Case Digest (G.R. No. 110263)
Facts:
In 1983, Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad, a Malaysian corporation, initiated a collection suit before the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur against Asiavest-CDCP Sdn. Bhd. and Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines (now Philippine National Construction Corporation or PNCC). Asiavest sought indemnity under a performance bond and recovery of a loan extended for road projects. On September 13, 1985, the Malayan court rendered a money judgment awarding Asiavest Ringgit 5,108,290.23 plus 12% annual interest on specified sums from March 1983 until full payment, and costs of Ringgit 350. On the same date, a separate order confirmed interest at 12% per annum. When PNCC failed to pay, Asiavest filed on September 5, 1988 a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig to enforce the foreign judgment. PNCC moved to dismiss, alleging lack of Malayan court jurisdiction over its person, defective service of summons, collusion, fraud, and error of law or facCase Digest (G.R. No. 110263)
Facts:
- Parties and Underlying Transaction
- Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad (Petitioner) – a Malaysian corporation, sued for indemnity under a performance bond and unpaid loan in favor of Asiavest-CDCP Sdn. Bhd. regarding Felda Project and road bypass projects.
- Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC, Private Respondent) – a Philippine corporation designated as 2nd Defendant in the Malaysian suit.
- High Court of Malaya Proceedings (Suit No. C638 of 1983)
- Judgment (September 13, 1985)
- Ordered PNCC to pay MYR 5,108,290.23 (Ringgit) with 12% per annum interest on two tranches from March 1983 until full payment, plus MYR 350 costs.
- Order (September 13, 1985)
- Confirmed grant of final judgment and assessed interest by consent at 12% per annum on the specified sums.
- Philippine Enforcement Proceedings
- Complaint for Enforcement (September 5, 1988)
- Filed before RTC Pasig to recognize and enforce the Malaysian judgment.
- PNCC’s Defenses
- Motion to Dismiss (lack of jurisdiction, improper notice, collusion/fraud, mistake of law/fact) – denied by RTC as improper under Rule 16.
- Answer with Counterclaim reasserting the same grounds.
- Trial and Appeals
- RTC Decision (October 14, 1991) – dismissed petitioner’s complaint for failure to prove jurisdiction and validity of the foreign judgment.
- Court of Appeals Decision (May 19, 1993) – affirmed the RTC dismissal.
- Supreme Court Petition – error assigned on (a) lack of personal jurisdiction by Malaysian court; and (b) denial of recognition and enforcement.
Issues:
- Whether the High Court of Malaya acquired personal jurisdiction over PNCC despite service of summons at PNCC’s Malaysia office and its appearance by counsel.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying recognition and enforcement of the Malaysian court judgment.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)