You are on page 1of 10

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 114323 July 23, 1998 OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PACIFIC CEMENT COMPANY, INC., respondents.

MARTINEZ, J.: This proceeding involves the enforcement of a foreign judgment rendered by the Civil Judge of Dehra Dun, India in favor of the petitioner, OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION and against the private respondent, PACIFIC CEMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED. The petitioner is a foreign corporation owned and controlled by the Government of India while the private respondent is a private corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. The present conflict between the petitioner and the private respondent has its roots in a contract entered into by and between both parties on February 26, 1983 whereby the private respondent undertook to supply the petitioner FOUR THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED (4,300) metric tons of oil well cement. In consideration therefor, the petitioner bound itself to pay the private respondent the amount of FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED U.S. DOLLARS ($477,300.00) by opening an irrevocable, divisible, and confirmed letter of credit in favor of the latter. The oil well cement was loaded on board the ship MV SURUTANA NAVA at the port of Surigao City, Philippines for delivery at Bombay and Calcutta, India. However, due to a dispute between the shipowner and the private respondent, the cargo was held up in Bangkok and did not reach its point destination. Notwithstanding the fact that the private respondent had already received payment and despite several demands made by the petitioner, the private respondent failed to deliver the oil well cement. Thereafter, negotiations ensued between the parties and they agreed that the private respondent will replace the entire 4,300 metric tons of oil well cement with Class "G" cement cost free at the petitioner's designated port. However, upon inspection, the Class "G" cement did not conform to the petitioner's specifications. The petitioner then informed the private respondent that it was referring its claim to an arbitrator pursuant to Clause 16 of their contract which stipulates: Except where otherwise provided in the supply order/contract all questions and disputes, relating to the meaning of the specification designs, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned and as to quality of workmanship of the items ordered or as to any other question, claim, right or thing whatsoever, in any way arising out of or relating to the supply order/contract design, drawing, specification, instruction or these conditions or otherwise concerning the materials or the execution or failure to execute the same during stipulated/extended period or after the completion/abandonment thereof shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the persons appointed by Member of the Commission at the time of dispute. It will be no objection to any such appointment that the arbitrator so appointed is a Commission employer (sic) that he had to deal with the matter to which the supply or contract relates and that in the course of his duties as Commission's employee he had expressed views on all or any of the matter in dispute or difference. The arbitrator to whom the matter is originally referred being transferred or vacating his office or being unable to act for any reason the Member of the Commission shall appoint another person to act as arbitrator in accordance with the terms of the contract/supply order. Such person shall be entitled to proceed with reference from the stage at which it was left by his predecessor. Subject as aforesaid the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, or any Statutory modification or re-enactment there of and the rules made there under and for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause.

the said court directed the private respondent to pay the filing fees in order that the latter's objections could be given consideration. the private respondent sent the following communication addressed to the Civil judge of Dehra Dun: .169.7. N. resolved the dispute in petitioner's favor setting forth the arbitral award as follows: NOW THEREFORE after considering all facts of the case. letters. Re-imbursement of expenditure incurred by the claimant on the inspection team's visit to Philippines in August 1985 US $ 3. according to which the parties. Malhotra. legal expenses. Malhotra. 70.The arbitrator may with the consent of parties enlarge the time.603. India (hereinafter referred to as the foreign court for brevity). telexes. The cost will be shared by the parties in equal proportion. one Shri N. the chosen arbitrator. I determine the cost at Rs. Pronounced at Dehra Dun to-day.6.000/.000 towards the expenses on Arbitration. * On July 23.7.N. with effect from 24.1983 US $ 477.881. 1940. it filed a Petition before the Court of the Civil Judge in Dehra Dun. the respondent would also be liable to pay to the claimant the interest at the rate of 6% on the above amount. submissions. can refer the dispute to the sole arbitration under the provision of the Arbitration Act. and the oral arguments addressed by the counsel for the claimants.82 4.e. Subsequently. Sole Arbitrator.300. the 23rd of July 1988. i. sent by the respondent.88 US $ 417.252.95 Total amount of award US $ 899.2.83 to 23. The venue for arbitration shall be at Dehra dun.C.77 In addition to the above. Establishment charges incurred by the claimant US $ 1. The private respondent complied and sent its objections dated January 16. 1989. to make and publish the award. I.equivalent to US $5. do hereby award and direct as follows: — The Respondent will pay the following to the claimant: — 1. whichever is earlier.2. 2 1 To enable the petitioner to execute the above award in its favor. appointed under clause 16 of the supply order dated 26. Amount received by the Respondent against the letter of credit No. from time to time. etc.00 2. praying that the decision of the arbitrator be made "the Rule of Court" in India. Instead of paying the required filing fees. 11/19 dated 28. M/S Oil and Natural Gas Commission and the Pacific Cement Co.1983. Inc. L. the evidence.N.1988 up to the actual date of payment by the Respondent in full settlement of the claim as awarded or the date of the decree.. Loss of interest suffered by claimant from 21. stamps duly incurred by the claimant. 1988. oral and documentarys adduced by the claimant and carefully examining the various written statements.00 3. The foreign court issued notices to the private respondent for filing objections to the petition.

