3B 2019-2020
Doctrines for Conflicts
L. FOREIGN JUDGMENTS
1. PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING
CORPORATION V. CA
 The default judgment rendered by the US
District court is valid, and the same,
having become final and executory, is
thus presumptive evidence of a right as
between the parties and their successors-
in-interest. We note, further, that there
has been in this case no showing by
petitioners that the Default Judgment
rendered by the U.S. District Court in 83
Civil 290 (EW), was vitiated by “want of
notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or
clear mistake of law or fact.”
 Since the liability of PISC has been duly
established in the US case, it was not
improper to implead the other petitioners
herein as defendants in the action to
enforce said foreign judgment in
Philippine courts, even if they were not
impleaded in the US case.
2. OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION V.
CA
 The Court has held that matters of
remedy and procedure are governed by
the lex fori or the internal law of the
forum.—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. This Court has held
that matters of remedy and procedure are
governed by the lex fori or the internal
Page 1 of 11
law of the forum. Thus, if under the
procedural rules of the Civil Court of
Dehra Dun, India, a valid judgment may
be rendered by adopting the arbitrator’s
findings, then the same must be accorded
respect. In the same vein, if the procedure
in the foreign court mandates that an
Order of the Court becomes final and
executory upon failure to pay the
necessary docket fees, then the courts in
this jurisdiction cannot invalidate the
order of the foreign court simply because
our rules provide otherwise.
3. PACIFIC ASIA OVERSEAS
SHIPPING CORPORATION V. NLRC
 The POEA has no jurisdiction to hear and
decide a claim for enforcement of a
foreign judgment. Such a claim must be
brought before the regular courts. The
POEA is not a court; it is an
administrative agency exercising, inter
alia,adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
functions. Neither the rules of procedure
nor the rules of evidence which are
mandatorily applicable in proceedings
before courts, are observed in
proceedings before the POEA.
 Even assuming (arguendo, merely) that
the POEA has jurisdiction to recognize
and enforce a foreign judgment, still
respondent Rances cannot rely upon the
Dubai decision. The Dubai decision was
not properly proved before the POEA.
The Dubai decision purports to be the
written act or record of an act of an
official body or tribunal of a foreign
country, and therefore a public writing
under Section 20 (a) of Rule 132 of the
Revised Rules of Court Sections 25 and
26 of Rule 132 prescribe the manner of
proving a public or official record of a

foreign country in the following terms:
“Sec. 25. Proof of public of official
record.—An official record or an entry
therein, when admissible for any
purpose, may be evidenced by an official
publication thereof or by a copy attested
by the officer having the legal custody of
the record, or by his deputy, and
accompanied, if the record is not kept in
the Philippines, with a certificate that
such officer has the custody. If the office
in which the record is kept is in a foreign
country, the certificate may be made by a
secretary of embassy or legation, consul
general, consul, vice consul, or consular
agent or by any officer in the foreign
service of the Philippines stationed in the
foreign country in which the record is
kept, and authenticated by the seal of his
office. Sec. 26. What attestation of copy
must state.—Whenever a copy of a
writing is attested for the purpose of
evidence, the attestation must state, in
substance, that the copy is a correct copy
of the original, or a specific part thereof,
as the case may be. The attestation must
be under the official seal of the attesting
officer, if there be any, or if he be the
clerk of a court having a seal, under the
seal of such court.”
 The English translation of the Dubai
decision is legally defective since it does
not purport to have been made by an
official court interpreter of the Phil
Government nor of the Dubai
Government
4. FAUNTLEROY V. LUM
 A state court must enforce the judgment
of another state court that had proper
jurisdiction over the case, even if the
court that ruled on the case incorrectly
Page 2 of 11
3B 2019-2020
Doctrines for Conflicts
applied the law of the state of the court
that must enforce it.
5. MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. M.E.
WHITE CO.
 There is nothing in the Constitution and
laws of the United States which requires
a court of a State to deny relief upon a
judgment recovered in another State
because it is for taxes.
 Where suits to enforce the
laws of one State are entertained in the
courts of another on the principle of
comity, the federal District Courts sitting
in that State may and should entertain
them if to do so will not infringe federal
law or policy
 Assuming that the courts of one State,
and federal court therein, are not required
by the Constitution, Art. IV, § 1, and the
Act of Congress passed thereunder, to
entertain suits to recover taxes levied
under the statutes of another State, they
cannot deny full faith and credit to
judgments recovered in the other State for
such taxes.
6. D.H. OVERMYER CO. V. FRICK
CO.
 "A cognovit note is not an ordinary note.
It is indeed an extraordinary note which
authorizes an attorney to confess
judgment against the person or persons
signing it. It is written authority of a
debtor and a direction by him for the entry
of a judgment against him if the
obligation set forth in the note is not paid

