Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Oil And Natural Gas Commission, Ongc, Vs.

Court Of Appeals  To enable the ONGC to execute the above award in its
And Pacific Cement Company, Inc. Respondents. favor, it filed a Petition before the Court of the Civil Judge
in Dehra Dun, India (hereinafter referred to as the foreign
This proceeding involves the enforcement of a foreign court for brevity), praying that the decision of the
judgment rendered by the Civil Judge of Dehra Dun, India in arbitrator be made the Rule of Court in India.
favor of the ONGC, OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION and  The foreign court issued notices to the Pacific Cement for
against the Pacific Cement, PACIFIC CEMENT COMPANY, filing objections to the petition.
INCORPORATED.  The Pacific Cement complied and sent its objections dated
January 16, 1989. Subsequently, the said court directed
the Pacific Cement to pay the filing fees in order that the
 The ONGC is a foreign corporation owned and controlled latters objections could be given consideration. Instead of
by the Government of India while the Pacific Cement is a paying the required filing fees, the Pacific Cement sent
private corporation duly organized and existing under the communication addressed to the Civil Judge of Dehra Dun
laws of the Philippines.  Despite notice sent to the Pacific Cement of the foregoing
 The present conflict between the ONGC and the Pacific order and several demands by the ONGC for compliance
Cement entered into a contract whereby the Pacific therewith, the Pacific Cement refused to pay the amount
Cement undertook to supply the ONGC 4,300 metric tons adjudged by the foreign court as owing to the ONGC.
of oil well cement.  Accordingly, the ONGC filed a complaint with Branch 30 of
 In consideration therefor, the ONGC bound itself to pay the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Surigao City for the
the Pacific Cement the amount of ($477,300.00) by enforcement of the aforementioned judgment of the
opening an irrevocable, divisible, and confirmed letter of foreign court.
credit in favor of the latter.  The Pacific Cement moved to dismiss the complaint on
 The oil well cement was loaded on board the ship MV the following grounds:
SURUTANA NAVA at the port of Surigao City, Philippines o (1) plaintiffs lack of legal capacity to sue;
for delivery at Bombay and Calcutta, India. However, due o (2) lack of cause of action; and
to a dispute between the shipowner and the Pacific o (3) plaintiffs claim or demand has been waived,
Cement, the cargo was held up in Bangkok and did not abandoned, or otherwise extinguished.
reach its point of destination.  The ONGC filed its opposition to the said motion to
 Notwithstanding the fact that the Pacific Cement had dismiss, and the Pacific Cement, its rejoinder thereto. On
already received payment and despite several demands January 3, 1992, the RTC issued an order upholding the
made by the ONGC, the Pacific Cement failed to deliver ONGCs legal capacity to sue, albeit dismissing the
the oil well cement. complaint for lack of a valid cause of action.
 Thereafter, negotiations ensued between the parties and  The RTC held that the rule prohibiting foreign corporations
they agreed that the Pacific Cement will replace the entire transacting business in the Philippines without a license
4,300 metric tons of oil well cement with Class G cement from maintaining a suit in Philippine courts admits of an
cost free at the ONGCs designated port. exception, that is, when the foreign corporation is suing
 However, upon inspection, the Class G cement did not on an isolated transaction as in this case.
conform to the ONGCs specifications. The ONGC then  Anent the issue of the sufficiency of the ONGCs cause of
informed the Pacific Cement that it was referring its claim action, however, the RTC found the referral of the dispute
to an arbitrator pursuant to Clause 16 of their contract. between the parties to the arbitrator under Clause 16 of
 On July 23, 1988, the chosen arbitrator, one Shri N.N. their contract erroneous.
Malhotra, resolved the dispute in ONGCs favor
ISSUE: whether or not the judgment of the foreign court is that there is no cogent
enforceable in this jurisdiction in view of the Pacific Cements  Hence, even in this jurisdiction, incorporation by reference
allegation that it is bereft of any statement of facts and law is allowed if only to avoid the cumbersome reproduction
upon which the award in favor of the ONGC was based. The of the decision of the lower courts, or portions thereof, in
pertinent portion of the judgment of the foreign court reads: the decision of the higher court.
 This is particularly true when the decision sought to be
Award dated 23.7.88, Paper No. 3/B-1 is made Rule incorporated is a lengthy and thorough discussion of the
of the Court. On the basis of conditions of award facts and conclusions arrived at, as in this case, where
decree is passed. Award Paper No. 3/B-1 shall be a Award Paper No. 3/B-1 consists of eighteen (18) single
part of the decree. The plaintiff shall also be entitled spaced pages.
to get from defendant ( US$ 899, 603.77 (US$ Eight  Furthermore, the recognition to be accorded a foreign
Lakhs ninety nine thousand six hundred and three judgment is not necessarily affected by the fact that the
point seventy seven only) alongwith 9% interest per procedure in the courts of the country in which such
annum till the last date of realisation. 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
 As specified in the order of the Civil Judge of Dehra Dun, are governed by the lex fori or the internal law of the
Award Paper No. 3/B-1 shall be a part of the decree. This forum.
is a categorical declaration that the foreign court adopted  Thus, if under the procedural rules of the Civil Court of
the findings of facts and law of the arbitrator as contained Dehra Dun, India, a valid judgment may be rendered by
in the latters Award Paper. Award Paper No. 3/B-1, adopting the arbitrators findings, then the same must be
contains an exhaustive discussion of the respective claims accorded respect. In the same vein, if the procedure in the
and defenses of the parties, and the arbitrators evaluation foreign court mandates that an Order of the Court
of the same. Inasmuch as the foregoing is deemed to becomes final and executory upon failure to pay the
have been incorporated into the foreign courts judgment necessary docket fees, then the courts in this jurisdiction
the appellate court was in error when it described the cannot invalidate the order of the foreign court simply
latter to be a simplistic decision containing literally, only because our rules provide
the dispositive portion.  Finally, we reiterate hereunder our pronouncement in the
 The constitutional mandate that no decision shall be case of Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly that:
and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and
does not preclude the validity of memorandum decisions binding in the country from which it comes, until the
which adopt by reference the findings of fact and contrary is shown. It is also proper to presume the
conclusions of law contained in the decisions of inferior regularity of the proceedings and Under Section 50,
tribunals. In Francisco v. Permskul, this Court held that the Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a judgment in an
following memorandum decision of the Regional Trial action in personam of a tribunal of a foreign country
Court of Makati did not transgress the requirements of having jurisdiction to pronounce the same is
Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution: presumptive evidence of a right as between the
After a careful perusal, evaluation and study of the parties and their successors-in-interest by a
records of this case, this Court hereby adopts by subsequent title. The judgment may, however, be
reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law assailed by evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of
contained in the decision of the Metropolitan Trial notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake
Court of Makati, Metro Manila, Branch 63 and finds
of law or fact. Also, under Section 3 of Rule 131, a
court, whether of the Philippines or elsewhere,
enjoys the presumption that it was acting in the
lawful exercise of jurisdiction and has regularly
performed its official duty.
 Consequently, the party attacking a foreign judgment, the
Pacific Cement herein, had the burden of overcoming the
presumption of its validity which it failed to do in the
instant case.
 The foreign judgment being valid, there is nothing else left
to be done than to order its enforcement, despite the fact
that the ONGC merely prays for the remand of the case to
the RTC for further proceedings. As this Court has ruled on
the validity and enforceability of the said foreign
judgment in this jurisdiction, further proceedings in the
RTC for the reception of evidence.