Supreme Court
No. 2025-91-Appeal. (PC 20-5579)
Arturo P. Batac :
v. :
Verizon.1 :
ORDER
This case came before the Supreme Court on the pro se appeal filed by the
plaintiff, Arturo P. Batac (Batac or plaintiff), from an order of the Superior Court
entered in favor of the defendant, Verizon (Verizon or defendant). After reviewing
the parties’ written and oral arguments, we conclude that cause has not been shown
and proceed to decide the appeal at this time. We affirm.
In May 2019, Batac filed a small-claims action in the Third Division District
Court against Verizon. He alleged that Verizon failed to maintain the agreement for
monthly services, improperly increased his monthly bill, and interrupted services
when he failed to tender full payment. Although the record does not reflect the issues
1 The plaintiff names “Verizon” as the defendant in this action. In a prior appeal involving these parties, the defendant asserted that its proper corporate name was “Verizon New England, Inc.” See Batac v. Verizon, 289 A.3d 173, 173 n.1 (R.I. 2023) (mem.). -1- or testimony adduced at trial during the small-claims proceeding, on September 10,
2019, a judgment in favor of Verizon was entered in the District Court.
Nearly a year later, on August 5, 2020, plaintiff filed this action in the Superior
Court, alleging that Verizon “dictate[d]” the monthly bills and, if not paid in full,
Verizon would “interrupt” services. Batac further averred that “Verizon interrupted
my service many many times” and contended that Verizon “hack[s]” or “steal[s]”
his personal emails. The defendant answered the complaint, and shortly thereafter,
filed a motion to stay the pending action and compel arbitration. While the precise
timing is unclear, at some point Verizon filed a counterclaim. A justice of the
Superior Court granted the motion to stay and directed the action to proceed to
arbitration. Batac appealed the trial justice’s order to this Court, which, in relevant
part, we affirmed. See Batac v. Verizon, 289 A.3d 173, 175 (R.I. 2023) (mem.).
On remand, the parties proceeded to arbitration, and, on April 26, 2024, in
lieu of a motion for summary judgment, Verizon filed a letter, seeking to dismiss
Batac’s action on the basis of res judicata.2 Batac filed an objection. The arbitrator
2 We note that in April 2024, Verizon raised the res judicata argument in arbitration. It is notable that nearly four years earlier, in August 2020, plaintiff filed this action in the Superior Court, yet Verizon did not respond with a dispositive motion seeking to dismiss the action based upon res judicata. While we express no opinion on whether a dispositive motion on res judicata grounds would have been successful in the Superior Court, the nearly four-year delay in bringing this issue to the forefront did not “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of [this] action.” Super. R. Civ. P. 1(a). -2- granted Verizon’s request for leave to file a motion for summary judgment and
established a schedule for additional briefing. Nonetheless, the parties did not
submit further briefing or evidence, but rather relied upon their previous
submissions.
After a hearing, on August 5, 2024, the arbitrator determined that res judicata
barred the pending action, and she granted what she characterized as a motion for
summary judgment. In so doing, the arbitrator noted, in part, that the claims in the
pending action and the claims in the previous action were identical, and she further
observed that plaintiff’s opposition letter admitted that “there is an identity of issues
in both proceeding[s].” The arbitrator’s August 5, 2024 order granted defendant’s
motion for summary judgment and, significantly, further indicated that “[t]he case
will proceed with [Verizon’s] counterclaim unless [Verizon] confirms by August 10,
2024 that the counterclaim is withdrawn.”
On August 7, 2024, Batac emailed the arbitrator’s office (and Verizon’s
counsel), seeking information concerning the date and time for trial. The following
day, August 8, 2024, the arbitrator’s office responded. On Friday, August 9, 2024,
Batac again emailed the arbitrator’s office (but not Verizon’s counsel), inquiring
whether, in light of the arbitrator’s August 5, 2024 decision, it remained necessary
for him to appear at “the [e]videntiary [h]earing on August 12, 2024 * * *.” It does
-3- not appear that Batac received a response prior to the hearing on Monday, August
12, 2024.
