Hasegawa - Philsec

8/16/2019 Hasegawa - Philsec

1/33

KAZUHIRO HASEGAWA and NIPPON

ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CO., LTD.,

Petitioners,

- versus -

MINORU KITAMURA,

Respondent.

G.R. No. 149177

Present:

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,

Chairperson,

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,CICO-NAZARIO,

NACURA, !nd

REYES, JJ.

Pro"u#$!ted:

Nove"%er &', &(()

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

NACHURA, J .:

*e+ore te Court is ! petition +or revie on certiorari under Ru#e / o+ te Ru#es o+ Court !ss!i#in$ te

Apri# 01, &((0 2e3ision405 o+ te Court o+ Appe!#s 6CA7 in CA-G.R. SP No. 8(1&), !nd te 9u# &/, &((0

Reso#ution4&5 denin$ te "otion +or re3onsider!tion tereo+.

On M!r3 '(, 0;;;, petitioner Nippon En$ineerin$ Consu#t!nts Co., !Duiro !se$!!, Nippons $ener!# "!n!$er +or its Intern!tion!#

2ivision, in+or"ed respondent t!t te 3o"p!n !d no "ore intention o+ !uto"!ti3!## renein$

is ICA. is servi3es ou#d %e en$!$ed % te 3o"p!n on# up to te su%st!nti!# 3o"p#etion o+ te

STAR Pro=e3t on M!r3 '0, &(((, =ust in ti"e +or te ICAs e?pir.4;5

Tre!tened it i"pendin$ une"p#o"ent, respondent, trou$ is #!er, reuested ! ne$oti!tion

3on+eren3e !nd de"!nded t!t e %e !ssi$ned to te **RI pro=e3t. Nipponinsisted t!t respondents

3ontr!3t !s +or ! +i?ed ter" t!t !d !#re!d e?pired, !nd re+used to ne$oti!te +or te rene!# o+te ICA.40(5

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn1


2/33

As e !s not !%#e to $ener!te ! positive response +ro" te petitioners, respondent 3onseuent# initi!ted

on 9une 0, &((( Civi# C!se No. ((-(&8 +or spe3i+i3 per+or"!n3e !nd d!"!$es it

te Re$ion!# Tri!# Court o+ ot!@e !s pro=e3t "!n!$er o+ te **RI Pro=e3t. 40'5

On 9une &;, &(((, te RTC, invo@in$ our ru#in$ in Insular Government v. Frank 405 t!t "!tters 3onne3ted

it te per+or"!n3e o+ 3ontr!3ts !re re$u#!ted % te #! prev!i#in$ !t te p#!3e o+ per+or"!n3e,40/5 denied te "otion to dis"iss.4085 Te tri!# 3ourt su%seuent# denied petitioners "otion +or

re3onsider!tion,40)5 pro"ptin$ te" to +i#e it te !ppe##!te 3ourt, on Au$ust 0, &(((, teir !"#$ Petition

+or Certiorari under Ru#e 8/ 4do3@eted !s CA-G.R. SP No. 8(&(/5.4015 On Au$ust &', &(((, te CA

reso#ved to dis"iss te petition on pro3edur!# $rounds+or #!3@ o+ st!te"ent o+ "!teri!# d!tes !nd +or

insu++i3ient veri+i3!tion !nd 3erti+i3!tion !$!inst +oru" soppin$.40;5 An Entr o+ 9ud$"ent !s #!terissued % te !ppe##!te 3ourt on Septe"%er &(, &(((.4&(5

A$$rieved % tis deve#op"ent, petitioners +i#ed it te CA, on Septe"%er 0;, &(((, sti## itin te

re$#e"ent!r period, ! #%&ond Petition +or Certiorari under Ru#e 8/ !#re!d st!tin$ terein te "!teri!#d!tes !nd !tt!3in$ tereto te proper veri+i3!tion !nd 3erti+i3!tion. Tis se3ond petition, i3

su%st!nti!## r!ised te s!"e issues !s tose in te +irst, !s do3@eted !s CA-G.R. SP No. '()*7.4&05

Ru#in$ on te "erits o+ te se3ond petition, te !ppe##!te 3ourt rendered te !ss!i#ed Apri# 01,

&((0 2e3ision4&&5 +indin$ no $r!ve !%use o+ dis3retion in te tri!# 3ourts deni!# o+ te "otion to dis"iss.

