Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
CA Digest
Asiavest Limited vs Court of Appeals
295 SCRA 469 Conflict of Laws Private International
Law Service of Summons to a Non Resident Processual
Presumption
In 1984, a Hong Kong court ordered Antonio Heras to pay
US$1.8 million or its equivalent, with interest, to Asiavest
Ltd. Apparently, Heras guaranteed a certain loan in Hong
Kong and the debtor in said loan defaulted hence, the
creditor, Asiavest, ran after Heras. But before said judgment
was issued and even during trial, Heras already left for
good Hong Kong and he returned to the Philippines. So
when in 1987, when Asiavest filed a complaint in court
seeking to enforce the foreign judgment against Heras, the
latter claim that he never received any summons, not
in Hong Kong and not in the Philippines. He also claimed
that he never received a copy of the foreign judgment.
Asiavest however contends that Heras was actually given
service of summons when a messenger from the Sycip
Salazar Law Firm served said summons by leaving a copy to
one Dionisio Lopez who was Heras son in law.
ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign judgment can be
enforced against Heras in the Philippines.
Facts:
1. The plaintiff Asiavest Limited filed a complaint
against the defendant Antonio Heras praying that
said defendant be ordered to pay to the plaintiff the
amounts awarded by the Hong Kong Court
Judgment. The action filed in Hong Kong against
Heras was in personam, since it was based on his
personal guarantee of the obligation of the principal
debtor.
2. The trial court concluded that the Hong Kong court
judgment should be recognized and given effect in
this jurisdiction for failure of HERAS to overcome the
legal presumption in favor of the foreign judgment.
3. Asiavest moved for the reconsideration of the
decision. It sought an award of judicial costs and an
increase in attorney's fees with interest until full
payment of the said obligations. On the other hand,
Heras no longer opposed the motion and instead
appealed the decision to CA.
4. The Court of Appeals (CA) agreed with Heras that
notice sent outside the state to a non-resident is
unavailing to give jurisdiction in an action against
him personally for money recovery. Summons should
have been personally served on Heras in Hong Kong,
Issue: Whether or not the judgment of the
Hong Kong Court has been repelled by
evidence of want of jurisdiction due to
improper notice to the party
YES.
HELD: No.
Although
the
foreign
judgment
was
duly
because
Heras
was
not
properly
served
personal
service
of
summons,
the Hong
and
detained
in
Indonesia.
Later,
law
should
be
the
law
of
Saudi
Arabia.
or
not
Saudia Airlines
contention
is
correct.
HELD: No. Firstly, the RTC has acquired jurisdiction over
Saudia Airlines when the latter filed a motion to dismiss
with petition for other reliefs. The asking for other reliefs
effectively asked the court to make a determination of
Saudia Airliness rights hence a submission to the courts
jurisdiction.
Secondly, the RTC has acquired jurisdiction over the case
because as alleged in the complaint of Morada, she is
bringing the suit for damages under the provisions of our
Civil Law and not of the Arabian Law. Morada then has the
297
SCRA
4691998FACTS:Herein
private
respondent Milagros P. Morada is a flight attendant
for petitioner SAUDIA airlines, where the former was
tried to be raped by Thamer and Allah AlGazzawi,
both Sauidi nationals and fellow crew member, after
a night of dancing in their hotel while in Jakarta,
Indonesia. She was rescued. After twoweeks of
detention the accused were both deported to Saudi
and they werereinstated by Saudia. She was
pressured by police officers to make a statementand
to drop the case against the accused; in return she
will then be allowed toreturn to Manila and retrieved
her passport. For the second time, she was askedby
her superiors to again appear before the Saudi court.
Without her knowledge, she was already tried by
Saudi court together with the accused andwas
sentenced to five months imprisonment and to 286
lashes in connection withJakarta rape incident. The
court found her guilty of (1) adultery; (2) going to
adisco, dancing and listening to the music in
violation of Islamic laws; and (3)socializing with the
male
crew,
in
contravention
of
Islamic
tradition.ISSUE/S:WHETHER OR NOT the QC Regional
Trial Court has jurisdiction tohear and try the civil
case based on Article 21 of the New Civil Code or
theKingdom of Saudi Arabia court though there is
the existence of foreign element.RULING:The forms
in which a foreign element may appear are many,
such as the fact thatone party is a resident Philippine
national, and that the other is a resident
foreigncorporation. The forms in which this foreign
element may appear are many. Theforeign element
may simply consist in the fact that one of the parties
to a contractis an alien or has a foreign domicile, or
that a contract between nationals of oneState
involves properties situated in another State. In
other cases, the foreignelement may assume a
complex form. In the instant case, the foreign
elementconsisted in the fact that private respondent
Morada is a resident Philippinenational, and that
petitioner SAUDIA is a resident foreign corporation.
Also, byvirtue of the employment of Morada with the
petitioner SAUDIA as a flightstewardess, events did
transpire during her many occasions of travel
acrossnational borders, particularly from Manila,
Philippines to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia,and vice versa,
that caused a conflicts situation to arise.The forms
in which a foreign element may appear are many,
such as the fact thatone party is a resident Philippine
national, and that the other is a resident
foreigncorporation. The forms in which this foreign
element may appear are many. Theforeign element
may simply consist in the fact that one of the parties
to a contractis an alien or has a foreign domicile, or
that a contract between nationals of one
ran
aground
causing
losses
to
Urbino.
Urbino
Banco Do Brasil.
HELD: No. Banco Do Brasil is correct. Although the suit is
originally in rem as it was BDBs claim on the sunken ship
which was used as the basis for it being impleaded, the
action nevertheless became an in personam one when
Urbino asked for damages in the said amount. As such, only
a personal service of summons would have vested the court
jurisdiction over BDB. Where the action is in personam, one
brought against a person on the basis of his personal
liability, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case.
When the defendant is a non-resident, personal service of
summons within the state is essential to the acquisition of
jurisdiction over the person. This cannot be done, however,
if the defendant is not physically present in the country, and
thus, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person
and therefore cannot validly try and decide the case against
him.
technical
with Minoru Kitamura for the latter to head the said project.
and
management
support
in
the
project.
Hasegawa,
But
in
February
2000,
Kazuhiro
court's decision.
HELD: YES
be dismissed.
HELD: No. The trial court did the proper thing in taking
cognizance of it.
Jurisdiction Where
should
litigation
be
Choice
of
Law
Which
law
will
the
court
This case is not yet in the second phase because upon the
RTCs taking cognizance of the case, Hasegawa immediately
filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied. He filed a
motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. Then he
bypassed the proper procedure by immediately filing a
against
Cynthia
and
Teresa
because
Victoria
failed
to
prosecute
her
case
for
an
respondents,
summons
must
be
served
upon
Personal Service;
2.
3.
2.
3.
in
November
1988.
The
employment
contract
the Philippine
Overseas
Employment
2.
3.
4.
Santos
contract
was
entered
into
without