On Monday, August 12, 2024, the arbitration hearing ensued; Batac did not
attend. Verizon presented its evidence, and, on August 24, 2024, the arbitrator
issued the final award. The arbitrator noted that as of January 1, 2020, the parties
had a month-to-month agreement for services and that, beginning in February 2020,
and continuing through the August 2024 monthly statement, Batac failed to tender
payment in full. The arbitrator granted Verizon’s counterclaim in the amount of
$6,133.01. The final award incorporated the August 5, 2024 order granting
Verizon’s motion for summary judgment.
In due course, Verizon filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award, and
Batac moved to vacate the award, to which Verizon objected. After hearing the
parties’ arguments, the trial justice granted Verizon’s motion to confirm and denied
Batac’s motion to vacate. Batac appealed.
“To preserve the integrity and efficacy of arbitration proceedings, judicial
review of arbitration awards is extremely limited.” Wiggins v. Pianka, 247 A.3d 135,
138 (R.I. 2021) (quoting Lemerise v. Commerce Insurance Company, 137 A.3d 696,
699 (R.I. 2016)). “It is well settled that ‘public policy favors the finality of
arbitration awards, and such awards enjoy a presumption of validity.’” Id. (quoting
Caffey v. Lees, 175 A.3d 478, 481 (R.I. 2018)). “We review arbitration awards
-4- ‘merely to determine whether the arbitrator has resolved the grievance but not to
determine whether the arbitrator has resolved the grievance correctly.’” Id. at 138-39
(deletion omitted) (quoting Prospect Chartercare, LLC v. Conklin, 185 A.3d 538,
544 (R.I. 2018)). “Accordingly, only in cases in which an award is so tainted by
impropriety or irrationality that the integrity of the process is compromised should
courts intervene.” Id. at 139 (quoting Prospect Chartercare, LLC, 185 A.3d at 544).
The “policy of finality is reflected in the limited grounds that the Legislature
has delineated for vacating an arbitration award.” ABC Building Corporation v.
Ropolo Family, LLC, 179 A.3d 701, 705 (R.I. 2018) (quoting Berkshire Wilton
Partners, LLC v. Bilray Demolition Co., Inc., 91 A.3d 830, 835 (R.I. 2014)). An
arbitration award must be vacated:
“(1) Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud or undue means.
“(2) Where there was evident partiality or corruption on the part of the arbitrators, or either of them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Supreme Court
No. 2025-91-Appeal. (PC 20-5579)
Arturo P. Batac :
v. :
Verizon.1 :
ORDER
This case came before the Supreme Court on the pro se appeal filed by the
plaintiff, Arturo P. Batac (Batac or plaintiff), from an order of the Superior Court
entered in favor of the defendant, Verizon (Verizon or defendant). After reviewing
the parties’ written and oral arguments, we conclude that cause has not been shown
and proceed to decide the appeal at this time. We affirm.
In May 2019, Batac filed a small-claims action in the Third Division District
Court against Verizon. He alleged that Verizon failed to maintain the agreement for
monthly services, improperly increased his monthly bill, and interrupted services
when he failed to tender full payment. Although the record does not reflect the issues
1 The plaintiff names “Verizon” as the defendant in this action. In a prior appeal involving these parties, the defendant asserted that its proper corporate name was “Verizon New England, Inc.” See Batac v. Verizon, 289 A.3d 173, 173 n.1 (R.I. 2023) (mem.). -1- or testimony adduced at trial during the small-claims proceeding, on September 10,
2019, a judgment in favor of Verizon was entered in the District Court.
