CONFLICT OF LAWS – SAINT COLUMBAN LAW SCHOOL Plaintiff was unable to execute the decision in Japan,
hence, on May 20, 1983, a suit for enforcement of the
judgment was filed by plaintiff before the Regional Trial
G.R. No. 112573 February 9, 1995 Court of Manila Branch 54.
ISSUES:
NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, INC. petitioner,
vs. Whether or not a foreign court can acquire jurisdiction over a
COURT OF APPEALS and C.F. SHARP & COMPANY INC., respondents. Philippine corporation doing business in the foreign country by
serving summons through diplomatic channels on the Philippine
corporation at its principal office after prior attempts to serve
summons had failed.
RULING:
FACTS:
As found by the Court of Appeals, it was the Tokyo District Court
This petition for review on certiorari seeks to set aside the which ordered that summons for SHARP be served at its head
decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal of office in the Philippine's after the two attempts of service had failed.
the petitioner's complaint to enforce the judgment of a The Tokyo District Court requested the Supreme Court of Japan to
Japanese court. cause the delivery of the summons and other legal documents to
On May 9, 1974, plaintiff Northwest Airlines and defendant the Philippines. Acting on that request, the Supreme Court of Japan
C.F. Sharp & Company, through its Japan branch, entered sent the summons together with the other legal documents to the
into an International Passenger Sales Agency Agreement, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan which, in turn, forwarded the
whereby the former authorized the latter to sell its air same to the Japanese Embassy in Manila. Thereafter, the court
transportation tickets. Unable to remit the proceeds of the processes were delivered to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the
ticket sales made by defendant on behalf of the plaintiff Philippines, then to the Executive Judge of the Court of First
under the said agreement, plaintiff on March 25, 1980 Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Manila, who forthwith
sued defendant in Tokyo, Japan, for collection of the ordered Deputy Sheriff Rolando Balingit to serve the same on
unremitted proceeds of the ticket sales, with claim for SHARP at its principal office in Manila. This service is equivalent to
damages. service on the proper government official under Section 14, Rule 14
After the two attempts of service were unsuccessful, the of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 128 of the Corporation
judge of the Tokyo District Court decided to have the Code. Hence, SHARP's contention that such manner of service is
complaint and the writs of summons served at the head not valid under Philippine laws holds no water.
office of the defendant in Manila. On July 11, 1980, the The extraterritorial service of summons on it by the Japanese Court
Director of the Tokyo District Court requested the was valid not only under the processual presumption but also
Supreme Court of Japan to serve the summons through because of the presumption of regularity of performance of official
diplomatic channels upon the defendant's head office in duty.
Manila.
Tokyo Court proceeded to hear the plaintiff's complaint
and rendered judgment ordering the defendant to pay the
plaintiff the sum of 83,158,195 Yen and damages for delay
at the rate of 6% per annum from August 28, 1980 up to
and until payment is completed.
G.R. No. 137378. October 12, 2000 ISSUE:
PHILIPPINE ALUMINUM WHEELS, INC., Petitioner, v. FASGI Whether or not the Philippine Court may enforce the said foreign
ENTERPRISES, INC., Respondent. judgment.
RULING:
FACTS: In this jurisdiction, a valid judgment rendered by a foreign tribunal
may be recognized insofar as the immediate parties and the
On 01 June 1978, FASGI Enterprises Incorporated (“FASGI”), a underlying cause of action are concerned so long as it is
corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws convincingly shown that there has been an opportunity for a full and
of the State of California, United States of America, entered into a fair hearing before a court of competent jurisdiction; that trial upon
distributorship arrangement with Philippine Aluminum Wheels, regular proceedings has been conducted, following due citation or
Incorporated (“PAWI”), a Philippine corporation, and Fratelli Pedrini voluntary appearance of the defendant and under a system of
Sarezzo S.P.A. (“FPS”), an Italian corporation. The agreement jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial administration of justice;
provided for the purchase, importation and distributorship in the and that there is nothing to indicate either a prejudice in court and
United States of aluminum wheels manufactured by PAWI. FASGI in the system of laws under which it is sitting or fraud in procuring
then paid PAWI the FOB value of the wheels. Unfortunately, FASGI the judgment. PAWI claims that its counsel, Mr. Ready, has acted
later found the shipment to be defective and in non-compliance with without its authority. Verily, in this jurisdiction, it is clear that an
the contract. attorney cannot, without a client’s authorization, settle the action or
On 21 September 1979, FASGI instituted an action against PAWI subject matter of the litigation even when he honestly believes that
and FPS for breach of contract and recovery of damages in the such a settlement will best serve his client’s interest.
amount of US$2,316,591.00 before the United States District Court As has so aptly been explained by the appellate court, the over-all
for the Central District of California. In the interim, two agreements picture might, indeed, appear to be onerous to PAWI but it should
were entered by the parties but PAWI kept on failing to discharge bear emphasis that the settlement which has become the basis for
its obligations therein. Irked by PAWI’s persistent default, FASGI the foreign judgment has not been the start of a business venture
filed with the US District Court of the Central District of California but the end of a failed one, and each party, naturally, has had to
the agreements for judgment against PAWI. negotiate from either position of strength or weakness depending
On 24 August 1982, FASGI filed a notice of entry of judgment. on its own perception of who might have to bear the blame for the
Unable to obtain satisfaction of the final judgment within the United failure and the consequence of loss. WHEREFORE, the decision of
States, FASGI filed a complaint for “enforcement of foreign the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
judgment”, before RTC Makati. The Makati court, however,
dismissed the case, on the ground that the decree was tainted with
collusion, fraud, and clear mistake of law and fact. The lower court
ruled that the foreign judgment ignored the reciprocal obligations of
the parties. While the assailed foreign judgment ordered the return
by PAWI of the purchase amount, no similar order was made
requiring FASGI to return to PAWI the third and fourth containers of
wheels. This situation amounted to an unjust enrichment on the part
of FASGI. Furthermore, the RTC said, agreements which the
California court had based its judgment were a nullity for having
been entered into by Mr. Thomas Ready, counsel for PAWI, without
the latter’s authorization. However, the Court of Appeals reversed
this decision
G.R. No. L-23145 November 29, 1968 has not been called to any law or treaty that would make the
findings of the Veterans' Administrator, in actions where he is a
TESTATE ESTATE OF IDONAH SLADE PERKINS, deceased. RENATO party, conclusive on our courts. That, in effect, would deprive our
D. TAYAG, ancillary administrator-appellee, tribunals of judicial discretion and render them mere subordinate
vs. instrumentalities of the Veterans' Administrator.
BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC., oppositor-appellant. It is infinitely worse if through the absence of any coercive power by
our courts over juridical persons within our jurisdiction, the force
and effectivity of their orders could be made to depend on the whim
or caprice of alien entities. It is difficult to imagine of a situation
more offensive to the dignity of the bench or the honor of the
FACTS: country.
Idonah Slade Perkins died in New York City. Then an ancillary
administration proceeding was instituted appointing ancillary
administrator Lazaro A. Marquez later on substituted by Renato D.
Tayag. Then CFI ordered domiciliary administrator County Trust
Company of New York to surrender to the ancillary administrator in
the Philippines 33,002 shares of stock certificates owned by her in
a Philippine corporation, Benguet Consolidated, Inc., to satisfy the
legitimate claims of local creditors. County Trust Company of New
York refused, and petitioned the probate court to order Benguet
Consolidated, Inc. to declare the stocks lost and required it to issue
new certificates in lieu thereof. Benguet Consolidated Inc. opposed
the petition of the ancillary administrator because the said stock
certificates are in existence, they are today in the possession of the
domiciliary administrator, the County Trust Company, in New York,
U.S.A. Said petition was granted by the probate court. Appeal was
taken by Benguet Consolidated, Inc. alleging the failure to comply
with its by-laws setting forth the procedure to be followed in case of
a lost, stolen or destroyed so it cannot issue new stock certificates.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Philippine courts has jurisdiction over properties
in foreign countries and vice versa.
RULING:
There is a great difference between actions against the
Administrator (which must be filed strictly in accordance with the
conditions that are imposed by the Veterans' Act, including the
exclusive review by United States courts), and those actions where
the Veterans' Administrator seeks a remedy from our courts and
submits to their jurisdiction by filing actions therein. Our attention