when due. Such a judgment may be taken
by any person or any company holding
the note, and it cuts off every defense
which the
7. PHILIPPINE ALUMINUM
WHEELS, INC. V. FASGI ENTERPRISES,
INC.
 The rules of comity, utility and
convenience of nations have established
a usage among civilized states by which
final judgments of foreign courts of
competent jurisdiction are reciprocally
respected and rendered efficacious.—
Generally, in the absence of a special
compact, no sovereign is bound to give
effect within its dominion to a judgment
rendered by a tribunal of another country;
however, the rules of comity, utility and
convenience of nations have established a
usage among civilized states by which
final judgments of foreign courts of
competent jurisdiction are reciprocally
respected and rendered efficacious under
certain conditions that may vary in
different countries. In this jurisdiction, a
valid judgment rendered by a foreign
tribunal may be recognized insofar as the
immediate parties and the underlying
cause of action are concerned so long as
it is convincingly shown that there has
been an opportunity for a full and fair
hearing before a court of competent
jurisdiction; that trial upon regular
proceedings has been conducted,
following due citation or voluntary
appearance of the defendant and under a
system of jurisprudence likely to secure
an impartial administration of justice; and
that there is nothing to indicate either a
prejudice in court and in the system of
laws under which it is sitting or fraud in
procuring the judgment. A foreign
Page 3 of 11
3B 2019-2020
Doctrines for Conflicts
judgment is presumed to be valid and
binding in the country from which it
comes, until a contrary showing, on the
basis of a presumption of regularity of
proceedings and the giving of due notice
in the foreign forum.
 There is a principle of international
comity that a court of another jurisdiction
should refrain, as a matter of propriety
and fairness, from so assuming the power
of passing judgment on the correctness of
the application of law and the evaluation
of the facts of the judgment issued by
another tribunal.
 Fraud, to hinder the enforcement within
this jurisdiction of a foreign judgment,
must be extrinsic.—Fraud, to hinder the
enforcement within this jurisdiction of a
foreign judgment, must be extrinsic, i.e.,
fraud based on facts not controverted or
resolved in the case where judgment is
rendered, or that which would go to the
jurisdiction of the court or would deprive
the party against whom judgment is
rendered a chance to defend the action to
which he has a meritorious case or
defense. In fine, intrinsic fraud, that is,
fraud which goes to the very existence of
the cause of action—such as fraud in
obtaining the consent to a contract—is
deemed already adjudged, and it,
therefore, cannot militate against the
recognition or enforcement of the foreign
judgment.
8. ASIAVEST MERCHANT
BANKERS (M) BERHAD V. CA
 Generally, in the absence of a special
compact, no sovereign is bound to give
effect within its dominion to a judgment

rendered by a tribunal of another
country; however, the rules of comity,
utility and convenience of nations have
established a usage among civilized states
by which final judgments of foreign
courts of competent jurisdiction are
reciprocally respected and rendered
efficacious under certain conditions that
may vary in different countries.
 A foreign judgment is presumed to be
valid and binding in the country from
which it comes, until a contrary showing,
on the basis of a presumption of
regularity of proceedings and the giving
of due notice in the foreign forum. Under
Section 50(b), Rule 39 of the Revised
Rules of Court, which was the governing
law at the time the instant case was
decided by the trial court and respondent
appellate court, a judgment, against a
person, of a tribunal of a foreign country
having jurisdiction to pronounce the same
is presumptive evidence of a right as
between the parties and their successors
in interest by a subsequent title. The
judgment may, however, be assailed by
evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of
notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or
clear mistake of law or fact. In addition,
under Section 3(n), Rule 131 of the
Revised Rules of Court, a court, whether
in the Philippines or elsewhere, enjoys
the presumption that it was acting in the
lawful exercise of its jurisdiction. Hence,
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 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
Page 4 of 11
3B 2019-2020
Doctrines for Conflicts
differs from that of the courts of the
country in which the judgment is relied
on—matters of remedy and procedure
such as those relating to the service of
summons or court process upon the
defendant, the authority of counsel to
appear and represent a defendant and the
formal requirements in a decision are
governed by the lex fori or the internal
law of the forum.
 Foreign procedural laws are a question
of fact, not of law, and may not be taken
judicial notice of—they must be pleaded
and proved like any other fact.
 Even when the foreign judgment is based
on the drafts prepared by counsel for the
successful party, such is not per se
indicative of collusion or fraud; Fraud to
hinder the enforcement within the
jurisdiction of a foreign judgment must be
extrinsic.
 Where under the procedural rules of
another state a valid judgment may be
rendered even without stating in the
judgment every fact and law upon which
the judgment is based, then the same must
be accorded respect and the courts in this
jurisdiction cannot invalidate the
judgment of the foreign court simply
because our rules provide otherwise.
 It is not for the party seeking the
enforcement of a foreign judgment to
prove the validity of the same but for the
opposing party to demonstrate the
alleged invalidity of such foreign
judgment, otherwise a contrary rule
would render meaningless the
presumption of validity accorded a
foreign judgment.

9. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS SECURITIES CORPORATION
V. EDGARDO V. GUEVARA
 An action for the enforcement of a foreign
judgment or final order in this
jurisdiction is governed by Rule 39,
Section 48 of the Rules of Court.—It is an
established international legal principle
that final judgments of foreign courts of
competent jurisdiction are reciprocally
respected and rendered efficacious
subject to certain conditions that vary in
different countries. In the Philippines, a
judgment or final order of a foreign
tribunal cannot be enforced simply by
execution. Such judgment or order
merely creates a right of action, and its
non-satisfaction is the cause of action by
which a suit can be brought upon for its
enforcement. An action for the
enforcement of a foreign judgment or
final order in this jurisdiction is governed
by Rule 39, Section 48 of the Rules of
Court, which provides: SEC. 48. Effect of
foreign judgments or final orders.—The
effect of a judgment or final order of a
tribunal of a foreign country, having
jurisdiction to render the judgment or
final order is as follows: (a) In case of a
judgment or final order upon a specific
thing, the judgment or final order is
conclusive upon the title to the thing; and
(b) In case of a judgment or final order
against a person, the judgment or final
order is presumptive evidence of a right
as between the parties and their
successors-in-interest by a subsequent
title. In either case, the judgment or final
order 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.
Page 5 of 11
3B 2019-2020
Doctrines for Conflicts
 A Philippine court will not substitute its
own interpretation of any provision of the
law or rules of procedure of another
country, nor review and pronounce its
own judgment on the sufficiency of
evidence presented before a competent
court of another jurisdiction.
10. IN RE: SUSPENSION FROM THE
PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE TERRITORY
OF GUAM OF ATTY. LEON G.
MAQUERA
 The disbarment or suspension of a
member of the Philippine Bar by a
competent court or other disciplinary
agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he
has also been admitted as an attorney is
a ground for his disbarment or
suspension if the basis of such action
includes any of the acts provided for in
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules
of Court, as amended.
 The foreign court’s judgment ordering
the suspension of a lawyer from the
practice of law in that jurisdiction does
not automatically result in his suspension
or disbarment in the Philippines—the
judgment only constitutes prima facie
evidence of the lawyer’s unethical acts as
a lawyer and that due process demands
that he be given the opportunity to defend
himself and to present testimonial and
documentary evidence on the matter in an
investigation to be conducted in
accordance with Rule 139-B of the
Revised Rules of Court.
11. VELEZ V. DE VERA
 Where there is technically no foreign
judgment to speak of, the

