G.R. No. 224945 - Girlie J. Lingad vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 224945)

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Complaint filed in the RTC: December 3, 1987. Hong Kong judgment rendered: December 28, 1984, amended April 13, 1987. Reconstitution of destroyed trial-court records due to fire: July–September 1988. Pretrial stipulations and trial proceedings: 1988–1990. RTC decision: August 24, 1990 (in favor of Asiavest). RTC reconsideration order: November 1990 (increased attorney’s fees). Court of Appeals decision reversing RTC and dismissing Asiavest’s complaint: April 3, 1997. Supreme Court decision denying the petition and affirming the CA: September 25, 1998.

Claims and Reliefs Sought

Asiavest sought enforcement in the Philippines of the Hong Kong judgment ordering Heras to pay specified sums in United States dollars and Hong Kong dollars, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. Asiavest relied on the presumption of validity of foreign judgments and submitted documentary authentication of the Hong Kong judgment.

Factual Stipulations and Relevant Evidence

The parties stipulated inter alia that (1) the Hong Kong judgment and its amendment existed (though not necessarily admitted as authentic by Heras); (2) Asiavest was not doing business and not licensed to do business in the Philippines; and (3) Heras’s residence was New Manila, Quezon City, Philippines. Asiavest introduced authenticated records of the Hong Kong judgment and related documents. Heras offered testimony from his former personal secretary, Fortunata dela Vega, who stated that no writ or statement of claim was served in Hong Kong and that Heras left Hong Kong in October 1984; and an expert, Russel Warren Lousich, who testified about Hong Kong practice regarding service and the fact that the Hong Kong court authorized extraterritorial service and that an affidavit by Jose R. Fernandez of Sycip Salazar claimed service in Quezon City.

Trial Court Findings

The RTC found that Asiavest had proved rendition, existence, and authentication of the Hong Kong judgment, invoking the presumption under Section 50, Rule 39 (now Section 48, Rule 39). The RTC held that Heras failed to rebut the presumption of jurisdiction because he did not testify under oath that he never received summons; the witness testimony alleging nonservice (dela Vega) was treated as hearsay without probative value. The RTC further ruled that procedural matters, including the form of the judgment and requirements for recitals, are governed by the lex fori (Hong Kong), and that Hong Kong law did not require statements of facts or law in its judgments. The RTC therefore recognized and enforced the Hong Kong judgment, awarding the amounts sought and attorney’s fees.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA reversed and dismissed Asiavest’s complaint without prejudice. It emphasized that a foreign judgment has no extraterritorial effect unless the foreign tribunal had jurisdiction over the person and subject matter. The CA held that service of summons is governed by the law of the forum for procedures but stressed that, where the action is in personam and the defendant is in the Philippines, Philippine procedural standards (Rule 14) require personal service under Section 7 and that substituted or extraterritorial service is permissible only under prescribed conditions (Sections 8, 17–18), with leave of court and adequate proof of impossibility of personal service. The CA found that substituted service in the Philippines by a foreign clerk was not authorized by the Hong Kong judge in the manner required under Philippine practice and that Asiavest should have sought leave of Philippine courts to effect service by a local court officer or otherwise. The CA concluded that because the action against Heras in Hong Kong was in personam and Heras was not a resident of Hong Kong at the time (stipulated residence in the Philippines and testimony that he left Hong Kong “for good”), the Hong Kong court did not acquire jurisdiction over his person and its judgment could not be given effect in the Philippines.

Legal Framework on Foreign Judgments and Burden of Proof

The Court reiterated paragraph (b), Section 50, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court: a foreign judgment rendered by a court having jurisdiction is presumptive evidence of a right between the parties, but may be repelled for want of jurisdiction, want of notice, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. The New Rules of Evidence (Rule 131, Sec. 3[n]) similarly presumes that a court acted within lawful jurisdiction in the absence of contrary proof. Accordingly, once authenticity of a foreign judgment is established, the party attacking it bears the burden to show grounds for repelling it.

Proof of Foreign Law and Processual Presumption

The Court noted the accepted means of proving foreign law (official publications or attested copies under Sections 24–25, Rule 132) but acknowledged that expert testimony may suffice to establish foreign procedural law. Here, although Lousich testified as an expert on Hong Kong procedure, his testimony did not address the specific Hong Kong law on service in the particular context (in personam suits against residents or nonresidents). In the absence of conclusive proof of Hong Kong law on that point, the Court applied the processual presumption of similarity: in the absence of showing otherwise, the foreign law is presumed similar to Philippine law concerning procedural requirements for service.

Nature of the Action: In Personam and Consequences for Service

The action in Hong Kong was in personam because it was based on Heras’s personal guarantee of the principal debtor’s obligation. For in personam actions, jurisdiction over the person is indispensable. The Rules of Court provide that for resident defendants personal service within the St

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 224945)

