MijMijares v Ranada

- May 1991: 10 Filipino citizens filed for a class suit (for 10K other people), invoking the Alien Tort
Act, with the US District Court of Hawaii against the Marcos Estate for human rights abuses
(summary execution and disappearance victims) from 1972-87.
- 1995: US District Court rendered Final Judgment awarding the class $1,964,005,859.90 (over
1B Dollars)
- US CA 9th Circuit affirmed. Marcos Estate did not appeal to US SC.
- May 1997: class suit victims (Mijares et al) filed Complaint with Makati RTC for enforcement of
the Final Judgment, since Marcos Estate did not appeal.
- Marcos estate filed MtD for non-payment of correct filing fees, alleging that Mijares et al only
paid P410 as docket and filing fees, despite the fact that Mijares et al sought to enforce a
monetary amount of damages of over 2.25B Dollars
- Mijares et al: enforcement of foreign judgment NOT capable of pecuniary estimation hence P410
filing fee is proper
- Sept 1998: Makati RTC Judge Ranada issued Order dismissing Mijares et al’s Complaint
 Subject matter of complaint is capable of pecuniary estimation involving judgment
rendered by a foreign court ordering payment of definite sums of money, allowing for
easy determination of the amount
 Sec 7(a) of R141 applies (“For filing an action or a permissive counterclaim or money
claim against an estate not based on judgment…”), so proper filing fees was
approximately P472M
- Mijares et al filed an MR, MR denied, so they filed a Rule 65, praying for annulment of Judge
Ranada’s Orders and reinstatement of Civil Case for enforcement.
 Their action is incapable of pecuniary estimation as the subject matter is enforcement of
a foreign judgment and not an action for collection of sum of money/recovery of
damages.
 Paying P472M negates liberal construction of the Rules
 They’ll be denied access to courts by reason of poverty (against Sec 11, Art III of Consti)
- CHR intervened and said that Makati RTC erred in interpreting the action for the execution of a
foreign judgment as a new case
 in violation of the principle that once a case has been decided between same parties in
one country on the same issue with finality, it can no longer be relitigated again in
another country
 CHR invokes principle of comity and vested rights

Issue: How much is the filing fee?

 only minimum blanket fee under Section 7(b)(3) (which involves “all other actions not involving
property…”, Sec. 141 of RoC (P600)
  To reach this the SC had to discuss 1) what provision should apply in determining the proper
amount of fee and (before that) 2) What should be the understanding as to the nature and effect
Judge Ranada’s argument – not correct Mijares et al – ALSO not correct
Sec 7(a) applies – P472M fees Sec 7(b)(1) which covers “actions where value of
subject matter cannot be estimated.”;
BUT Sec 7(a) explicitly says “For filing an action or
a permissive counterclaim or money claim This provision does not apply since the provision
against an estate not based on judgment.” mentions/covers real actions, or one where plaintiff
seeks recovery of real property or an action
While the enforcement here is a money claim affecting title or recover of possession. The
against an estate, it is CLEARLY BASED on enforcement of judgment is NOT a real action.
judgment, i.e. the US’s Court Final Judgment. This
must not apply.
Matter is actually capable of pecuniary estimation.
of a foreign judgment in the PH?

Issue: What provision should apply in determining proper amount of fee

 Proper provision that applies – Section 7(b)(3) which covers “all other actions not involving
property

Issue: What is the proper understanding as to the nature and effects of a foreign judgment in the PH?

 How then did SC arrive at the proper provision?  what is the proper understanding on the
nature and effects of a foreign judgment in PH jurisdiction?
- Rules of comity, utility and convenience of nations have established a usage among civilized
states by which final judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally
respected and rendered efficacious under certain conditions
- These conditions under PH jd is under the RoC, Sec. 48, R39 (which has remained unchanged
since we copied it from California Code in 1872)
 Effect of foreign judgment upon specific thing: judgment is conclusive upon title to thing;
 Upon a person: judgment is presumptive evidence of right as bet parties and successors
in interest
 In either case: foreign judgment may be repelled by: (1) want of JD, (2) Want of notice
to party, (3) Collusion, (4) Fraud, OR (5) Clear mistake of law or fact
- It is clear then that is usually necessary for an action to be filed to enforce a foreign judgment to
allow losing party an opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment based on the 5 grounds above
- Rules are SILENT as to what initiatory procedure party must use to enforce, but a civil complaint
is an appropriate one
 Civil action is where a party sues one another for enforcement or protection of a right.
 In enforcing a foreign judgment, such right is ether from a “conclusive judgment upon
title” or the “presumptive evidence of a right.”
- AS TO PROOF: In an action to enforce a foreign judgment, matter left for proof is the foreign
judgment itself, not the facts from which it prescinds. Otherwise, the court will re-litigate an
already final judgment rendered by an equally competent foreign court.
 Policy of Preclusion: actionable issues are generally restricted to a review of jurisdiction
of a foreign court, service of personal notice, collusion, fraud or mistake of fact or law.
This is inconsonance with a strong and pervasive policy in all legal systems to limit
repetitive litigations on claims and issues.
- At this point, it must be stressed: Complaint of Mijares et al is logically and in effect, capable of
pecuniary estimation, but at the same time is an action based on judgment against an estate.
This is where the Court arrived at putting the complaint within the ambit of Section 7(b)(3). (eh
wala, does not fall in any specific case so: “all other actions not involving property na lang.)
- There have been attempts to codify agreements the standards for recognition of foreign
judgments, but to no avail (ex: EU and Judgments Convention, which eliminates all obstacles to
 recognition; the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil
and Commercial Matters by Hague Conference of IL. Neither PH nor US are signatories)
 But there is a consensus that the viability of recognition and enforcement of foreign
judgment is essential (Steiner and Vagts)
 To protect reasonable expectations and demands of parties in litigations within the state
or elsewhere (Salonga)
- “Public policy” as a defense against enforcement of a foreign judgment is recognized in PH,
which allows application of local standards in reviewing the foreign judgment, especially when
such judgment creates only a presumptive right. Also recognized in international sphere, as with
other civil law nations, which may result in denial of recognition when the foreign court, in light of
choice-of-law rules of recognizing court, applied the wrong law to the case. This safeguards
against possible abuses to easy resort to offshore litigation.
- There is no obligatory rule derived from treaties or conventions that requires PH to recognize
foreign judgments/allow procedure for enforcement
 BUT under Consti: general accepted principles of IL, by virtue of incorporation clause,
form part of the laws of the land  customary rules accepted as binding based on 2
elements
 Consistent practice: there is a widespread practice of states accepting in
principle the need for recognition and enforcement of judgments
 Opinion juris (opinion as to law or necessity): PH has provided in its Rules the
viability of an action for enforcement (R39), as derived from internationally
accepted doctrines. This *acceptance* has attained the status of opinion juris.
- In summary: there is a general right recognized within our body of laws (RoC) and affirmed by
the Constitution (incorporation clause) to seek recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments,
as well as a right to defend against such enforcement.
- In ruling for Mijares et al, Court says that the preclusion of the enforcement merely due to an
exorbitant assessment of docket fees is alien to generally accepted practices and principles of
international law.
- Rule 141 of RoC avoids unreasonableness, as it recognizes that the subject matter of an action
for enforcement of a foreign judgment is the judgment itself, and not the right-duty correlatives
(the facts, cause of action from original foreign judgment case etc) that resulted in the foreign
judgment
 Hence, Court considered this case as subsumed within the class of “all other actions not
involving property.”  hence only blanket fee of minimal amount is required.