G.R. No. 110263 – 414 Phil. 13 – 361 SCRA 489 – Civil Law – Conflict of Laws – Private International Law – Foreign Judgments – How Assailed
In 1985, the High Court of Malaysia ordered the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) to pay $5.1 million to Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad. This was the result of a recovery suit filed by Asiavest against PNCC in Malaysia for PNCC’s failure to complete a construction project there despite due payment from Asiavest. Despite demand, PNCC failed to comply with the judgment in Malaysia hence Asiavest filed a complaint for the enforcement of the Malaysian ruling against PNCC in the Philippines. The case was filed with the Pasig RTC which eventually denied the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Asiavest appealed. In its defense, PNCC alleged that the foreign judgment cannot be enforced here because of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to PNCC, collusion and/or fraud, and there is a clear mistake of law or fact. Asiavest assailed the arguments of PNCC on the ground that PNCC’s counsel participated in all the proceedings in the Malaysian Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Malaysian Court judgment should be enforced against PNCC in the Philippines.
HELD: Yes. PNCC failed to prove and substantiate its bare allegations of want of jurisdiction, want of notice, collusion and/or fraud, and mistake of fact. On the contrary, Asiavest was able to present evidence as to the validity of the proceedings that took place in Malaysia. Asiavest presented the certified and authenticated copies of the judgment and the order issued by the Malaysian Court. It also presented correspondences between Asiavest’s lawyers and PNCC’s lawyers in and out of court which belied PNCC’s allegation that the Malaysian court never acquired jurisdiction over it. PNCC’s allegation of fraud is not sufficient too, further, it never invoked the same in the Malaysian Court.
The Supreme Court notes, to assail a foreign judgment the party must present evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Otherwise, the judgment enjoys the presumption of validity so long as it was duly certified and authenticated. In this case, PNCC failed to present the required evidence.
