RECOGNITION AND

ENFORCEMENT OF
FOREIGN JUDGMENT
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgment

• Distinction
• RECOGNITION: This may arise when a successful defendant wins and asserts that decision
to preclude the plaintiff from filing a suit on the same claim in another forum. It is basically a
passive act because it does not require the filing of an action in another forum.
• ENFORCEMENT: This happens when a successful plaintiff fails to enforce judgment in the
forum court so he seeks to carry out the execution of the judgment in another state.
Basic principle relating to the enforceability of a foreign judgment

• 1) Comity

• 2) “Obligation of foreign judgments”

• derived from the rigid & unyielding vested rights theory.

• Judgment of a foreign court of competent jurisdiction is considered as imposing a duty or
obligation on the losing litigant.
Godard vs. Gray L.R. 6 Q.B. 139 (1870)

Godard (French) obtained a favorable ruling by a French court arising on a charter party
obligation against Gray (English). The French court interpreted the clause “penalty for non-
performance of this agreement, estimated amount of freight” as a clause that sets the limits to
liability to one voyage between the parties to the charter party contrary to the English
interpretation. When this French judgment was sought to be enforced in England, Gray
interposed in defense that the erroneous French judgement is a bar to the action for
enforcement in England.
Godard vs. Gray L.R. 6 Q.B. 139 (1870)

• it is not a bar. In England, foreign judgement are enforced based on the principle that where
a court of competent jurisdiction has adjudicated a sum of money to be due from one person
to another, a legal obligation arises to pay the sum, on which an action of debt to enforce the
judgement may be maintained and not merely out of politeness and courtesy to other
tribunals of other countries. Anything that negates the existence of a legal obligation or
excuses the defendant from performance is a good defense to the action
Requisites for the enforcement of a foreign
judgment
• The foreign judgment was rendered by a judicial or a quasi-judicial tribunal which had jurisdiction
over the parties & the case in the proper judicial proceeding.

• The judgment must be valid under the laws of the court that rendered it

• The judgment must be final & executory to constitute res judicata in another action

• The state where the foreign judgment was obtained allows recognition or enforcement of
Philippine judgment

• The judgment must be for a fixed sum of money

• The foreign judgment must not be contrary to the public policy or the good morals of the country
where it is to be enforced

• The judgment must not have been obtained by fraud, collusion, mistake of fact or mistake
Rule 39, Sec. 48

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. (50a)
Grounds for Non Recognition

Uniform Money-Judgment Recognition Act of the US, Section 4:

•A foreign judgment is not conclusive if-
1. The judgment was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or
procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law
2. The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant
3. The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter
Grounds for Non Recognition

(a)A foreign judgment need not be recognized if-

1) The defendant in the proceedings in foreign court did not receive notice of the proceedings
in sufficient time to enable him to defend
2) The judgment was obtained by fraud
3) The cause of action or claim for relief on which judgment is based is repugnant to
public policy of the state.
4) The foreign judgment conflicts with another final & conclusive judgment.
5) The proceeding in the foreign country was contrary to an agreement between the parties
under which the dispute in question settled otherwise than the proceeding in that court
6) In the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, the foreign court was a seriously
inconvenient forum for the trial of the action
Grounds for Non Recognition

• Art 23 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement &

Cooperation in re of Parental Responsibility & Measures for Protection of Children:
•
• Considering the best interests of child, recognition of measures directed for protection of the
child or his property may be refused if such were taken without giving the child opportunity
to be heard or if contrary to public policy.
THE INTERNET / CYBER-ERA
The Internet

• The Internet is a "giant network which interconnects innumerable smaller groups of linked
computer networks."

