Asiavest Merchant Bankers vs Court of Appeals

Facts:

Petitioner, a corporation organized under the laws of Malaysia, obtained a favorable

money judgment for its collection suit from the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur
against private respondent Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC), a
domestic corporation. For its failure to secure payment from PNCC under the judgment,
petitioner subsequently filed a complaint before the RTC of Pasig to enforce the judgment
of the High Court of Malaya. PNCC opposed the complaint, contending that the alleged
judgment of the High Court of Malaya should be denied recognition or enforcement since
on its face, it is tainted with want of jurisdiction, want of notice to PNCC, collusion and/or
fraud, and there is a clear mistake of law or fact. RTC dismissed petitioner's complaint.
CA affirmed RTC decision Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the judgment of the High Court of Malaya should be enforced against
PNCC in the Philippines

Held:

Yes. Foreign judgment as a general rule must be proved. Once the authenticity of the
foreign judgment is proved, the party attacking a foreign judgment, is tasked with the
burden of overcoming its presumptive validity. The judgment may be assailed by evidence
of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law
or fact. Otherwise, the judgment enjoys the presumption of validity so long as it was duly
certified and authenticated. In the case at bar, petitioner sufficiently established the
existence of the money judgment of the High Court of Malaya by the evidence it offered,
i.e. it presented the certified and authenticated copies of the judgment and the order
issued by the Malaysian Court. On the other hand, PNCC failed to present the required
evidence.

The reasons or grounds relied upon by PNCC in preventing enforcement and recognition
of the Malaysian judgment primarily refer to matters of remedy and procedure taken by
the Malaysian High Court relative to the suit for collection initiated by petitioner. Needless
to stress, the recognition to be accorded a foreign judgment is not necessarily affected by
the fact that the procedure in the courts of the country in which such judgment was
rendered differs from that of the courts of the country in which the judgment is relied on.
Ultimately, matters of remedy are governed by the lex fori or the internal law of the forum,
i.e., the law of Malaysia in this case.