Te CA ru#ed, !"on$ oters, t!t te prin3ip#e o+ lex loci celebrationis !s not !pp#i3!%#e to te 3!se,

%e3!use noere in te p#e!din$s !s te v!#idit o+ te ritten !$ree"ent put in issue. Te CA tus

de3#!red t!t te tri!# 3ourt !s 3orre3t in !pp#in$ inste!d te prin3ip#e o+ lex loci solutionis.4&'5

Petitioners "otion +or re3onsider!tion !s su%seuent# denied % te CA in te !ss!i#ed 9u# &/,

&((0 Reso#ution.4&5

Re"!inin$ ste!d+!st in teir st!n3e despite te series o+ deni!#s, petitioners instituted te inst!nt Petition

+or Revie on Certiorari4&/5 i"putin$ te +o##oin$ errors to te !ppe##!te 3ourt:

A. TE ONORA*


3/33

Te pivot!# uestion t!t tis Court is 3!##ed upon to reso#ve is eter te su%=e3t "!tter =urisdi3tion o+

Pi#ippine 3ourts in 3ivi# 3!ses +or spe3i+i3 per+or"!n3e !nd d!"!$es invo#vin$ 3ontr!3ts e?e3uted

outside te 3ountr % +orei$n n!tion!#s "! %e !ss!i#ed on te prin3ip#es o+ lex loci celebrationis, lex

contractus, te st!te o+ te "ost si$ni+i3!nt re#!tionsip ru#e, or #orum non conveniens.

oever, %e+ore ru#in$ on tis issue, e "ust +irst dispose o+ te pro3edur!# "!tters r!ised % te

respondent.

>it!"ur! 3ontends t!t te +in!#it o+ te !ppe##!te 3ourts de3ision in CA-G.R. SP No. 8(&(/ !s !#re!d

%!rred te +i#in$ o+ te se3ond petition do3@eted !s CA-G.R. SP No. 8(1&) 6+und!"ent!## r!isin$ te

s!"e issues !s tose in te +irst one7 !nd te inst!nt petition +or revie tereo+.

Be do not !$ree. Ben te CA dis"issed CA-G.R. SP No. 8(&(/ on !33ount o+ te petitions de+e3tive

3erti+i3!tion o+ non-+oru" soppin$, it !s ! dis"iss!# itout pre=udi3e.4&)5 Te s!"e o#ds true in te

CAs dis"iss!# o+ te s!id 3!se due to de+e3ts in te +or"!# reuire"ent o+ veri+i3!tion4&15 !nd in te oter

reuire"ent in Ru#e 8 o+ te Ru#es o+ Court on te st!te"ent o+ te "!teri!# d!tes.4&;5 Te dis"iss!#

%ein$ itout pre=udi3e, petitioners 3!n re-+i#e te petition, or +i#e ! se3ond petition !tt!3in$ tereto te

!ppropri!te veri+i3!tion !nd 3erti+i3!tion!s te, in +!3t did!nd st!tin$ terein te "!teri!# d!tes, itin

te pres3ri%ed period4'(5 in Se3tion , Ru#e 8/ o+ te s!id Ru#es.4'05

Te dis"iss!# o+ ! 3!se itout pre=udi3e si$ni+ies te !%sen3e o+ ! de3ision on te "erits !nd #e!ves te

p!rties +ree to #iti$!te te "!tter in ! su%seuent !3tion !s tou$ te dis"issed !3tion !d not %een

3o""en3ed. In oter ords, te ter"in!tion o+ ! 3!se not on te "erits does not %!r !noter !3tioninvo#vin$ te s!"e p!rties, on te s!"e su%=e3t "!tter !nd teor.4'&5

Ne3ess!ri#, %e3!use te s!id dis"iss!# is itout pre=udi3e !nd !s no res $u%icata e++e3t, !nd even i+

petitioners sti## indi3!ted in te veri+i3!tion !nd 3erti+i3!tion o+ te se3ondcertiorari petition t!t te +irst

!d !#re!d %een dis"issed on pro3edur!# $rounds,4''5 petitioners !re no #on$er reuired % te Ru#es to

indi3!te in teir 3erti+i3!tion o+ non-+oru" soppin$ in the instant petition #or revie& o# the secon%

certiorari petition, te st!tus o+ te !+ores!id +irst petition %e+ore te CA. In !n 3!se, !n o"ission in te

3erti+i3!te o+ non-+oru" soppin$ !%out !n event t!t i## not3onstitute res $u%icata !nd litis pen%entia, !s in te present 3!se, is not ! +!t!# de+e3t. It i## not !rr!nt

te dis"iss!# !nd nu##i+i3!tion o+ te entire pro3eedin$s, 3onsiderin$ t!t te evi#s sou$t to %e prevented