1992. its rejoinder thereto. Your letter did not mention the amount to be paid. The private respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds: (1) plaintiffs lack of legal capacity to sue. On the basis of conditions of award decree is passed.. Inc. 3. 1990. 3/B-1 shall be a part of the decree. Award Paper No. the foreign court refused to admit the private respondent's objections for failure to pay the required filing fees. 2. 5 of 1989 M/S Pacific Cement Co. ORDER Award dated 23. ONGC Case Sir: 1. Accordingly. 3/B-1 is made Rule of the Court. albeit dismissing the complaint for lack of a valid cause of action.The Civil Judge Dehra Dun (U. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to get from defendant (US$ 899. 5 on 7. the petitioner filed a complaint with Branch 30 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Surigao City for the enforcement of the aforementioned judgment of the foreign court. Inc. award should be made Rule of the Court.88. abandoned. By: Jose Cortes.77 (US$ Eight Lakhs ninety nine thousand six hundred and three 4 point seventy seven only) along with 9% interest per annum till the last date of realisation. President 3 Without responding to the above communication.90.7. and the private respondent. The RTC held that the rule prohibiting foreign corporations transacting business in the Philippines without a license from maintaining a suit in Philippine courts admits of an exception. vs. According to the RTC. Case No. and (3) plaintiffs claim or demand has been waived. to wit: ORDER Since objections filed by defendant have been rejected through Misc. We received your letter dated 28 April 1989 only last 18 May 1989. when the foreign corporation is suing on an isolated transaction as in this 5 case.P. that is.2. Pacific Cement Co. .603. the RTC issued an order upholding the petitioner's legal capacity to sue. however. Please inform us how much is the court fee to be paid.. or otherwise extinguished. Kindly give us 15 days from receipt of your letter advising us how much to pay to comply with the same. Despite notice sent to the private respondent of the foregoing order and several demands by the petitioner for compliance therewith.) India Re: Misc. Anent the issue of the sufficiency of the petitioner's cause of action. The petitioner filed its opposition to the said motion to dismiss. Jr. the RTC found the referral of the dispute between the parties to the arbitrator under Clause 16 of their contract erroneous. Thank you for your kind consideration. therefore. (2) lack of cause of action. Paper No. Suit No. On January 3. and thereafter issued an Order on February 7. the private respondent refused to pay the amount adjudged by the foreign court as owing to the petitioner.

