ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD v.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 110263 July 20, 2001

Petitioner: ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD

Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
CONSTRUCTIONCORPORATION

FACTS
The petition alleged the following:-

In 1983, petitioner initiated a suit to recover the indemnity of the performance bond it had
put infavour of the private respondent, then known as Construction and Development
Corporation of the Philippines.-

On September 13, 1985, the High Court of Malaysia rendered judgment in favour of
the petitioner and against the private respondent-

On September 5, 1988, petitioner initiated a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of
Pasig to enforce the judgment of the High Court of Malaysia.-

On October 14, 1991, the trial court dismissed the petitioner’s complaint.
-

On May 19, 1993, the Court of Appeals dismissed the same and affirmed the decision of the
trial court.

ISSUES

1. Whether the judgment of High Court of Malaysia is valid and binding to Philippine
jurisdiction
2. Whether it is the procedural law of Malaysia that determines the validity of the service of
thecourt process

HELD
1.Having proven through evidence the existence of and authenticity of foreign judgment,
saidforeign judgment enjoys presumptive validity and the burden to prove otherwise fell
upon the party who disputed its validity.
2. Matters of remedy and procedure such as those relating to the service of summons or
court process upon the defendant, the authority of the counsel to appear and represent
a defendant and the formal requirements in a decision are governed by
lex fori or the internal law of the forum, i.e.the law of Malaysia in this case. In line with this,
there is no merit to the respondent’s argument that the foreign judgment is not enforceable in view
of the absence of any statement of facts and law upon which the award was based. By
lex fori, under the procedural rules of the High Court of Malaysia, a valid judgment may be
rendered even without stating the law upon the judgement is based. Hence, the petition is
granted and the decision of Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside.