Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL v. BINALBAGAN-ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY Topic: Foreign Judgment Ponente: J.

Dizon Date: 28 May 1970 DOCTRINE: Under the provisions of Section 50 of Rule 39, Rules of Court, a judgment for a sum of money rendered by a foreign court is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title. But when suit for its enforcement is brought in a Philippine court, said judgment may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. QUICK FACTS: Soorajmull Nagarmull (seller) entered into a contract with Binalbagan-Isabela Sugar Company (buyer). The seller was to ship Hessian bags from India to the Philippines for the benefit of the buyer. However, Nagarmull incurred delay in the shipment of goods. After the supposed date of delivery, the Indian government imposed higher export taxes on jute products, affecting Nagarmulls shipment. Nagarmull then demanded from Binalbagan-Isabela a higher price for the goods, which demand was refused. The Indian courts ruled in favor of Nagarmull. The Philippine Supreme Court found a clear mistake of law and denied enforcement of the judgment in the country. FACTS: In May 1949, Soorajmull Nagarmull, a foreign corporation based in Calcutta, agreed to sell to Binalbagan-Isabela Sugar Company, a domestic corporation, Hessian bags, shipment of which was to be made in equal installments of 425 bales per month for July, August, September, and October 1949. However, Nagarmull was unable to deliver the complete amount of goods, resulting in a balance of 154 bales for July, August, and September. Binalbagan-Isabela then sent a letter dated 29 September asking for the shipment of the shortage. On 01 October 1949, the Indian Government increased the export duty of jute bags from 80 to 350 rupees per ton, prompting Nagarmull to ask Binalbagan-Isabela to increase its letter of credit to cover the goods that were due and will be shipped that same month. Binalbagan agreed. Subsequently, Nagarmull asked Binalbagan-Isabela to further increase its letter of credit to cover the 154 bales from July, August, and September, which it will also be shipping. This time, Binalbagan-Isabela refused. In February 1951, Nagarmull put forth its claim against Binalbagan-Isabela with the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, Tribunal for Arbitration in Calcutta. There, Binalbagan-Isabela, represented by the Philippine Consulate General, contended that if the goods had been delivered by Nagarmull on time pursuant to the terms of the contract, there would have been no increased export taxes to pay because said increased taxes became effective only in October 1949. The Bengal Chamber of Commerce ruled in favor of Nagarmull and ordered Binalbagan-Isabela to pay the sum of 18,562 rupees and 8 annas. The Calcutta High Court affirmed the award.

Nagarmull sought to enforce its claim by filing an action with the Court of First Instance of Manila, which ruled in its favor. The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals, which forwarded the same to the Supreme Court as it involved only questions of law. ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, Tribunal of Arbitration , as affirmed by the Calcutta High Court, is enforceable in the Philippines. HELD: No, it is not enforceable. RATIO: It is true that under the provisions of Section 50 of Rule 39, Rules of Court, a judgment for a sum of money rendered by a foreign court "is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title", but when suit for its enforcement is brought in a Philippine court, said judgment "may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact". There is no question at all that Nagarmull was guilty of a breach of contract when it failed to deliver 154 Hessian bales which, according to the contract entered into with Binalbagan-Isabela, should have been delivered to the latter in the months of July, August and September. Had these 154 bales been delivered in accordance with the contract, the increase in the export taxes due upon them would not have been imposed because said increased export tax became effective only on 01 October 1949. To avoid its liability for the aforesaid increase in the export tax, Nagarmull claims that Binalbagan-Isabela should be held liable on the strength of its letter of 29 September 1949 asking Nagarmull to ship the shortage. This argument is unavailing. When Binalbagan-Isabela demanded that Nagarmull deliver the shortage of 154 bales, it did nothing more than to demand that to which it was entitled as a matter of right.