instruction or these conditions or otherwise concerning the materials or the execution or failure to execute the same . B. shall be subject to the EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT. etc. and the fact that the arbitrator was a former employee of the latter gives rise to a presumed bias on his part in favor of the 9 petitioner. The court is inclined to go along with the observation of the defendant that the breach. arising under out of or in connection with this supply order. DESIGNS. Clause 16 provides as follows: Except where otherwise provided in the supply order/contract all questions and disputes. the said judgment cannot be enforced by any Philippine court as it would violate the constitutional provision that no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly 8 and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. drawings and instructions herein before mentioned and as to quality of workmanship of the items ordered or as to any other question. A subsequent motion for reconsideration by the petitioner of the appellate court's decision was denied. but qualified to "IN ANY WAY ARISING OR RELATING TO THE SUPPLY ORDER/CONTRACT. C. claim. DESIGN. constituted want of notice or violation of due process. without the foreign court first replying to the private respondent's query as to the amount of legal fees to be paid. it pointed out that the arbitration proceeding was defective because the arbitrator was appointed solely by the petitioner. pursuant to Clause No.[a] perusal of the shove-quoted clause (Clause 16) readily shows that the matter covered by its terms is limited to "ALL QUESTIONS AND DISPUTES. The threshold issue is whether or not the arbitrator had jurisdiction over the dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent under Clause 16 of the contract. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL COURT OF DEHRADUN. EVIDENCE MUST BE RECEIVED TO REPEL THE EFFECT OF A PRESUMPTIVE RIGHT UNDER A 10 FOREIGN JUDGMENT. Hence. herein quoted. the appellate court concurred with the RTC's ruling that the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction over the dispute between the parties. specification. this petition for review on certiorari citing the following as grounds in support thereof: RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE LOWER COURT'S ORDER OF DISMISSAL SINCE: A. right or thing whatsoever. THE NON-DELIVERY OF THE CARGO WAS A MATTER PROPERLY COGNIZABLE BY THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE 16 OF THE CONTRACT. In its decision.. The appellate court ruled further that the dismissal of the private respondent's objections for non-payment of the required legal fees. right or thing whatsoever. Lastly. DRAWING. drawing. the appellate court observed that the full text of the judgment of the foreign court contains the dispositive portion only and indicates no findings of fact and law as basis for the award. INDIA WAS AN AFFIRMATION OF THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL FINDINGS OF THE ARBITRATOR AND THEREFORE ENFORCEABLE IN THIS JURISDICTION. claim. should have been properly litigated before a court of law." repeating the enumeration in the opening sentence of the clause." The RTC characterized the erroneous submission of the dispute to the arbitrator as a "mistake of law or fact amounting to want of jurisdiction". thus. in any way arising out of or relating to the supply order/contract design. thus. The petitioner then appealed to the respondent Court of Appeals which affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. disputes and differences. In addition. to wit: "JURISDICTION All questions. RELATING TO THE MEANING OF THE SPECIFICATION. relating to the meaning of the specification designs. within the local limits of whose jurisdiction and the place from which this supply order is 6 situated. consisting of the non-delivery of the purchased materials. adopted no legal award which could be the source of an enforceable right. To reiterate. the foreign court could not validly adopt the arbitrator's award. SPECIFICATION. DRAWINGS AND INSTRUCTIONS HEREIN BEFORE MENTIONED and as to the QUALITY OF WORKMANSHIP OF THE ITEMS ORDERED or as to any other questions. the proceedings had before the arbitrator were null and void and 7 the foreign court had therefore. Consequently. 15 of the Contract/Supply Order.

or instruction of the supply order/contract. specification. drawing. It is thus clear that to fall within the purview of this phrase. specifications or quality of the materials. . where a particular word or phrase is ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various meanings. right or thing whatsoever. relating to the meaning of the specification designs. specification. specification. drawing. drawing. specifications or quality of the materials of the supply order/contract. may be read as "execution or failure to execute the supply order/contract". . claim. instruction or these conditions". drawings and instructions herein before mentioned and as to quality of workmanship of the items ordered. . . drawing. drawing. particularly the phrase. specification. or (3) otherwise concerning the materials or the execution or failure to execute the same during stipulated/extended period or after the completion/abandonment thereof. ". specification. instruction or these conditions . the petitioner has misquoted the said phrase. It will be no objection to any such appointment that the arbitrator so appointed is a Commission employer ( sic) that he had to deal with the matter to which the supply or contract relates and that in the course of his duties 11 as Commission's employee he had expressed views on all or any of the matter in dispute or difference. in any way arising out of or relating to the supply order/contract design. the clause.". That Clause 16 should pertain only to matters involving the technical aspects of the contract is but a logical inference considering that the underlying purpose of a referral to arbitration is for such technical matters to be deliberated upon by a person possessed with the required skill and expertise which may be otherwise absent in the regular courts. . It is argued that the