Case Summary (G.R. No. 182153)
Factual Antecedents
Ting Guan entered into a contract of sale with Tung Ho on January 9, 2002, to deliver heavy metal scrap iron and steel. Due to the delivery not being fulfilled, Tung Ho initiated arbitration proceedings before the ICC in Singapore, resulting in an arbitral award on June 18, 2004, in favor of Tung Ho. Following this, Tung Ho sought to have the award recognized and enforced in the Philippines through the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati.
Proceedings Before the RTC
Ting Guan filed a motion to dismiss Tung Ho's complaint, arguing lack of capacity to sue and improper venue, claiming the case should be in Cebu where it had its principal office. The RTC denied Ting Guan's motion, determining that Ting Guan had voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction by raising different defenses aside from jurisdictional issues.
Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals
Ting Guan then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA) to contest the RTC's ruling. Tung Ho countered that a Rule 65 petition was not the suitable remedy for a motion to dismiss denial. The CA ultimately decided on July 5, 2006, to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over Ting Guan, leading to further motions for partial reconsideration from both parties.
Ting Guan's Appeal to the Supreme Court
Ting Guan subsequently lodged a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, presenting assertions that the case was prematurely filed and the arbitral award was null and void. Tung Ho responded, highlighting that the RTC had jurisdiction and that any alleged defects in the service of summons could be cured through an alias summons.
Issues Presented
The issues to be resolved included whether the present petition was barred by res judicata and whether the trial court had acquired jurisdiction over Ting Guan, specifically considering the validity of the summons and whether Ting Guan had made a voluntary appearance.
Court's Ruling on Res Judicata
The Supreme Court found the petition valid, indicating that the ruling in prior cases did not constitute res judicata. The dismissal in G.R. No. 176110 did not cover all raised issues nor did it rule on the merits of the case, particularly regarding the enforceability of the foreign arbitral award.
Court's Ruling on Jurisdiction
The Court maintained that the denial of Ting Guan's motion to dismiss did not strip the CA of jurisdiction to address the case. Tung Ho's timely filing of a motion fo
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 182153)
Case Overview
- This case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Tung Ho Steel Enterprises Corporation (Tung Ho) against Ting Guan Trading Corporation (Ting Guan).
- The case challenges the decisions of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated July 5, 2006, and the resolution dated March 12, 2008, regarding the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award.
Factual Antecedents
- Tung Ho is a foreign corporation established under the laws of Taiwan, Republic of China.
- Ting Guan is a domestic corporation organized under Philippine law.
- On January 9, 2002, Ting Guan entered into a contract with Tung Ho to supply heavy metal scrap iron and steel.
- Tung Ho initiated arbitration proceedings with the ICC International Court of Arbitration in Singapore after Ting Guan failed to fulfill its delivery obligations.
- The ICC ruled in favor of Tung Ho on June 18, 2004, ordering Ting Guan to pay various damages and costs totaling over US$ 659,000, among other amounts.
- Tung Ho subsequently filed a petition for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati.
Proceedings before the RTC
- Ting Guan filed motions to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Tung Ho lacked capacity to sue and that the case was prematurely filed.
- Ting Guan also contended that the case should have been filed in Cebu, where its principal place of business is located.
- The RTC denied the motion to dismiss on May 11, 2005, ruling that Ting Guan h