G.R. No.

114323
July 23,1998
Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs CA
Basis of Judgement
Facts:
Petitioner is a foreign corporation owned and controlled by the
government of Indi. While the respondent is a private corporation duly
organized and existing under Philippine law.
Both parties entered into a contract obligating Pacific Company to
supply Oil and Natural Gas with $,300 metric tons of oil well cement.
Pacific failed to deliver the cargo to Oil and Natural Gas Commission
after he received payment and several demands
Oil and Natural Gas won in the Arbitral case him US $899,603.77
Pacific refuse to pay the amount adjudged by the foreign court
Oil and Natural Gas then filed a complaint with the RTC of Surigao City.
The private respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the
following grounds:
o plaintiffs lack of legal capacity to sue;
o lack of cause of action; and
o plaintiffs claim or demand has been waived, abandoned, or
otherwise extinguished.
RTC ruled in favor of Pacific for jurisdiction over the case
CA affirmed the RTC/s decision saying that the foreign court could not
validly adopt the arbitrators award
Issue:
Whether or not the arbitrator has jurisdiction over the dispute between the
petitioner and the private respondent under Clause 16 under the contract.
Held:
No
Ratio:
The constitutional mandate that no decision shall be rendered by any court
without expressing therein dearly and distinctly the facts and the law on
which it is based does not preclude the validity of "memorandum decisions"
which adopt by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law
contained in the decisions of inferior tribunals.
In Francisco v. Permskul, this Court held that the following memorandum
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati did not transgress the
requirements of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution.