Case Digest (G.R. No. 148106)
Facts:
In Asiavest Limited vs. The Court of Appeals and Antonio Heras, Asiavest Limited, a Hong Kong company, secured a judgment on December 28, 1984 (amended April 13, 1987) from the Hong Kong High Court against Heras for US$1,810,265.40 plus interests, costs, and attorney’s fees. On December 3, 1987, Asiavest filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Branch 107, Civil Case No. Q-52452) a petition to enforce that foreign judgment. Heras moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, but records were destroyed by fire in June 1988 and later reconstituted. The trial court denied the dismissal motion, and after pre-trial stipulations conceding the judgment’s authenticity but disputing service, it admitted documentary and testimonial proof from both parties, including expert testimony on Hong Kong procedure and assertions of non-service by Heras’s secretary. The RTC rendered judgment in favor of Asiavest, ordering payment of principal, interests, costs, and P80,000 attorney’s feCase Digest (G.R. No. 148106)
Facts:
- Background and Hong Kong Judgment
- Asiavest Limited (plaintiff) obtained a Hong Kong Court judgment dated December 28, 1984 (amended April 13, 1987) against Antonio Heras (defendant) for:
- US$1,810,265.40 with legal interest from December 28, 1984
- Interest of 9.875% per annum on US$1,500.00 for the period October 31–December 28, 1984
- HK$905 for fixed costs
- Attorney’s fees and litigation expenses of at least US$80,000 with interest
- Asiavest was not licensed or doing business in the Philippines; Heras resided in New Manila, Quezon City.
- RTC Quezon City Proceedings
- Complaint filed December 3, 1987 to enforce the Hong Kong judgment; Motion to Dismiss filed March 3, 1988
- June 11, 1988 fire destroyed records; reconstitution granted September 6, 1988
- Order of October 4, 1988 denied Motion to Dismiss; Answer filed October 19, 1988
- Pre-trial stipulations (January 5 & 18, 1989):
- Existence of the Hong Kong judgment admitted (authenticity reserved)
- Asiavest’s non-residency and lack of Philippine license
- Heras’s residence in Quezon City
- Trial evidence:
- Asiavest – documentary proof of rendition, authentication, entitlement to fees
- Heras – testimony of secretary de la Vega (no service in Hong Kong or Quezon City) and expert Lousich (Hong Kong service rules)
- RTC Decision (August 24, 1990) held the Hong Kong judgment presumptive, Heras failed to prove lack of jurisdiction or service, and recognized the judgment with award of principal, interest, costs, and P80,000 attorney’s fees
- Court of Appeals Proceedings
- Asiavest’s motion for increased attorney’s fees granted by RTC (November 1990); Asiavest appealed but later paid fees
- CA Decision (April 3, 1997) reversed RTC, dismissed complaint without prejudice, ruling:
- Foreign judgments lack extraterritorial effect unless court acquired jurisdiction over person and subject
- Procedure governed by lex fori – Philippine Rules of Court require personal service within territory for in personam actions
- Substituted service in Philippines invalid for establishing personal jurisdiction in Hong Kong
- Supreme Court Petition and Disposition
- Asiavest’s petition challenged CA rulings on evidence of validity, service defects, personal service in Hong Kong, leave of Philippine courts, and public policy
- Supreme Court denied petition and affirmed CA judgment (September 25, 1998)
Issues:
- Whether a foreign judgment is enforceable in the Philippines without independent proof of validity beyond authentication
- Whether the Hong Kong court acquired jurisdiction over Heras through service of summons in the Philippines
- Which law governs service of process in a foreign judgment enforcement case – lex fori or lex loci litigationis
- Whether extraterritorial service without leave of Philippine courts is valid for an in personam action
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)