REPORT

ONENFORCEME
NT OF FOREIGN
JUDGMENT,
CHOICE OF
LAW, and
JURISDICTION

Submitted by:

ASTIVE, KiaCAMBALIZA,
TzarleneRABUTAZO,
ZymondRICAPLAZA, Dana
DenisseSANTIAGIO,
EmilySUMAGUE, Abigael
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

 Foreign judgment – all decisions rendered outside the forum and encompasses
judgments, decrees and orders of court of foreign countries as well as those of
sister states in a federal system of government

 Recognition of Foreign Judgment v. Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

Recognition of Foreign Judgments Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Domestic court will allow foreign Enforcement exists when a plaintiff wants
judgment to be presented as a defense tothe courts to positively carry out and
local litigation make effective in the Philippines a foreign
judgments
It involves merely the sense of justice It implies a direct act of sovereignty
It does not require either action or a It necessitates a separate action or
special proceeding proceeding brought precisely to make the
foreign judgment effective
It may exist without foreign judgment It necessarily carries with its recognition

 Reason for procedure for Enforcement:

o A foreign judgment cannot be automatically enforced because it has no
effect beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the foreign court which issued it.
Hence, an action or proceeding needs to be filed to make it effective in the
forum
o This rule is founded on the sovereign right of any country.
o Unless the Philippines gave its consent, a foreign law may have no
extraterritorial effect

 Effect of foreign judgment

o A foreign judgment is a prima facie evidence of a right only because the
court can refuse its enforcement if there is evidence of a want of
jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of
law or fact

 Basis of Recognition of Foreign Judgments

o Comity and reciprocity
o Legal Obligation (vested rights)
o Res judicata

 Sources of Law
 o Sec. 48, Rule 39, 1977 Rules on Civil Procedure
 Effect of foreign judgments or final orders. — The effect of a
judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having
jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order is as follows:
a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the
judgment or final order, is conclusive upon the title to the
thing, and
b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the
judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of a right as
between the parties and their successors in interest by a
subsequent title.
 In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by
evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
o Art. 8 of the Civil Code
 Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the
Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines

 Limitation period for enforcement of a foreign judgment

o A foreign judgment merely gives rise to a right of action. Under article
1144(3) of the Civil Code, an action upon a judgment must be brought
within 10 years ‘from the time the right of action accrues’. The provision
applies to local and foreign judgments because it does not make any
distinction between the two (Mijares v Ranada, 455 SCRA 397 (2005), in
which the Supreme Court ruled that where the law does not distinguish,
we shall not distinguish’).
o The right of action commences to run from the date of finality of the
foreign judgment (PNB v Bondoc, 14 SCRA 770 (1965)).
o The foreign law becomes relevant if it provides for a shorter period (ie,
less than 10 years) of limitation (see Salonga, Private International Law,
p554 (1995)). If the foreign law is not proven, Philippine courts will apply
Philippine law, and assume that the foreign law is similar to Philippine law
under the doctrine of processual presumption (Industrial Personnel &
Management Services, Inc v De Vera 785 SCRA 563, 582 (2016)).

 Type of Enforceable order

o Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court does not limit the foreign
judgment, whether in an action in rem or in personam, to a particular type.
Therefore, any remedy ordered by a foreign court may be enforceable in
the Philippines.
o There is a requirement that the judgment be final, interim injunctions will
not be enforceable.
 Competent Courts
o The regional trial court has jurisdiction over cases seeking enforcement of
foreign judgments (section 19(6), Blg 129 of the Batas Pambansa or the
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended).

 Procedure of Enforcement
a. Petition should be filed in the proper court attaching an authenticated copy
of the foreign judgment to be enforced
b. The decision of the regional trial court may be appealed all the way to the
Supreme Court,
c. Thereafter, a motion for execution under section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court will be filed in the regional trial court upon finality of the local
judgment recognizing the foreign judgment.
d. Once the motion has been granted, the Philippine court shall issue the writ
of execution requiring the court’s sheriff or other proper officer to enforce
the writ according to its terms (section 8, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court).

 Defenses to liability or to the scope of the award entered in the foreign

jurisdiction
a. Lack of Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
a. 2 views on whose laws of jurisdiction is measured
b. Lack of Jurisdiction over the Person
c. Collusion
d. Fraud
e. Clear mistake of law or fact
f. Contrary to public policy

