FACTS:

The petitioner, Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad, initiated a suit for collection against the private respondent, Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC), before the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur. The suit sought to recover the indemnity of a performance bond and the non-payment of a loan. On September 13, 1985, the High Court of Malaya rendered a judgment in favor of the petitioner, ordering PNCC to pay the petitioner a certain sum of money, plus interest. Despite several attempts to secure payment, the petitioner was unsuccessful. As a result, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig to enforce the judgment of the High Court of Malaya. PNCC filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the judgment should be denied recognition or enforcement due to lack of jurisdiction, lack of notice, collusion or fraud, and a clear mistake of law or fact. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss.

The petitioner filed a complaint against the private respondent seeking to enforce a money judgment rendered by the High Court of Malaya. The petitioner alleged that the High Court of Malaya acquired jurisdiction over the private respondent because it voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction through its appointed counsel. The petitioner also claimed that the private respondent's counsel waived any objections to the court's jurisdiction in a pleading filed before the court.

The trial court dismissed the petitioner's complaint, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. In the instant petition, the petitioner argued that the Malaysian court acquired personal jurisdiction over the private respondent and that the Malaysian court judgment should be recognized and enforced in the Philippines.

The general rule is that no sovereign is bound to give effect to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country. However, there is a usage among civilized states where final judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious under certain conditions. In the Philippines, a valid judgment rendered by a foreign tribunal may be recognized if it is shown that there has been a full and fair hearing before a court of competent jurisdiction, following due citation or voluntary appearance of the defendant, and under a system of jurisprudence that assures impartiality in administering justice. The foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding until a contrary showing is made.

The petitioner presented evidence to establish the existence of the money judgment of the High Court of Malaya. The petitioner's witness testified that he is a lawyer in Malaysia and was connected with Skrine and Company, the law firm representing the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has sufficiently established the authenticity and validity of the foreign judgment. The burden now rests on the party attacking the foreign judgment to overcome its presumptive validity.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the foreign judgment of the High Court of Malaya is valid and enforceable in the Philippines.

2. Whether the private respondent has sufficiently proven the grounds for non-enforcement of the foreign judgment.

3. Whether the differences in remedy and procedure of the Malaysian High Court affect the recognition and enforcement of the Malaysian judgment.

4. Whether the service of summons upon a financial officer of a corporation is invalid under the Malaysian procedural law.

5. Whether the law firm of Allen and Gledhill had the authority to represent the private respondent.

6. Whether collusion, fraud, and clear mistake of fact and law tainted the judgment of the High Court of Malaya.

7. Whether the absence of a statement of facts and law upon which the award was based renders the foreign judgment unenforceable.

8. Whether or not the judgment rendered by the High Court of Malaya can be enforced in the Philippines.

9. Whether or not the burden of proof regarding the validity of the foreign judgment lies upon the party seeking to enforce it.

RULING:

1. The foreign judgment of the High Court of Malaya is valid and enforceable in the Philippines. Once the authenticity of the foreign judgment is proved, the party attacking the foreign judgment bears the burden of proving any grounds for non-enforcement.

2. The private respondent has failed to sufficiently prove the grounds for non-enforcement of the foreign judgment. The testimonies of its witnesses did not provide enough evidence to support its claims.

3. The recognition of a foreign judgment is not affected by differences in remedy and procedure between the court that rendered the judgment and the court where enforcement is sought. Matters of remedy and procedure are governed by the internal law of the forum, which in this case is the law of Malaysia.

4. The validity of the service of summons and other matters raised by the private respondent based on the Malaysian procedural law should be proved as a fact. The private respondent failed to present evidence to show that the service of summons was invalid under the said law. Therefore, the presumption of validity of the service of summons and the judgment stand.

5. The private respondent's witnesses admitted that the law firm of Allen and Gledhill was its counsel in its transactions in Malaysia. Relevant Malaysian jurisprudence was provided to show that it is not necessary for counsel appearing before the Malaysian High Court to submit a special power of attorney. Therefore, the law firm had the authority to represent the private respondent.

6. No clear evidence of collusion, fraud, and clear mistake of fact and law was presented. Mere conjectures and specious observations of the trial court were not sufficient. The recovery sought against Asiavest-CDCP Sdn. Bhd. was found insolvent. Collusion or fraud should be based on facts not contradicted in the case where the judgment is rendered, or it should go to the jurisdiction of the court or deprive the party against whom judgment is rendered a chance to defend with a meritorious defense.

7. The absence of a statement of facts and law in the judgment does not render the foreign judgment unenforceable. The internal law of the forum governs matters of remedy and procedure, and in this case, the High Court of Malaya's procedural rules do not require the statement of facts and law in the judgment.

8. The judgment rendered by the High Court of Malaya can be enforced in the Philippines. The Court held that under the principle of comity, a valid judgment may be rendered even without stating every fact and law upon which it is based.

9. The burden of proof regarding the validity of the foreign judgment does not lie upon the party seeking to enforce it. It is the duty of the party challenging the judgment to demonstrate its alleged invalidity.

PRINCIPLES:

• A foreign judgment is evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest. It can only be assailed by evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.

• A court, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, enjoys the presumption that it was acting in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction.

• Once the authenticity of a foreign judgment is proved, the party attacking the foreign judgment bears the burden of proving any grounds for non-enforcement.

• Differences in remedy and procedure between the court that rendered the judgment and the court where enforcement is sought do not affect the recognition of a foreign judgment. Matters of remedy and procedure are governed by the internal law of the forum.

• The validity of the service of summons and other matters under the procedural law of the country where the judgment is rendered must be proved as a fact.

• The authority of counsel to appear and represent a client before a court may vary depending on the internal laws of the respective countries.

• Allegations of collusion, fraud, and clear mistake of fact and law must be supported by clear evidence.

• The absence of a statement of facts and law in a judgment does not render the foreign judgment unenforceable. Matters of remedy and procedure are governed by the internal law of the forum.

• Principle of comity - A valid judgment rendered by a foreign court may be recognized and enforced in another jurisdiction, even if it does not state every fact and law upon which it is based.

• Presumption of validity - A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and enforceable, and the burden of proof falls on the party challenging its validity.