foregoing phrase allows considerable latitude so as to include non-delivery of the cargo which was a "claim. right or thing relating to the supply order/contract". design. . instructions. The contention is bereft of merit. in any way arising out of or relating to the supply order/contract design. "execution or failure to execute the same". The first and second categories unmistakably refer to questions and disputes relating to the design. or as to any other questions. therefore. The absence of a comma between the words "supply order/contract" and "design" indicates that the former cannot be taken separately but should be viewed in conjunction with the words "design. A close examination of Clause 16 reveals that it covers three matters which may be submitted to arbitration namely. or otherwise concerning the materials or the execution or failure to execute the same during the stipulated/extended period or after completion/abandonment thereof .". this reference to the supply order/contract must be construed in the light of the preceding words with which it is associated. or (2) any other question. claim. instructions. disputes and differences. 12 in any way arising or relating to the supply order/contract. although a rule in the construction of statutes. shrewdly inserting a comma between the words "supply order/contract" and "design" where none actually exists. The doctrine of noscitur a sociis. is equally applicable in the ascertainment of the meaning and scope of vague contractual stipulations. The petitioner also insists that the non-delivery of the cargo is not only covered by the foregoing phrase but also by the phrase. ". right or thing whatsoever. drawing. . The dispute between the parties had its origin in the non-delivery of the 4. right or thing whatsoever" must arise out of or relate to the design. right or thing whatsoever. ". the "claim. But in accordance with the doctrine of noscitur a sociis. instructions. The primary question that may be posed. In the third category.300 metric tons of oil well cement to the petitioner. arising under out of or in connection with this supply order.during stipulated/extended period or after the completion/abandonment thereof shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the persons appointed by Member of the Commission at the time of dispute. as being limited only to the design. The non-delivery of the oil well cement is definitely not in the nature of a dispute arising from the failure to execute the supply order/contract design. . or as to any other question. its correct construction may be made clear and specific by considering the company of the words in which it is found or with which it is associated. is whether or not the non-delivery of the said cargo is a proper subject for arbitration under the above-quoted Clause 16. instruction or these conditions. drawing. such as the aforementioned phrase. . instruction . meaning to say. drawing. (1) all questions and disputes. This Court agrees with the appellate court in its ruling that the non-delivery of the oil well cement is a matter properly cognizable by the regular courts as stipulated by the parties in Clause 15 of their contract: All questions. The petitioner contends that the same was a matter within the purview of Clause 16. An accurate reproduction of the phrase reads. . its obscurity or doubt may be reviewed by reference to 13 associated words. specifications or quality of the materials of the supply/order contract. within the local limits of whose jurisdiction and the 14 place from which this supply order is situated. shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court. . . According to the maxim noscitur a sociis. claim. . First of all. or stated differently.".

First of all. 1374. The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together. .300 metric tons of oil well cement were not delivered to the petitioner. We believe that the correct interpretation to give effect to both stipulations in the contract is for Clause 16 to be confined to all claims or disputes arising from or relating to the design. whether or not the private respondent was able to recover the cargo is immaterial to its subsisting duty to make good its promise to deliver the cargo at the stipulated place of delivery. however. We disagree. A perusal of Clause 16 shows that the parties did not intend arbitration to be the sole means of settling disputes. Likewise. It is. The petitioner then asseverates that granting. The petitioner's interpretation that Clause 16 is of such latitude as to contemplate even the non-delivery of the oil well cement would in effect render Clause 15 a mere superfluity. the replacement cement was rejected as it did not conform to the specifications of the contract. on the theory that it was enacted as an integrated measure and not as a hodge-podge of conflicting provisions. 11. we find it difficult to believe this representation. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions . drawing. In this contention. instructions. but logical to assume that the necessary consequence of this finding is the eventual recovery by the private respondent of the cargo or the value thereof. When the 4. this Court has held that as in statutes. the fact that the petitioner had already paid for the cost of the cement is not contested by the private respondent. Sec. . that it never benefited 22 from the transaction as it was not able to recover the cargo that was unloaded at the port of Bangkok. where there are several provisions or particulars. Equally applicable is the canon of construction that in interpreting a statute (or a contract as in this case). such a construction is. it shall be understood as 15 bearing that import which is most adequate to render it effectual. Thus. Undoubtedly. This is manifest from Clause 16 itself which is prefixed with the proviso. therefore. 