"This global Web of linked networks and computers is referred to as the Internet." Id.
• Computers and networks that comprise the system are owned by governmental and public
institutions, non-profit organizations and private parties. Id. "The resulting whole is a
decentralized, global medium of communications [**18] -- or 'cyberspace' -- that links
people, institutions, corporations, and governments around the world."
•

Millennium Enters. v. Millennium Music, LP, 33 F. Supp. 2d 907, 913, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3709,
*17-18, 49 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1878, 1884 (D. Or. January 4, 1999)
• The two most common methods to connect with the Internet are the use of a computer or
terminal that is directly connected to a computer network, which, in turn, is connected to the
Internet, or the use of a personal computer with a modem to connect through telephone
lines to a network that is connected to the Internet. ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. at 832.
Students, faculty, and researchers can access the Internet through educational institutions. Id.
Panavision International vs. Dennis Toeppen 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals, No. 97-55467 17 April 1998 (Jurisdiction)

• Panavision holds registered trademarks to the names “Panavision” and “Panaflex” in

connection with motion picture camera equipment. Panavision promotes its trademarks
through motion picture and television credits and other media advertising.
• In December 1995, Panavision attempted to register a web site on the Internet with the
domain name Panavision.com. It could not do that, however, because Toeppen had already
established a web site using Panavision's trademark as his domain name. Toeppen's web
page for this site displayed photographs of the City of Pana, Illinois.
• On December 20, 1995, Panavision's counsel sent a letter from California to Toeppen in
Illinois informing him that Panavision held a trademark in the name Panavision and telling
him to stop using that trademark and the domain name Panavision.com. Toeppen responded
by mail to Panavision in California, stating he had the right to use the name Panavision.com
on the Internet as his domain name.
• Toeppen then offered to “settle the matter” if Panavision would pay him $13,000 in exchange
for the domain name. Additionally, Toeppen stated that if Panavision agreed to his offer, he
would not “acquire any other Internet addresses which are alleged by Panavision Corporation
to be its property.”
• After Panavision refused Toeppen's demand, he registered Panavision's other trademark with
NSI as the domain name Panaflex.com. Toeppen's web page for Panaflex.com simply
displays the word “Hello.”
• Toeppen has registered domain names for various other companies including Delta Airlines,
Neiman Marcus, Eddie Bauer, Lufthansa, and over 100 other marks. Toeppen has
attempted to “sell” domain names for other trademarks such as intermatic.com to Intermatic,
Inc. for $10,000 and americanstandard.com to American Standard, Inc. for $15,000.
• Panavision filed this action against Toeppen in the District Court for the Central District of
California. Panavision alleged claims for dilution of its trademark under the Federal
Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), and under the California Anti-dilution
statute, California Business and Professions Code § 14330. Panavision alleged that
Toeppen was in the business of stealing trademarks, registering them as domain names on
the Internet and then selling the domain names to the rightful trademark owners.
Issue of Jurisdiction

• three-part test to determine if a district court may exercise specific jurisdiction:

• (1) The nonresident defendant must do some act or consummate some transaction with the
forum or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of
conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws;  
• (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or results from the defendant's forum-related
activities;  and
• (3) exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.
1st: Purposeful Availment

• The purposeful availment requirement ensures that a nonresident defendant will not be haled
into court based upon “random, fortuitous or attenuated” contacts with the forum state.
This requirement is satisfied if the defendant “has taken deliberate action” toward the forum
state.
• In each case where personal jurisdiction was exercised, there had been “something more” to
“indicate that the defendant purposefully (albeit electronically) directed his activity in a
substantial way to the forum state.”
The Effects Doctrine

• Under Calder, personal jurisdiction can be based upon:  “(1) intentional actions (2) expressly
aimed at the forum state (3) causing harm, the brunt of which is suffered-and which the
defendant knows is likely to be suffered-in the forum state.”
2nd Defendant's Forum-Related Activities

• second requirement for specific, personal jurisdiction is that the claim asserted in the
litigation arises out of the defendant's forum related activities.
3rd Reasonableness

• For jurisdiction to be reasonable, it must comport with “fair play and substantial justice.”
“[W]here a defendant who purposefully has directed his activities at forum residents seeks to
defeat jurisdiction, he must present a compelling case that the presence of some other
considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.”
Factors to Consider under reasonableness

• (1) the extent of a defendant's purposeful interjection;  

• (2) the burden on the defendant in defending in the forum;  
• (3) the extent of conflict with the sovereignty of the defendant's state;  
• (4) the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute;
• (5) the most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy;
• (6) the importance of the forum to the plaintiff's interest in convenient and effective relief;
 and
• (7) the existence of an alternative forum.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ATTENTION!