recommendation by the hearing officer of
the State Bar of another jurisdiction does
not constitute prima facie evidence of
unethical behavior by a Philippine
lawyer practicing in said jurisdiction.—
In Philippine Aluminum Wheels, Inc. v.
Fasgi Enterprises, Inc., 342 SCRA 722
(2000), we explained that “[a] foreign
judgment is presumed to be valid and
binding in the country from which it
comes, until a contrary showing, on the
basis of a presumption of regularity of
proceedings and the giving of due notice
in the foreign forum.”In herein case,
considering that there is technically no
foreign judgment to speak of, the
recommendation by the hearing officer of
the State Bar of California does not
constitute prima facie evidence of
unethical behavior by Atty. de Vera.
Complainant must prove by substantial
evidence the facts upon which the
recommendation by the hearing officer
was based. If he is successful in this, he
must then prove that these acts are
likewise unethical under Philippine law.
12. MIJARES V. RANADA
 There is an evident distinction between a
foreign judgment in an action in rem and
one in personam; It is essential that there
should be an opportunity to challenge the
foreign judgment, in order for the court
in this jurisdiction to properly determine
its efficacy.—There is an evident
distinction between a foreign judgment in
an action in rem and one in personam.
For an action in rem, the foreign
judgment is deemed conclusive upon the
title to the thing, while in an action in
personam, the foreign judgment is
presumptive, and not conclusive, of a
right as between the parties and their
successors in interest by a subsequent
Page 6 of 11
3B 2019-2020
Doctrines for Conflicts
title. However, in both cases, the foreign
judgment is susceptible to impeachment
in our local courts on the grounds of want
of jurisdiction or notice to the party,
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law
or fact. Thus, the party aggrieved by the
foreign judgment is entitled to defend
against the enforcement of such decision
in the local forum. It is essential that there
should be an opportunity to challenge the
foreign judgment, in order for the court in
this jurisdiction to properly determine its
efficacy.
 It is clear then that it is usually necessary
for an action to be filed in order to
enforce a foreign judgment, even if such
judgment has conclusive effect as in the
case of in rem actions, if only for the
purpose of allowing the losing party an
opportunity to challenge the foreign
judgment, and in order for the court to
properly determine its efficacy.
Consequently, the party attacking a
foreign judgment has the burden of
overcoming the presumption of its
validity.
 The actionable issues are generally
restricted to a review of jurisdiction of the
foreign court, the service of personal
notice, collusion, fraud, or mistake of fact
or law.
 The viability of the public policy defense
against the enforcement of a foreign
judgment has been recognized in this
jurisdiction.
 There is no obligatory rule derived from
treaties or conventions that requires the
Philippines to recognize foreign
judgments, or allow a procedure for the
enforcement thereof. However, generally
accepted principles of international law,
by virtue of the incorporation clause of

the Constitution, form part of the laws of
the land even if they do not derive from
treaty obligations. The classical
formulation in international law sees
those customary rules accepted as
binding result from the combination two
elements: the established, widespread,
and consistent practice on the part of
States; and a psychological element
known as the opinion juris sive
necessitates (opinion as to law or
necessity). Implicit in the latter element is
a belief that the practice in question is
rendered obligatory by the existence of a
rule of law requiring it.
 While the definite conceptual parameters
of the recognition and enforcement of
foreign judgments have not been
authoritatively established, the Court can
assert with certainty that such an
undertaking is among those generally
accepted principles of international law.
13. FUJIKI V. MARINAY
 For Philippine courts to recognize a
foreign judgment relating to the status of
a marriage where one of the parties is a
citizen of a foreign country, the petitioner
only needs to prove the foreign judgment
as a fact under the Rules of Court.—For
Philippine courts to recognize a foreign
judgment relating to the status of a
marriage where one of the parties is a
citizen of a foreign country, the petitioner
only needs to prove the foreign judgment
as a fact under the Rules of Court. To be
more specific, a copy of the foreign
judgment may be admitted in evidence
and proven as a fact under Rule 132,
Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39,
Section 48(b) of the Rules of Court.
Petitioner may prove the Japanese Family
Court judgment through (1) an official
Page 7 of 11
3B 2019-2020
Doctrines for Conflicts
publication or (2) a certification or copy
attested by the officer who has custody of
the judgment. If the office which has
custody is in a foreign country such as
Japan, the certification may be made by
the proper diplomatic or consular officer
of the Philippine foreign service in Japan
and authenticated by the seal of office.
 A foreign judgment relating to
the status of a marriage affects the civil
status, condition and legal capacity of its
parties. However, the effect of a foreign
judgment is not automatic. To extend the
effect of a foreign judgment in the
Philippines, Philippine courts must
determine if the foreign judgment is
consistent with domestic public policy
and other mandatory laws.
 A petition to recognize a foreign
judgment declaring a marriage void does
not require relitigation under a
Philippine court of the case as if it were a
new petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage. Philippine courts cannot
presume to know the foreign laws under
which the foreign judgment was
rendered. They cannot substitute their
judgment on the status, condition and
legal capacity of the foreign citizen who
is under the jurisdiction of another state.
Thus, Philippine courts can only
recognize the foreign judgment as a
fact according to the rules of evidence.
 Once a foreign judgment is admitted
and proven in a Philippine court, it can
only be repelled on grounds external to
its merits, i.e., “want of jurisdiction, want
of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or
clear mistake of law or fact.”
 While the Philippines does not
have a divorce law, Philippine courts
may, however, recognize a foreign