1373. to be adopted as will 17 give effect to all. Art. the failure of the replacement cement to conform to the specifications of the contract is a matter clearly falling within the ambit of Clause 16.".The following fundamental principles in the interpretation of contracts and other instruments served as our guide in arriving at the foregoing conclusion: Art. the private respondent undertook to deliver the 4. If some stipulation of any contract should admit of several meanings. the private respondent asserted that the Civil Court of Bangkok had already 23 ruled that the non-delivery of the cargo was due solely to the fault of the carrier. The whole and every part of a contract must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its harmonious whole. "Except where otherwise provided in the supply order/contract . . Secondly. on the contrary. the provisions of a contract should not be read in isolation from the rest of the 18 instrument but. The rule is that a construction that would render a provision inoperative should be avoided. As per Clause 7 of the supply order/contract. a matter clearly within the coverage of Clause 16.300 metric tons of oil well 21 cement at "BOMBAY (INDIA) 2181 MT and CALCUTTA 2119 MT". Upon inspection. that the non-delivery of the oil well cement is not a proper subject for arbitration. if possible. The failure of the private respondent to deliver the cargo to the designated places remains undisputed. The private respondent claims. In the construction of an instrument. and admits of exceptions as may be provided elsewhere in the supply order/contract. In its Memorandum filed before this Court. for the sake of argument. apparently 19 inconsistent provisions should be reconciled whenever possible as parts of a coordinated and harmonious whole. an agreement was forged between the latter and the private respondent that Class "G" cement would be delivered to the petitioner as replacement. What inspires credulity is not that the replacement was done in the spirit of liberality but that it was undertaken precisely because of the private respondent's recognition of its duty to do so under the supply order/contract. attributing the doubtful ones 16 that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly. the undertaking to deliver the replacement cement and its subsequent failure to conform to specifications are not anymore subject of the supply order/contract or any of the provisions thereof. specifications or quality of the materials of the supply order/contract. Only after this latter circumstance was the matter brought before the arbitrator. Hence. however. and for Clause 15 to cover all other claims or disputes. interpreted in the light of the other related provisions. care should be taken that every part thereof be given effect. Clause 16 of which remains in force and effect until the full execution thereof. The private respondent posits that it was under no legal obligation to make replacement and that it undertook the latter 20 only "in the spirit of liberality and to foster good business relationship". what was referred to arbitration was no longer the mere non-delivery of the cargo at the first instance but also the failure of the replacement cargo to conform to the specifications of the contract. we find merit. thus indicating that the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is not all encompassing. instead.

Award Paper No. judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in toto. where Award Paper No. and We are persuaded. This is particularly true when the decision sought to be incorporated is a lengthy and thorough discussion of the facts and conclusions arrived at. this Court held that the following memorandum decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati did not transgress the requirements of Section 14. 27 (Emphasis supplied.603. We hereby adopt by way of reference. 3/B-1 shall be a part of the decree".88. nay compelled. and the arbitrator's evaluation of the same. or portions thereof. then the same must be accorded respect. as in this case. "Award Paper No. Furthermore. 3/B-1 is made Rule of the Court. if the procedure in the foreign court mandates that an Order of the Court becomes final and executory upon failure to pay the necessary docket fees.) This Court had occasion to make a similar pronouncement in the earlier case of Romero v.77 (US$ Eight Lakhs ninety nine thousand six hundred and three 24 point seventy seven only) along with 9% interest per annum till the last date of realisation. In the same vein. first by reason of the fact that the foreign court never answered its queries as to the amount of docket fees to be paid then refused to admit its objections for . Article VIII of the Constitution: MEMORANDUM DECISION After a careful perusal. For judicial convenience and expediency. a valid judgment may be rendered by adopting the arbitrator's findings. Branch 63 and finds that there is no cogent reason to disturb the same. As specified in the order of the Civil Judge of Dehra Dun. 3/B-1. if under the procedural rules of the Civil Court of Dehra Dun. This Court has held that matters of remedy and procedure are governed by the lex fori or the 32 internal law of the forum. incorporation by reference is allowed if only to avoid the cumbersome 30 reproduction of the decision of the lower courts. Thus. Award Paper No. in the decision of the higher court. carefully reviewed the evidence and made a re-assessment of the same. to affirm the correctness of the trial court's factual findings and the soundness of its conclusion. Inasmuch as the foregoing is deemed to have been incorporated into the foreign court's judgment the appellate court was in error when it described the latter to be a "simplistic decision 25 containing literally.We now go to the issue of whether or not the judgment of the foreign court is enforceable in this jurisdiction in view of the private respondent's allegation that it is bereft of any statement of facts and law upon which the award in favor of the petitioner was based. Court of 28 Appeals. (Emphasis supplied) Hence. contains an exhaustive discussion of the respective claims and defenses of the parties. only the dispositive portion". evaluation and study of the records of this case. On the basis of conditions of award decree is passed. The private respondent claims that its right to due process had been blatantly violated. this Court hereby adopts by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati. where the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals adopted