Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs CA

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
arbitrator’s 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.
Asiavest Limited v. CA Digest

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.

1. Asiavest cannot now claim that Heras was a resident of Hong Kong at the time since the stipulated fact
that Heras "is a resident of New Manila, Quezon City, Philippines" refers to his residence at the time
jurisdiction over his person was being sought by the Hong Kong court. Accordingly, since Heras was not
a resident of Hong Kong and the action against him was, ne in personam, summons should have been
personally served on him in Hong Kong.

The extraterritorial service in the Philippines was therefore invalid and did not confer on the Hong Kong
court jurisdiction over his person. It follows that the Hong Kong court judgment cannot be given force and
effect here in the Philippines for having been rendered without jurisdiction.

2. On the same note, Heras was also an absentee,hence, he should have been served with summons in
the same manner as a non-resident not found in Hong Kong. Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court
providing for extraterritorial service will not apply because the suit against him was in personam. Neither
can we apply Section 18, which allows extraterritorial service on a resident defendant who is temporarily
absent from the country, because even if Heras be considered as a resident of Hong Kong, the
undisputed fact remains that he left Hong Kong not only temporarily but for good.