divorce decree under the second
paragraph of Article 26 of the Family
Code, to capacitate a Filipino citizen to
remarry when his or her foreign spouse
obtained a divorce decree abroad.
 Since the recognition of a foreign
judgment only requires proof of fact of
the judgment, it may be made in a special
proceeding for cancellation or correction
of entries in the civil registry under Rule
108 of the Rules of Court. Rule 1, Section
3 of the Rules of Court provides that “[a]
special proceeding is a remedy by which
a party seeks to establish a status, a right,
or a particular fact.”
 Article 26 of the Family Code confers
jurisdiction on Philippine courts to
extend the effect of a foreign divorce
decree to a Filipino spouse without
undergoing trial to determine the validity
of the dissolution of the marriage.
 The principle in Article 26 of the Family
Code applies in a marriage between a
Filipino and a foreign citizen who obtains
a foreign judgment nullifying the
marriage on the ground of bigamy; If the
foreign judgment is not recognized in the
Philippines, the Filipino spouse will be
discriminated — the foreign spouse can
remarry while the Filipino spouse cannot
remarry.
 Philippine courts will only determine
(1) whether the foreign judgment is
inconsistent with an overriding public
policy in the Philippines; and (2) whether
any alleging party is able to prove an
extrinsic ground to repel the foreign
judgment, i.e. want of jurisdiction, want
of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or
clear mistake of law or fact.
Page 8 of 11
3B 2019-2020
Doctrines for Conflicts
 The recognition of a foreign judgment
nullifying a bigamous marriage is not a
ground for extinction of criminal liability
under Articles 89 and 94 of the Revised
Penal Code.
14. KOREA TECHNOLOGIES,
CO., LTD. V. LERMA
 While it is established in this jurisdiction
is the rule that the law of the place where
the contract is made governs—lex loci
contractus—Art. 2044 of the Civil Code
sanctions the validity of mutually agreed
arbitral clause or the finality and binding
effect of an arbitral award.
 For domestic arbitration proceedings, we
have particular agencies to arbitrate
disputes arising from contractual
relations. In case a foreign arbitral body
is chosen by the parties, the arbitration
rules of our domestic arbitration bodies
would not be applied. As signatory to the
Arbitration Rules of the UNCITRAL
Model Law on International Commercial
Arbitration of the United Nations
Commission on International Trade Law
(UNCITRAL) in the New York
Convention on June 21, 1985, the
Philippines committed itself to be bound
by the Model Law. We have even
incorporated the Model Law in Republic
Act No. (RA) 9285, otherwise known as
the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of
2004 entitled An Act to Institutionalize
the Use of an Alternative Dispute
Resolution System in the Philippines and
to Establish the Office for Alternative
Dispute Resolution, and for Other
Purposes, promulgated on April 2, 2004.
Secs. 19 and 20 of Chapter 4 of the Model
Law are the pertinent provisions.

 Even if foreign arbitral awards are
mutually stipulated by the parties in the
arbitration clause to be final and binding,
the same are not immediately enforceable
or cannot be implemented immediately—
they must still be confirmed by the
Regional Trial Court.
 It is now clear that foreign arbitral
awards when confirmed by the Regional
Trial Court are deemed not as a judgment
of a foreign court but as a foreign arbitral
award, and when confirmed, are enforced
as final and executory decisions of our
courts of law—the concept of a final and
binding arbitral award is similar to
judgments or awards given by some
quasi-judicial bodies, like the National
Labor Relations Commission and the
Mines Adjudication Board.
 While the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
does not have jurisdiction over disputes
governed by arbitration mutually agreed
upon by the parties, still the foreign
arbitral award is subject to judicial
review by the RTC which can set aside,
reject, or vacate it.
 Grounds for judicial review different in
domestic and foreign arbitral awards—
for foreign or international arbitral
awards, the grounds for setting aside,
rejecting or vacating the award by the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) are provided
under Art. 34(2) of the United Nations
Commission on International Trade Law
(UNCITRAL) Model Law, while for final
domestic arbitral awards, they may only
be assailed before the RTC and vacated
on the grounds provided under Sec. 25 of
RA 876.
 An arbitration clause, stipulating that the
arbitral award is final and binding, does
not oust our courts of jurisdiction as the
Page 9 of 11
3B 2019-2020
Doctrines for Conflicts
international arbitral award is still
judicially reviewable under certain
conditions provided for by the United
Nations Commission on International
Trade Law (UN-CITRAL) Model Law on
International Commercial Arbitration
(ICA) as applied and incorporated in RA
9285.
15. TUNA PROCESSING, INC. V.
PHILIPPINE KINGFORD, INC.
 The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of
2004 complies with international
obligations under the New York
Convention and the Model Law.
 Sec. 45 of the Alternative Dispute
Resolution Act of 2004 provides that the
opposing party in an application for
recognition and enforcement of the
arbitral award may raise only those
grounds that were enumerated under
Article V of the New York Convention, to
wit: Article V 1. Recognition and
enforcement of the award may be refused,
at the request of the party against whom
it is invoked, only if that party furnishes
to the competent authority where the
recognition and enforcement is sought,
proof that: (a) The parties to the
agreement referred to in article II were,
under the law applicable to them, under
some incapacity, or the said agreement is
not valid under the law to which the
parties have subjected it or, failing any
indication thereon, under the law of the
country where the award was made; or (b)
The party against whom the award is
invoked was not given proper notice of
the appointment of the arbitrator or of the
arbitration proceedings or was otherwise
unable to present his case; or (c) The
award deals with a difference not
contemplated by or not falling within the