the findings and disposition of the Court of Agrarian Relations in this wise: We have. the recognition to be accorded a foreign judgment is not necessarily affected by the fact that the procedure in the courts of the country in which such judgment was rendered differs from that of the courts of the country in which the 31 judgment is relied on. as integral part 29 of this Our decision. India. even in this jurisdiction. The pertinent portion of the judgment of the foreign court reads: ORDER Award dated 23. The constitutional mandate that no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein dearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based does not preclude the validity of "memorandum decisions" which adopt by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the decisions of inferior tribunals. then the courts in this jurisdiction cannot invalidate the order of the foreign court simply because our rules provide otherwise. WHEREFORE. Paper No. therefore. 26 Permskul.7. In Francisco v. 3/B-1 consists of eighteen (18) single spaced pages. This is a categorical declaration that the foreign court adopted the findings of facts and law of the arbitrator as contained in the latter's Award Paper. 3/B-1 shall be a part of the decree. therefore. Metro Manila. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to get from defendant (US$ 899. the findings of facts and conclusions of the court a quo spread in its decision.

SO ORDERED. INC. Inc. almost a year passed without the private respondent paying the legal fees. fraud. This point deserves scant consideration in view of the following stipulation in the contract: . Time and again this Court has held that the essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be 33 heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense or stated otherwise. The foreign judgment being valid. 1990. under Section 3 of Rule 131. there is no violation of due process even if no hearing was 35 conducted. because of the presumed bias on the part of the arbitrator who was a former employee of the petitioner. and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals sustaining the trial court's dismissal of the OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION's complaint in Civil Case No. The judgment may. however. (Emphasis supplied. Also. a genuine concern for its cause should have prompted the private respondent to ascertain with all due diligence the correct amount of legal fees to be paid. . to pay to petitioner the amounts adjudged in the foreign judgment subject of said case. We cannot subscribe to the private respondent's claim that the foreign court violated its right to due process when it failed to reply to its queries nor when the latter rejected its objections for a clearly meritorious ground. had the burden of overcoming the presumption of its validity which it failed to do in the instant case. In the instant case. the party attacking a foreign judgment. On the contrary. where the party was given a chance to explain his side of the controversy and he waived his right to do so. It was not incumbent upon the foreign court to reply to the private respondent's written communication. Court of 38 Appeals that: A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the country from which it comes. want of notice to the party. Thus. It will be no objection any such appointment that the arbitrator so appointed is a Commission employer (sic) that he had to deal with the matter to which the supply or contract relates and that in the course of his duties as Commission's employee he had expressed views on all or any of the matter in 37 dispute or difference. The private respondent bewails the presumed bias on the part of the arbitrator who was a former employee of the petitioner. on February 2. the private respondent does not deny the fact that it was notified by the foreign court to file its objections to the petition. there is nothing else left to be done than to order its enforcement. a judgment in an action in personam of a tribunal of a foreign country having jurisdiction to pronounce the same is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors-in-interest by a subsequent title. Instead of paying the legal fees. we reiterate hereunder our pronouncement in the case of Northwest Orient Airlines. until the contrary is shown. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.failure to pay the same. The private respondent did not act with prudence and diligence thus its plea that they were not accorded the right to procedural due process cannot elicit either approval or sympathy from this 36 Court. whether of the Philippines or elsewhere. the instant petition is GRANTED. be assailed by evidence of want of jurisdiction.) Finally. . Consequently. and subsequently. a court. 4006 before Branch 30 of the RTC of Surigao City is REVERSED. It is also proper to presume the regularity of the proceedings and the giving of due notice therein. further proceedings in the RTC for the reception of evidence to prove otherwise are no longer necessary. and another in its stead is hereby rendered ORDERING private respondent PACIFIC CEMENT COMPANY. and second. . the foreign court rejected the objections of the private respondent and proceeded to adjudicate upon the petitioner's claims. the private respondent herein. or clear mistake of law or fact. despite the fact that the petitioner merely prays for the remand of the case to the RTC for further proceedings. Under Section 50. v. As this Court has ruled on the validity and enforceability of the said foreign judgment in this jurisdiction. . collusion. to pay legal fees in order for its objections to be given consideration. the private respondent sent a communication to the foreign court inquiring about the correct amount of fees to be paid. however. On the pretext that it was yet awaiting the foreign court's reply. The private respondent was afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard. Thus. WHEREFORE. enjoys the presumption that it was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction and has regularly performed its 39 official duty. what is repugnant to due 34 process is the denial of opportunity to be heard.

