There
are instances when a Filipino who is residing in the Philippines, or a
Philippine corporation whose business activities are confined locally,
are sued abroad, say, for collection of a sum of money or for damages.
Suppose the foreign court renders judgment against the Filipino
individual or corporation but the defendant does not have any assets in
the foreign country, may the foreign judgment be enforced here in the
Philippines?
Yes, it may be enforced, but not automatically. There is a need for the prevailing party in the case filed abroad to first file a case in a local court for the enforcement of the foreign judgment.
*****
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. The
conditions required by the Philippines for recognition and enforcement
of a foreign judgment were originally contained in Section 311 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, which was taken from the California Code of
Civil Procedure which, in turn, was derived from the California Act of March 11, 1872. Remarkably, the procedural rule now outlined in Section
48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure has remained unchanged down
to the last word in nearly a century.
*****
However, our country does not blindly obey any foreign judgment which
is sought to be enforced in its shores. In case of a foreign judgment
against a person the judgment is only presumptive evidence of a right as
between the parties and their successors in interest. 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.
*****
The foreign judgment is only presumptive evidence of a right (Sec.
48, Rule 39, Rules of Court), unlike a judgment rendered by a court of
the Philippines which is "conclusive between the parties and their
successors in interest" (Sec. 47, Rule 39, Rules of Court).
*****
That is why, on the mere strength of its promulgation, a foreign
judgment is not yet conclusive, as it can be annulled on the grounds
enumerated above. In providing that the foreign judgment may be repelled
by evidence of a defect which militates against its enforcement, our
own rules obviously allow our courts to look into the merits of the
foreign judgment if the same is challenged. And as the defendant is
allowed to present controverting evidence, it stands to reason that the
foreign judgment may be refused enforcement if found to be infirm.
Otherwise, what use will plaintiff’s evidence serve if the merits of the
foreign decision cannot be inquired into?
*****
In the language of the Supreme Court in the early case of Edwards v. McCoy, 22 Phil 598,
"the right to adduce evidence, without the corresponding duty on the
part of the board to consider it, is vain. Such right is conspicuously
futile if the person or persons to whom the evidence is presented can
thrust it aside without notice or consideration."
*****
Therefore, in a case filed in a local court for the enforcement of a foreign judgment, the defendant may raise defenses to counter its enforceability in our country. One of the grounds for controverting a foreign judgment is clear mistake of fact or law.
*****
If the defendant succeeds in showing that the foreign court committed
a clear mistake of fact or law, the foreign judgment will not be
enforced. The plaintiff can no longer rely solely upon the presumption
of validity of the foreign judgment. As the word connotes, it is only
presumptively correct, and will be disregarded by our courts if found to
be a product of clear mistake of fact or law. Since a civil case is
decided on the basis of preponderance, and the only evidence adduced is
defendant’s evidence showing mistake of fact or law, it is rather
difficult to imagine how evidence can preponderate in favor of the side
which has no evidence at all.
0 comments:
Post a Comment