terms of the submission to arbitration, or
it contains decisions on matters beyond
the scope of the submission to arbitration,
provided that, if the decisions on matters
submitted to arbitration can be separated
from those not so submitted, that part of
the award which contains decisions on
matters submitted to arbitration may be
recognized and enforced; or (d) The
composition of the arbitral authority or
the arbitral procedure was not in
accordance with the agreement of the
parties, or, failing such agreement, was
not in accordance with the law of the
country where the arbitration took place;
or (e) The award has not yet become
binding on the parties, or has been set
aside or suspended by a competent
authority of the country in which, or
under the law of which, that award was
made. 2. Recognition and enforcement of
an arbitral award may also be refused if
the competent authority in the country
where recognition and enforcement is
sought finds that: (a) The subject matter
of the difference is not capable of
settlement by arbitration under the law of
that country; or (b) The recognition or
enforcement of the award would be
contrary to the public policy of that
country. Clearly, not one of these
exclusive grounds touched on the
capacity to sue of the party seeking the
recognition and enforcement of the
award. Pertinent provisions of the Special
Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute
Resolution, which was promulgated by
the Supreme Court, likewise support this
position. Rule 13.1 of the Special Rules
provides that “[a]ny party to a foreign
arbitration may petition the court to
recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral
award.” The contents of such petition are
enumerated in Rule 13.5. Capacity to sue
is not included. Oppositely, in the Rule on
local arbitral awards or arbitrations in
Page 10 of 11
3B 2019-2020
Doctrines for Conflicts
instances where “the place of arbitration
is in the Philippines,” it is specifically
required that a petition “to determine any
question concerning the existence,
validity and enforceability of such
arbitration agreement” available to the
parties before the commencement of
arbitration and/or a petition for “judicial
relief from the ruling of the arbitral
tribunal on a preliminary question
upholding or declining its jurisdiction”
after arbitration has already commenced
should state “[t]he facts showing that the
persons named as petitioner or
respondent have legal capacity to sue or
be sued.”
 When a party enters
into a contract containing a foreign
arbitration clause and in fact submits
itself to arbitration, it becomes bound by
the contract, by the arbitration and by
the result of arbitration, conceding
thereby the capacity of the other party to
enter into the contract, participate in the
arbitration and cause the implementation
of the result.
 On the matter of capacity to sue, a foreign
arbitral award should be respected not
because it is favored over domestic laws
and procedures, but because Republic
Act No. 9285 has certainly erased any
conflict of law question. Finally, even
assuming, only for the sake of argument,
that the court a quo correctly observed
that the Model Law, not the New York
Convention, governs the subject arbitral
award, petitioner may still seek
recognition and enforcement of the award
in Philippine court, since the Model Law
prescribes substantially identical
exclusive grounds for refusing
recognition or enforcement. Premises
considered, petitioner TPI, although not
licensed to do business in the Philippines,
 3B 2019-2020
Doctrines for Conflicts

may seek recognition and enforcement of

the foreign arbitral award in accordance
with the provisions of the Alternative
Dispute Resolution Act of 2004.

 The foreign corporation’s capacity to sue

in the Philippines is not material insofar
as the recognition and enforcement of a
foreign arbitral award is concerned.

Page 11 of 11