Procedural History

Asiavest Limited filed a complaint on December 3, 1987 in Branch 107, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q-52452) to enforce a Hong Kong Court judgment dated December 28, 1984, amended April 13, 1987.
Defendant Antonio Heras filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 3, 1988; the motion was deferred while the court records were destroyed in a fire on June 11, 1988.
Plaintiff moved for reconstitution of records on July 26, 1988; the RTC allowed reconstitution and admitted annexes as reconstituted records by Order dated September 6, 1988.
The RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss by Order dated October 4, 1988. Defendant filed Answer on October 19, 1988. Pre-trial conference followed; parties stipulated certain facts.
RTC, in a Decision dated August 24, 1990 (per Judge Delilah Vidallon Magtolis), found the Hong Kong judgment duly proved, denied Heras’ defenses, and rendered judgment in favor of Asiavest ordering payment of specified sums (detailed under Remedies/Awards).
Asiavest moved for reconsideration seeking judicial costs and increase in attorney’s fees; Heras did not oppose and instead appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 29513).
RTC Order of November 1990 granted Asiavest’s motion for reconsideration increasing attorney’s fees to US$19,345.65 (or equivalent) and awarding costs, subject to Asiavest paying corresponding filing fees.
Asiavest initially appealed the order requiring payment of filing fees but later withdrew the appeal and paid additional filing fees.
On April 3, 1997, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision and dismissed Asiavest’s complaint without prejudice, finding lack of jurisdiction of the Hong Kong court over Heras due to defective service of summons.
Asiavest filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, assigning errors related to evidentiary burden, service of summons, necessity of personal service in Hong Kong, requirement of leave from Philippine courts for foreign service, and alleged contravention of Philippine laws and public policy by the foreign judgment.
Supreme Court rendered judgment denying the petition and affirming the Court of Appeals in favor of Heras; no costs were awarded. Decision per Justice Davide, Jr.; Bellosillo, Vitug, and Panganiban, JJ., concurred; Quisumbing, J., no part.

Facts Established by the Parties and Stipulations

Asiavest sought enforcement in the Philippines of a Hong Kong judgment dated December 28, 1984, as amended April 13, 1987, for monetary sums and attorney’s fees.
Stipulated facts at pre-trial included:
- Defendant admitted the existence of the December 28, 1984 judgment and its April 13, 1987 amendment, though not necessarily their authenticity or validity.
- Plaintiff Asiavest was not doing business and was not licensed to do business in the Philippines.
- Residence of defendant Antonio Heras was New Manila, Quezon City, Philippines.
Fortunata dela Vega testified she was Heras’ personal secretary from his JD Transit days until October 1984, later Officer-in-Charge/Office Manager of Navegante Shipping Agency Ltd., and that Heras left Hong Kong for good in October 1984.
Russel Warren Lousich testified as an expert on Hong Kong law and as a representative of defendant’s counsel; he stated there was no record of service of a writ of summons on Heras in Hong Kong and no record a copy of the Hong Kong judgment was furnished or served on Heras.

Subject Matter of the Hong Kong Action and Nature of Suit

The Hong Kong action was founded on Heras’ personal guarantee of the obligations of Compania Hermanos de Navegacion S.A.; thus, the action in Hong Kong was in personam (an action against a person on basis of personal liability).
Because it was in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant (Heras) was necessary for a valid judgment by the Hong Kong court.

Evidence Presented by Asiavest (Plaintiff)

Asiavest presented documentary evidence proving rendition, existence, authentication, and proper attestation of the Hong Kong judgment by appropriate officials (Exhibits aAa through aBa with submarkings).
Asiavest presented testimonial and documentary evidence to substantiate entitlement to attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.
Asiavest introduced an affidavit by Jose R. Fernandez (Sycip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan) stating service of summons on Heras on 23 November 1984 in Quezon City by leaving a copy with Dionisio Lopez, Heras’ son-in-law; this affidavit was filed in the Hong Kong proceedings.

Evidence and Testimony Presented by Heras (Defendant)

Fortunata dela Vega testified that no writ of summons or complaint copy was ever served at the Navegante Shipping Agency office or on Heras at his residence in New Manila, Quezon City; her knowledge derived from being Heras’ personal secretary and office manager until the first quarter of 1985, and that Heras left Hong Kong for good in October 1984.
Russel Warren Lousich, presented as expert on Hong Kong law, testified by affidavit (Exh. "2") and during cross-examination:
- The Hong Kong record showed no service of writ of summons on Heras in Hong Kong, nor a copy of the judgment served on him.
- Under Hong Kong law: (a) writs may be served by the plaintiff’s solicitor (no court personnel for service); (b) the claimant need not present proof under oath if the writ is uncontested; (c) judgments need not recite facts or law; (d) not necessary to furnish defendant with a copy of the judgment; (e) creditor can sue guarantor without first suing principal debtor.
- On cross-examination, Lousich admitted the Hong Kong court authorized service of summons upon Heras outside Hong Kong (particularly in the Philippines) and acknowledged Fernandez’s affidavit of service in Manila; he stated such service would be valid under Hong Kong law if done in accordance with Philippine law; he also testified that generally Hong Kong court requires adequate proof of service.

Issues Presented to the Courts

Whether the Hong Kong judgment was enforceable in the Philippines.
Whether Asiavest was required to present evidence to support the validity of the foreign judgment beyond proving rendition, existence, and authentication.
Whether service of summons on Heras was defective under Philippine law and whether summons should have been personally served on Heras in Hong Kong.
Whether extraterritorial service in the Philippines required leave of Philippine courts and whether substituted service used complied with procedural rules.
Whether the Hong Kong judgment contravened Philippine laws, principles of sound morality, or public policy.

Trial Court (RTC) Findings and Rationale

The trial court held the Hong Kong judgment was duly proved and, under paragraph (b), Section 50, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a foreign judgment rendered by a court having jurisdiction is presumptive evidence of a right between parties and their successors.
The burden to repel the presumption (for want of jurisdiction, want of notice, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law/fact) was on the party impugning the foreign judgment — Heras — who failed to discharge that burden.
RTC found Heras did not testify under oath to categorically deny receipt of summons; Lousich’s admission that Heras was served at his Quezon City residence undermined Heras’ challenge; dela Vega’s testimony as to non-service was hearsay without probative value.
On contention that the Hong Kong judgment violated the Constitution and Philippine procedural law by not containing statements of facts and law, the court ruled such procedural matters are governed by the lex fori (Hong Kong law), and Lousich testified such recitals were not required in Hong Kong.
On Heras’ contention invoking the principle of excussion (Article 2058 Civil Code), the RTC declared substantive matters are ruled by law of the place where the tr