% te s!id 3erti+i3!te !re no #on$er present.4'5

Te Court !#so +inds no "erit in respondents 3ontention t!t petitioner !se$!! is on# !utoriDed to

veri+ !nd 3erti+, on %e!#+ o+ Nippon, te certiorari petition +i#ed it te CA !nd not te inst!nt petition. True, te AutoriD!tion4'/5 d!ted Septe"%er , &(((, i3 is !tt!3ed to te

se3ond certiorari petition !nd i3 is !#so !tt!3ed to te inst!nt petition +or revie, is #i"ited in

s3opeits ordin$s indi3!te t!t !se$!! is $iven te !utorit to si$n +or !nd !3t on %e!#+ o+ te

3o"p!n on# in te petition +i#ed it te !ppe##!te 3ourt, !nd t!t !utorit 3!nnot e?tend to te inst!nt petition +or revie.4'85 In ! p#etor! o+ 3!ses, oever, tis Court !s #i%er!## !pp#ied te Ru#es or even

suspended its !pp#i3!tion enever ! s!tis+!3tor e?p#!n!tion !nd ! su%seuent +u#+i##"ent o+ tereuire"ents !ve %een "!de.4')5 Given t!t petitioners erein su++i3ient# e?p#!ined teir "is$ivin$s on

tis point !nd !ppended to teir Rep#4'15 !n upd!ted AutoriD!tion4';5 +or !se$!! to !3t on %e!#+ o+ te

3o"p!n in te inst!nt petition, te Court +inds te s!"e !s su++i3ient 3o"p#i!n3e it te Ru#es.

oever, te Court 3!nnot e?tend te s!"e #i%er!# tre!t"ent to te de+e3t in te veri+i3!tion !nd

3erti+i3!tion. As respondent pointed out, !nd to i3 e !$ree, !se$!! is tru# not !utoriDed to !3t

on %e!#+ o+ Nippon in tis 3!se. Te !+ores!id Septe"%er , &((( AutoriD!tion !nd even te su%seuent

Au$ust 0), &((0 AutoriD!tion ere issued on# % Nippons president !nd 3ie+ e?e3utive o++i3er, not %

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn39


4/33

te 3o"p!ns %o!rd o+ dire3tors. In not ! +e 3!ses, e !ve ru#ed t!t 3orpor!te poers !re e?er3ised %

te %o!rd o+ dire3tors tus, no person, not even its o++i3ers, 3!n %ind te 3orpor!tion, in te !%sen3e o+

!utorit +ro" te %o!rd.4(5 Considerin$ t!t !se$!! veri+ied !nd 3erti+ied te petition on# on is

%e!#+ !nd not on %e!#+ o+ te oter petitioner, te petition !s to %e denied pursu!nt to Lo'uias v. O##ice

o# the Ombu%sman.405 Su%st!nti!# 3o"p#i!n3e i## not su++i3e in ! "!tter t!t de"!nds stri3t o%serv!n3eo+ te Ru#es.4&5 Bi#e te3ni3!# ru#es o+ pro3edure !re desi$ned not to +rustr!te te ends o+ =usti3e,

nonete#ess, te !re intended to e++e3t te proper !nd order# disposition o+ 3!ses !nd e++e3tive# preventte 3#o$$in$ o+ 3ourt [email protected]'5

urter, te Court !s o%served t!t petitioners in3orre3t# +i#ed ! Ru#e 8/ petition to uestion te tri!#

3ourts deni!# o+ teir "otion to dis"iss. It is ! e##-est!%#ised ru#e t!t !n order denin$

! "otion to dis"iss is inter#o3utor,

!nd 3!nnot %e te su%=e3t o+ te e?tr!ordin!r petition +or certiorari or man%amus. Te !ppropri!te

re3ourse is to +i#e !n !nser !nd to interpose !s de+enses te o%=e3tions r!ised in te "otion, to pro3eed to

tri!#, !nd, in 3!se o+ !n !dverse de3ision, to e#ev!te te entire 3!se % !ppe!# in due 3ourse. 45 Bi#e tere

!re re3o$niDed e?3eptions to tis ru#e,4/5 petitioners 3!se does not +!## !"on$ te".

Tis %rin$s us to te dis3ussion o+ te su%st!ntive issue o+ te 3!se.

