Title
Asiavest Merchant Bankers Berhad vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 110263
Decision Date
Jul 20, 2001
A Malaysian court's judgment against a Philippine corporation was upheld by the Philippine Supreme Court, enforcing payment of a performance bond and loan debt.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 110263)

Facts:

The petitioner, Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad, obtained a money judgment on September 13, 1985 from the High Court of Malaya against private respondent Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) for RM 5,108,290.23 with interest. After attempts to collect failed, petitioner filed a complaint on September 5, 1988 in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig to enforce the Malaysian judgment; the RTC dismissed the complaint and the Court of Appeals affirmed, prompting the present petition.

Issues:

  • Did the High Court of Malaya acquire personal jurisdiction over Philippine National Construction Corporation notwithstanding service and appearance by counsel?
  • Should the Philippine courts recognize and enforce the Malaysian money judgment against Philippine National Construction Corporation?

Ruling:

The petition was granted. The Court reversed and set aside the Decisions of the Court of Appeals and the RTC and ordered private respondent Philippine National Construction Corporation to pay petitioner the amounts adjudged by the High Court of Malaya, with costs.

Ratio:

The Court held that a foreign judgment, once its authenticity is proved, enjoys a presumption of validity under Section 50(b), Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court and may be repelled only by clear and convincing evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Petitioner proved the Malaysian judgment by testimony and certified documents showing service and counsel appearance; PNCC failed to overcome the presumption because it did not prove under Malaysian procedural law that service or counsel authority were defective, and it offered no evidence of extrinsic fraud. Matters of procedure and remedy are governed by the lex fori of the foreign forum and must be pleaded and proved by the challenger.

Doctrine:

  • A judgment of a foreign tribunal is presumptively valid under Section 50(b), Rule 39 and may be rebutted only by evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
  • (Get Pro to unlock 4 more doctrines)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.