G.R. No. 172301 - Philippine National Construction Corp. vs. Asiavest Merchant Bankers Berhad

Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC), a Philippine government-acquired asset corporation, entered into a joint venture with Asiavest Holdings (M) Sdn. Bhd. to form Asiavest-CDCP Sdn. Bhd. for the construction of rural roads and bridges in the State of Pahang, Malaysia.
PNCC obtained four performance bonds and guarantees from Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad (respondent) to secure its obligations under the construction contracts; the guaranty agreements were governed by Malaysian law.

Due to PNCC’s failure to perform, the State of Pahang called on respondent’s performance bonds; respondent paid MYR 3,915,053.54 in or about 1988 and demanded indemnity from PNCC.
On April 12, 1994 respondent filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig for recovery of that sum under Sections 98 and 11 of the Malaysian Contracts Act 1950 and Civil Law Act 1956.
PNCC secured multiple short extensions to file its answer but missed the July 3, 1994 deadline; its motion for a further five-day extension was denied, and on July 27, 1994 the RTC declared PNCC in default, permitted ex parte presentation of evidence, and on November 29, 1994 rendered judgment ordering PNCC to pay MYR 3,915,053.54 (plus pesos equivalent, interest, attorney’s fees and costs).
PNCC’s motions to lift the default order (December 12, 1994) and for reconsideration ad cautelam (December 21, 1994) were denied (January 30 and August 11, 1995).

PNCC appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA); in a decision dated June 10, 2005 (denied reconsideration April 7, 2006), the CA dismissed the appeal, ruling that only pure questions of law were involved, which are within the Supreme Court’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction.
PNCC filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court, raising issues of jurisdiction, impleader of Malaysian entities, forum non conveniens, due process, prescription under Malaysian law, and respondent’s alleged corporate dissolution.

Whether the CA erred in dismissing PNCC’s appeal on the ground that it raised pure questions of law.

Whether the CA erred in not finding that Asiavest-CDCP Sdn. Bhd. and Asiavest Holdings (M) Sdn. Bhd. should have been impleaded and held jointly liable.

Whether the RTC erred in assuming jurisdiction over the sum-recovery action and in not applying forum non conveniens.

Whether respondent’s claim had prescribed under the six-year limitation period of the Malaysian Limitation Act 1953.

Whether the case is moot because respondent voluntarily wound up and purportedly has no existing claims.