Nearly a year later, on August 5, 2020, plaintiff filed this action in the Superior
Court, alleging that Verizon “dictate[d]” the monthly bills and, if not paid in full,
Verizon would “interrupt” services. Batac further averred that “Verizon interrupted
my service many many times” and contended that Verizon “hack[s]” or “steal[s]”
his personal emails. The defendant answered the complaint, and shortly thereafter,
filed a motion to stay the pending action and compel arbitration. While the precise
timing is unclear, at some point Verizon filed a counterclaim. A justice of the
Superior Court granted the motion to stay and directed the action to proceed to
arbitration. Batac appealed the trial justice’s order to this Court, which, in relevant
part, we affirmed. See Batac v. Verizon, 289 A.3d 173, 175 (R.I. 2023) (mem.).
On remand, the parties proceeded to arbitration, and, on April 26, 2024, in
lieu of a motion for summary judgment, Verizon filed a letter, seeking to dismiss
Batac’s action on the basis of res judicata.2 Batac filed an objection. The arbitrator
2 We note that in April 2024, Verizon raised the res judicata argument in arbitration. It is notable that nearly four years earlier, in August 2020, plaintiff filed this action in the Superior Court, yet Verizon did not respond with a dispositive motion seeking to dismiss the action based upon res judicata. While we express no opinion on whether a dispositive motion on res judicata grounds would have been successful in the Superior Court, the nearly four-year delay in bringing this issue to the forefront did not “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of [this] action.” Super. R. Civ. P. 1(a). -2- granted Verizon’s request for leave to file a motion for summary judgment and
established a schedule for additional briefing. Nonetheless, the parties did not
submit further briefing or evidence, but rather relied upon their previous
submissions.
After a hearing, on August 5, 2024, the arbitrator determined that res judicata
barred the pending action, and she granted what she characterized as a motion for
summary judgment. In so doing, the arbitrator noted, in part, that the claims in the
pending action and the claims in the previous action were identical, and she further
observed that plaintiff’s opposition letter admitted that “there is an identity of issues
in both proceeding[s].” The arbitrator’s August 5, 2024 order granted defendant’s
motion for summary judgment and, significantly, further indicated that “[t]he case
will proceed with [Verizon’s] counterclaim unless [Verizon] confirms by August 10,
2024 that the counterclaim is withdrawn.”
On August 7, 2024, Batac emailed the arbitrator’s office (and Verizon’s
counsel), seeking information concerning the date and time for trial. The following
day, August 8, 2024, the arbitrator’s office responded. On Friday, August 9, 2024,
Batac again emailed the arbitrator’s office (but not Verizon’s counsel), inquiring
whether, in light of the arbitrator’s August 5, 2024 decision, it remained necessary
for him to appear at “the [e]videntiary [h]earing on August 12, 2024 * * *.” It does
-3- not appear that Batac received a response prior to the hearing on Monday, August
12, 2024.
On Monday, August 12, 2024, the arbitration hearing ensued; Batac did not
attend. Verizon presented its evidence, and, on August 24, 2024, the arbitrator
issued the final award. The arbitrator noted that as of January 1, 2020, the parties
had a month-to-month agreement for services and that, beginning in February 2020,
and continuing through the August 2024 monthly statement, Batac failed to tender
payment in full. The arbitrator granted Verizon’s counterclaim in the amount of
$6,133.01. The final award incorporated the August 5, 2024 order granting
Verizon’s motion for summary judgment.
In due course, Verizon filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award, and
Batac moved to vacate the award, to which Verizon objected. After hearing the
parties’ arguments, the trial justice granted Verizon’s motion to confirm and denied
Batac’s motion to vacate. Batac appealed.
“To preserve the integrity and efficacy of arbitration proceedings, judicial
review of arbitration awards is extremely limited.” Wiggins v. Pianka, 247 A.3d 135,
138 (R.I. 2021) (quoting Lemerise v. Commerce Insurance Company, 137 A.3d 696,
699 (R.I. 2016)). “It is well settled that ‘public policy favors the finality of
arbitration awards, and such awards enjoy a presumption of validity.’” Id. (quoting
Caffey v. Lees, 175 A.3d 478, 481 (R.I. 2018)). “We review arbitration awards
-4- ‘merely to determine whether the arbitrator has resolved the grievance but not to
determine whether the arbitrator has resolved the grievance correctly.’” Id. at 138-39
(deletion omitted) (quoting Prospect Chartercare, LLC v. Conklin, 185 A.3d 538,
544 (R.I. 2018)). “Accordingly, only in cases in which an award is so tainted by
impropriety or irrationality that the integrity of the process is compromised should
courts intervene.” Id. at 139 (quoting Prospect Chartercare, LLC, 185 A.3d at 544).