 Conditions or Requirements before a local court in the Philippine can

enforce or recognize a foreign judgment
a. There must be adequate proof of foreign judgment
b. The judgment must be on a civil or commercial matter
 If it involves criminal, revenue, administrative, or remedial matter, the
same would fall under the exceptions to the application of foreign law
c. There must be no lack of jurisdiction, no want of notice, no collusion, no
clear mistake of law or fact (Rule 39, Sec. 48, 1997 Rules on Civil
Procedure)
 Fraud contemplated is extrinsic fraud
 NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, INC v. COURT OF APPEALS and
C.F. SHARP & COMPANY, INC.
o FACTS:
 An International Passenger Sales Agency Agreement was
entered into by plaintiff NORTHWEST and defendant SHARP,
 through its Japan branch, whereby NORTHWEST authorizes
SHARP to sell the former’s airline tickets
 SHARP failed to remit the proceeds of the ticket sales it made
on behalf of NORTHWEST under the agreement which led the
latter to sue in Tokyo for collection of the unremitted amount,
with claim for damages
 Tokyo District Court of Japan issued a writ of summons
against SHARP at its office in Yokohama, Japan but the bailiff
failed twice to serve the writs. Finally, the Tokyo District Court
decided to have the writs of summons served at SHARP’s
head office in Manila.
 SHARP accepted the writs but despite such receipt, if failed to
appear at the hearings.
 District Court proceeded to hear the complaint and rendered
judgment ordering SHARP to pay NORTHWEST the sum of
83,158,195 Yes plus damages
 SHARP failed to appeal and the judgment became final and
executory
 NORTHWEST failed to execute the decision in Japan, hence,
it filed a suit for enforcement of the judgment before the RTC
of Manila.
 SHARP filed its answer averring that the judgment of the
Japanese Court is null and void and unenforceable in this
jurisdiction having been rendered without due and proper
notice to SHARP
 RTC held that the foreign judgment in the Japanese Court
sought to be enforced is null and void for want of jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant
 CA sustained the judgment of RTC, holding that the process of
the court has no extraterritorial effect and no jurisdiction was
acquired over the person of the defendant by serving him
beyond the boundaries of the state
o HELD:
 A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the
country from which it comes, until the contrary is shown. It is
also proper to presume the regularity of the proceedings and
the giving of due notice therein.
 Being the party challenging the judgment rendered by the
Japanese court, SHARP had the duty to demonstrate the
invalidity of such judgment.
 It is settled that matters of remedy and procedure such as
those relating to the service of process upon a defendant are
governed by the lex fori or the internal law of the forum. 8 In
 this case, it is the procedural law of Japan where the judgment
was rendered that determines the validity of the extraterritorial
service of process on SHARP. As to what this law is a
question of fact, not of law.
 It was then incumbent upon SHARP to present evidence as to
what that Japanese procedural law is and to show that under
it, the assailed extraterritorial service is invalid. It did not.
Accordingly, the presumption of validity and regularity of the
service of summons and the decision thereafter rendered by
the Japanese court must stand.
 Alternatively in the light of the absence of proof regarding
Japanese law, the presumption of identity or similarity or the
so-called processual presumption may be invoked. Applying it,
the Japanese law on the matter is presumed to be similar with
the Philippine law on service of summons on a private foreign
corporation doing business in the Philippines.
 Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that if the
defendant is a foreign corporation doing business in the
Philippines, service may be made: (1) on its resident agent
designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, (2) if
there is no such resident agent, on the government official
designated by law to that effect; or (3) on any of its officers or
agents within the Philippines.
 Where the corporation has no such agent, service shall be
made on the government official designated by law, to wit: (a)
the Insurance Commissioner in the case of a foreign insurance
company; (b) the Superintendent of Banks, in the case of a
foreign banking corporation; and (c) the Securities and
Exchange Commission, in the case of other foreign
corporations duly licensed to do business in the Philippines.
 Nowhere in its pleadings did SHARP profess to having had a
resident agent authorized to receive court processes in Japan.
 While it may be true that service could have been made upon
any of the officers or agents of SHARP at its three other
branches in Japan, the availability of such a recourse would
not preclude service upon the proper government official, as
stated above.
 As found by the respondent court, two attempts at service
were made at SHARP’s Yokohama branch. Both were
unsuccessful.
 The Tokyo District Court requested the Supreme Court of
Japan to cause the delivery of the summons and other legal
documents to the Philippines. Acting on that request, the
 Supreme Court of Japan sent the summons together with the
other legal documents to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Japan which, in turn, forwarded the same to the Japanese
Embassy in Manila . Thereafter, the court processes were
delivered to the Ministry (now Department) of Foreign Affairs
of the Philippines, then to the Executive Judge of the Court of
First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Manila, who
forthwith ordered Deputy Sheriff Rolando Balingit to serve the
same on SHARP at its principal office in Manila. This service
is equivalent to service on the proper government official
under Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, in relation to
Section 128 of the Corporation Code. Hence, SHARP’s
contention that such manner of service is not valid under
Philippine laws holds no water.
 We find NORTHWEST’s claim for attorney’s fees, litigation
expenses, and exemplary damages to be without merit. We
find no evidence that would justify an award for attorney’s fees
and litigation expenses under Article 2208 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines. Nor is an award for exemplary damages
warranted.
 WHEREFORE, the instant petition is partly GRANTED, and
the challenged decision is AFFIRMED
d. The foreign judgment must not contravene a sound and established public
policy of the forum
e. The judgment must res judicata in the state that rendered it
 Requisites for res judicata
o The judgment must be final
o The court rending the judgment must have jurisdiction over the
subject matter and over the parties
o The judgment must be on the merits
o There must be identity of parties, of subject matter, and of cause
of action (except to the cause of action, the real cause of action is
now the recognition or enforcement of foreign judgment on the
original cause of action)

 Modern Developments in Enforcement

o The Hague Conference on Private International Law
 The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign
Judgment in Civil and Commercial Matters, established the
condition and prerequisites under which the contracting states
would recognized and enforce each other’s judgment
  Provisions on applicability of the Convention “irrespective of the
nationality of the parties” and non-refusal for the sole reason that
the court of the State of origin has applied a law other than that
which would have been applicable according to the rules of private
international law of the State addressed
 Addressed the question of whether a default judgment is subject to
enforcement and establishes recognition and enforcement
procedures
 The Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and
Commercial Matters 1971.
o EEC Convention of 1968
o Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act

References:
Coquia & Aguiling-Pangalangan. (2000) CONFLICTS OF LAWS Cases, Materials and
Comments.
Sempio-Diy, A. (2004) Handbook on CONFLICTS OF LAWS.
Aguilar, N. (2013) 2013 Edition CONFLICT OF LAWS.
Ongkiko, Jacoba, & Flores. (2018) Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. Available at:
https://gettingthedealthrough.com/area/46/jurisdiction/111/enforcement-foreign-
judgments-philippines/