Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
*
G.R. No. 114323. July 23, 1998.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
27
28
29
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016565de66cb009f06bd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/24
8/23/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 293
Same; Same; 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 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.
30
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016565de66cb009f06bd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/24
8/23/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 293
MARTINEZ, J.:
31
_______________
32
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016565de66cb009f06bd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/24
8/23/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 293
“In addition to the above, the respondent would also be liable to pay to
the claimant the interest at the rate of 6% on the above amount, with
effect from 24.7.1988 up to the actual date of payment by the Respondent
in full settlement of the claim as awarded or the date of the decree,
whichever is earlier.
“I determine the cost at Rs. 70,000/—equivalent to US $5,000 towards
the expenses on Arbitration, legal expenses, stamps duly incurred by the
claimant. The cost will be shared by the parties in equal proportion.
2
_______________
2 Arbitral Award dated July 23, 1988, ANNEX “D” of the Petition, p. 17;
Rollo, pp. 143-144.
33
_______________
34
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016565de66cb009f06bd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/24
8/23/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 293
“ORDER
“ORDER
_______________
35
‘JURISDICTION
jurisdiction and the place from which this supply order is situated.’ ”
_______________
36
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016565de66cb009f06bd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/24
8/23/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 293
_______________
37
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016565de66cb009f06bd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/24
8/23/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 293
The dispute between the parties had its origin in the non-
delivery of the 4,300 metric tons of oil well cement to the
petitioner. The primary question that may be posed,
therefore, is whether or not the non-delivery of the said
cargo is a proper subject for arbitration under the above-
quoted Clause 16. The petitioner contends that the same
was a matter within the purview of Clause 16, particularly
the phrase, “x x x or as to
_______________
38
_______________
39
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016565de66cb009f06bd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/24
8/23/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 293
13
words. A close examination of Clause 16 reveals that it
covers three matters which may be submitted to
arbitration namely,
_______________
13 Motoomul, et al. vs. Dela Paz, et al., 187 SCRA 743, 753 [1990];
Luzon Stevedoring Co. vs. Trinidad, 43 Phil. 804 [1922].
40
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016565de66cb009f06bd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/24
8/23/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 293
_______________
41
_______________
19 JMM Promotions & Management, Inc. vs. NLRC, 228 SCRA 129, 134
[1993].
42
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016565de66cb009f06bd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/24
8/23/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 293
_______________
43
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016565de66cb009f06bd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/24
8/23/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 293
the non-delivery
23
of the cargo was due solely to the fault of
the carrier. It is, therefore, but logical to assume that the
necessary consequence of this finding is the eventual
recovery by the private respondent of the cargo or the value
thereof. What inspires credulity is not that the replacement
was done in the spirit of liberality but that it was
undertaken precisely because of the private respondent’s
recognition of its duty to do so under the supply
order/contract, Clause 16 of which remains in force and
effect until the full execution thereof.
We now go to the issue of whether or not the judgment
of the foreign court is enforceable in this jurisdiction in
view of the private respondent’s allegation that it is bereft
of any statement of facts and law upon which the award in
favor of the petitioner was based. The pertinent portion of
the judgment of the foreign court reads:
“ORDER
Award dated 23.7.88, Paper No. 3/B-1 is made Rule of the Court.
On the basis of conditions of award decree is passed. Award Paper
No. 3/B-1 shall be a part of the decree. The plaintiff shall also be
entitled to get from defendant US$ 899,603.77 (US$ Eight Lakhs
ninety nine thousand six hundred and three point seventy seven
only) alongwith
24
9% interest per annum till the last date of
realisation.”
_______________
23 Ibid.
24 Court of Dehra Dun, Suit No. 677 of 1988, ONGC vs. Pacific Cement,
7-2-90; Rollo, p. 157.
44
“MEMORANDUM DECISION
_______________
25 CA Decision.
26 173 SCRA 324 [1989].
27 Ibid., p. 326.
28 147 SCRA 183 [1987].
45
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016565de66cb009f06bd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/24
8/23/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 293
_______________
29 Ibid., p. 189.
30 Francisco v. Permskul, 173 SCRA 324, 333.
31 Francisco, Vicente J., The Revised RULES OF COURT in the
Philippines, Volume II, pp. 891-892, 1966 ed. citing 31 Am. Jur. 153-154.
32 Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 192,
199 [1995].
46
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016565de66cb009f06bd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/24
8/23/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 293
____________________________
33 Roces vs. Aportadera, 243 SCRA 108 [1995]; Mutuc vs. Court of
Appeals, 190 SCRA 43, 49 [1990]; Richards vs. Asoy, 152 SCRA 45 [1987];
Tajonera vs. Lamaroza, 110 SCRA 438 [1981].
34 Korean Airlines Co., Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals, 247 SCRA 599, 603
[1995].
35 Roces vs. Aportadera, supra, p. 114; Stayfast Sunset View
Condominium Corporation vs. NLRC, 228 SCRA 466 [1993]; Villareal vs.
Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 292 [1993].
47
_______________
36 B.R. Sebastian Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 28 [1992].
37 Supply Order, supra.
38 241 SCRA 192, 199 [1995].
48
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016565de66cb009f06bd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/24
8/23/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 293
_______________
39 Ibid.
49
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016565de66cb009f06bd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/24
8/23/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 293
——o0o——
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016565de66cb009f06bd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/24