The “policy of finality is reflected in the limited grounds that the Legislature
has delineated for vacating an arbitration award.” ABC Building Corporation v.
Ropolo Family, LLC, 179 A.3d 701, 705 (R.I. 2018) (quoting Berkshire Wilton
Partners, LLC v. Bilray Demolition Co., Inc., 91 A.3d 830, 835 (R.I. 2014)). An
arbitration award must be vacated:
“(1) Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud or undue means.
“(2) Where there was evident partiality or corruption on the part of the arbitrators, or either of them.
“(3) Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct * * * in hearing legally immaterial evidence, or refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy, or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been substantially prejudiced.
“(4) Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.” G.L. 1956 § 10-3-12.
-5- “An arbitration award may also be vacated ‘when the arbitrator has manifestly
disregarded the law.’” ABC Building Corporation, 179 A.3d at 706 (quoting
Berkshire Wilton Partners, LLC, 91 A.3d at 835). “A manifest disregard of the law
requires something beyond and different from a mere error in the law or failure on
the part of the arbitrator to understand or apply the law.” Id. (brackets omitted)
(quoting Berkshire Wilton Partners, LLC, 91 A.3d at 836-37). “Rather, it ‘occurs
when an arbitrator understands and correctly articulates the law, but then proceeds
to disregard it.’” Id. (quoting Berkshire Wilton Partners, LLC, 91 A.3d at 837).
Here, in confirming the arbitration award, the trial justice appropriately and
diligently reviewed Batac’s arguments. Likewise, on appeal, plaintiff remains
steadfast that the arbitration award should be vacated because Verizon engaged in
fraud and has failed to support its counterclaim. Batac’s arguments lack evidentiary
support and do not fall within the purview of § 10-3-12. See ABC Building
Corporation, 179 A.3d at 706 (“[I]f none of the ‘narrow conditions’ delineated in
§ 10-3-12—as this Court has interpreted them—are present, and if there has been no
manifest disregard of the law, ‘the statutory directive is clear: a reviewing justice
must confirm the award.’”) (brackets and deletion omitted) (quoting Wheeler v.
Encompass Insurance Co., 66 A.3d 477, 480, 481 (R.I. 2013)).
In this regard, we note that, despite notice, Batac failed to appear at the August
12, 2024 arbitration proceeding, during which Verizon presented evidence on its
-6- counterclaim. Additionally, although Batac contends that this action should not be
barred by the doctrine of res judicata, our precedent is clear that “[a] manifest
disregard of the law requires something beyond and different from a mere error in
the law or failure on the part of the arbitrator to understand or apply the law.” ABC
Building Corporation, 179 A.3d at 706 (brackets omitted) (quoting Berkshire Wilton
Partners, LLC, 91 A.3d at 836-37). The plaintiff cannot satisfy this requirement.
For these reasons the order of the Superior Court is affirmed. The papers in
this case are remanded to the Superior Court.
Entered as an Order of this Court this ____ day of _________, 2026.
By Order,
____________________ Clerk
-7- STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE Licht Judicial Complex 250 Benefit Street Providence, RI 02903
ORDER COVER SHEET
Title of Case Arturo P. Batac v. Verizon.
No. 2025-91-Appeal. Case Number (PC 20-5579)
Date Order Filed March 2, 2026
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Justices Long, JJ.
Source of Appeal Providence County Superior Court
Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Joseph McBurney
For Plaintiff:
Arturo P. Batac, pro se Attorney(s) on Appeal For Defendant:
Matthew S. Prunk, Esq.
SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2022)