pp. 21 (Footnote not available per copy of SC decision. 158. Dela Paz. p. 1373 of the Civil Code. Private Respondent's Memorandum. 4006. 10 Petition. 1. J. 19 JMM Promotions & Management. p. 753 [1990]. 8-12. Melo and Puno. 15 Art. 103. et al. Supra. 143-144. 5 ORDER in Civil Case No. 1993. Rollo.. 10. p..) 22 Supra. 161. 9. Supra. Section 11 of the Rules of Court. 134 [1993]. VIII. 228 SCRA 129.. Luzon Stevedoring Co.R.. pp. concur. Rollo. 17 Rule 130. 4 ANNEX "F" of the Petition. 101-105. 12 Petition. p. No. Rollo. p. p. 9 CA Decision. p. Rollo. 37080 promulgated on October 29. 114. 11 See Supply Order Contract. No. 804 [1922]. p. 11-12. 43 Phil. vs. # Footnotes 1 Supply Order contract. 125-126. p. "ANNEX C-1" of the Petition. 5. 17. 18 De Leon vs. ANNEX "G" of the Petition. 114323.. 8. pp. 620 [1992]. RTC Records. Rollo. p. NLRC. 157. vs. pp. Mendoza. took no part. 5. 13 Motoomul. Rollo. Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution. 16 Art. 75-76. Rollo. p. 3 DECISION in CA-G. 73. Rollo. Inc. 17. p. p. 162. pp. p. 2 Arbitral Award dated July 23. ANNEX "C" to PETITION in G. 6 Ibid. 18. ANNEX "D" of the Petitions. Rollo. p. p. p.Regalado. 17-26. 205 SCRA 612. . p. Rollo. 20 Private Respondent's Memorandum in G. 8 Art. RTC Records. JJ. 4. Supra. 14 Terms and Conditions of Supply Order. pp.R. Rollo. Trinidad. * Note: The contract and the foreign judgments or awards by the Indian courts follow the British spelling of words for which sic will no longer be indicated. vs. 114323. 1988. 143-144. Court of Appeals.R. 1374 of the Civil Code. 187 SCRA 743. et al. p. 7 Ibid. CV No.

supra. 199 [1995]. Asoy. NLRC. Inc. 35 Roces vs. 110 SCRA 438 [1981]. 25 CA Decision. Vicente J. Aportadera. 39 Ibid. Jur. 37 Supply Order. 34 Korean Airlines Co. Inc. Tajonera vs. Suit No. 243 SCRA 108 [1995]. 36 B. 199 [1995]. 190 SCRA 43. 189.. p. citing 31 Am. Richards vs. 206 SCRA 28 [1992]. The Lawphil Project . 1966 ed. Pacific Cement. 603 [1995]. 32 Northwest Orient Airlines. 247 SCRA 599. Volume II. Ltd. 219 SCRA 292 [1993]. 677 of 1988. 30 Francisco v.. 26 173 SCRA 324 [1989].Arellano Law Foundation . 152 SCRA 45 [1987]. Sebastian Enterprises. pp. 891-892.. 7-2-90. vs. ONGC vs.. vs. 153-154. Court of Appeals. 28 147 SCRA 183 [1987]. 241 SCRA 192. Villareal vs. 29 Ibid. Court of Appeals. 333. Court of Appeals. 27 Ibid. 114.R. vs. The Revised RULES OF COURT in the Philippines. Stayfast Sunset View Condominium Corporation vs. 157. 33 Roces vs. Rollo. p. Mutuc vs. Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals. p. Lamaroza. 31 Francisco. 326. 24 Court of Dehra Dun. Aportadera. 49 [1990]. 173 SCRA 324. p. 228 SCRA 466 [1993]. 38 241 SCRA 192.23 Ibid. Supra. Permskul.