitrate is justified considering that the provision on the pre-termination fee subject of the plaintiff's Request for Arbitration is invalid and unenforceable. Moreover, the pre-termination of the PSPA is whimsical, has no valid basis and in violation of the provisions thereof, constituting breach of contract on the part of the plaintiff. [5] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) X x x x Respondent thereafter filed a Reply and Motion to Render Judgment on the Pleadings,[6] contending that since petitioner x x x does not challenge the fact that (a) there is a dispute between the parties; (b) the dispute must be resolved through arbitration before a three-member arbitration committee; and (c) defendant refused to submit the dispute to arbitration by naming its representative in the arbitration committee, judgment may be rendered directing the appointment of the two other members to complete the composition of the arbitration committee that will resolve the dispute of the parties.[7] By Order of April 5, 2005, Branch 118 of the Pasay City RTC granted respondent's Motion to Render Judgment on the Pleadings, disposing as follows: WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, this Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Pursuant to Section 8 of RA 876, also known as the Arbitration Law, and Power Sales and Purchase Agreement, this Court hereby appoints, subject to their agreement as arbitrators, retired Supreme Court Chief Justice Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, as chairman of the committee, and retired Supreme Court Justices Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx, and Justice Xxxx X. Xxxxx, as defendant's and plaintiff's representative, respectively, to the arbitration committee. Accordingly, let the Request for Arbitration be immediately referred to the Arbitration Committee so that it can commence with the arbitration. SO ORDERED.[8] (Underscoring supplied) On appeal,[9] the Court of Appeals, by Decision of April 10, 2007, affirmed the RTC Order.[10] Its Motion for Reconsideration[11] having been denied,[12] petitioner filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari,[13] faulting the appellate court
Admit. All, where all requests that can meet their bandwidth requirement are admitted regardless of their violation probabilities, (2) Admit- Most, where the requests that are likely to be most profitable are admitted, and (3) Admit-Few, where only requests with the highest SLA satisfaction probabilities are admitted. We found that for our settings (which are similar to those used in previous studies such as [6, 9, 11, 14]) the Admit-Most policy was most beneficial as it yielded both high expected profit and low violation rate. Our main contributions are as follows: • We propose a new SLA-based approach to routing and admission control. Unlike previous approaches that ig- nore many aspects of the SLA, our algorithm uses SLA specifics to estimate the expected profit of the current request and its impact on future requests. • We propose an efficient routing approach that finds paths with low violation probability. Our routing algorithm also reduces link congestion. • We propose an intelligent admission control algorithm that aims to maximize profit by accepting requests based on their expected profitability. • We compare our algorithm to a traditional availability- based approach and find that it performs significantly better in terms of admittance, overall satisfaction, sat- isfaction among admitted requests, and expected profit. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Sec- tion II discusses previous SLA-related research. Section III describes the SLA-provisioning problem we are considering. Section IV describes our provisioning algorithm and Section V discusses the results of our algorithm. Finally, Section VI provides a summary of our work.
Admit. All (2)Admit-Most, and (3)Admit-Few. flow and increment xx.
Admit. All, where all requests that could meet their bandwidth requirement were admitted regardless of their violation probabilities, (2) Admit-Most, where the requests that were likely to be most profitable were admitted, and (3) Admit-Few, where only requests with the highest satisfaction probabilities were admitted. Our simulation results show that for our network settings, Admit-Most is best as it achieves both high profit and high satisfaction rates for admitted requests. Fraction of Requests Satisfied 0.87 0.88 20 40 60 80 100 Load (Erlangs)
Admit. Issue notice to the Respondents.