Assertin$ t!t te RTC o+

Te Court notes t!t petitioners !dopted !n !ddition!# %ut di++erent teor en te e#ev!ted te 3!se to

te !ppe##!te 3ourt. In te Motion to 2is"iss415 +i#ed it te tri!# 3ourt, petitioners never 3ontended t!t

te RTC is !n in3onvenient +oru". Te "ere# !r$ued t!t te !pp#i3!%#e #! i3 i## deter"ine te

v!#idit or inv!#idit o+ respondents 3#!i" is t!t o+ 9!p!n, +o##oin$ te prin3ip#es o+ lex loci

celebrationis !nd lex contractus.4;5 Bi#e not !%!ndonin$ tis st!n3e in teir petition %e+ore te !ppe##!te

3ourt, petitioners on certiorari si$ni+i3!nt# invo@ed te de+ense o+ #orum non conveniens.4/(5 On petition+or revie %e+ore tis Court, petitioners dropped teir oter !r$u"ents, "!int!ined te #orum non

conveniens de+ense, !nd introdu3ed teir ne !r$u"ent t!t te !pp#i3!%#e prin3ip#e is te 4st!te o+ te5

"ost si$ni+i3!nt re#!tionsip ru#e.4/05

*e t!t !s it "!, tis Court is not in3#ined to den tis petition "ere# on te %!sis o+ te 3!n$e in

teor, !s e?p#!ined in (hilippine (orts )uthorit* v. Cit* o# Iloilo.4/&5 Be on# pointed out petitionersin3onst!n3 in teir !r$u"ents to e"p!siDe teir in3orre3t !ssertion o+ 3on+#i3t o+ #!s prin3ip#es.

To e#u3id!te, in te =udi3i!# reso#ution o+ 3on+#i3ts pro%#e"s, tree 3onse3utive p!ses !re invo#ved:

=urisdi3tion, 3oi3e o+ #!, !nd re3o$nition !nd en+or3e"ent o+ =ud$"ents. Correspondin$ to tese p!ses!re te +o##oin$ uestions: 607 Bere 3!n or sou#d #iti$!tion %e initi!tedJ 6&7 Bi3 #! i## te 3ourt

!pp#J !nd 6'7 Bere 3!n te resu#tin$ =ud$"ent %e en+or3edJ4/'5

An!#ti3!##, =urisdi3tion !nd 3oi3e o+ #! !re to distin3t 3on3epts.4/5 9urisdi3tion 3onsiders eter it

is +!ir to 3!use ! de+end!nt to tr!ve# to tis st!te 3oi3e o+ #! !s@s te +urter uestion eter te

!pp#i3!tion o+ ! su%st!ntive #! i3 i## deter"ine te "erits o+ te 3!se is +!ir to %ot p!rties. Te

poer to e?er3ise =urisdi3tion does not !uto"!ti3!## $ive ! st!te 3onstitution!# !utorit to !pp# +oru"

#!. Bi#e =urisdi3tion !nd te 3oi3e o+ te lex #ori i## o+ten 3oin3ide, te "ini"u" 3ont!3ts +or one do

not !#!s provide te ne3ess!r si$ni+i3!nt 3ont!3ts +or te oter.4//5 Te uestion o+ eter te #! o+ !

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm#_ftn55


5/33

st!te 3!n %e !pp#ied to ! tr!ns!3tion is di++erent +ro" te uestion o+ eter te 3ourts o+ t!t st!te !ve

=urisdi3tion to enter ! =ud$"ent.4/85

In tis 3!se, on# te +irst p!se is !t issue=urisdi3tion. 9urisdi3tion, oever, !s v!rious !spe3ts. or !

3ourt to v!#id# e?er3ise its poer to !d=udi3!te ! 3ontrovers, it "ust !ve =urisdi3tion over te p#!inti++or te petitioner, over te de+end!nt or te respondent, over te su%=e3t "!tter, over te issues o+ te 3!se

!nd, in 3!ses invo#vin$ propert, over te res or te tin$ i3 is te su%=e3t o+ te #iti$!tion.4/)5 In!ss!i#in$ te tri!# 3ourts =urisdi3tion erein, petitioners !re !3tu!## re+errin$ to su%=e3t "!tter

=urisdi3tion.

9urisdi3tion over the sub$ect matter in ! =udi3i!# pro3eedin$ is 3on+erred % te soverei$n !utorit i3

est!%#ises !nd or$!niDes te 3ourt. It is $iven on# % #! !nd in te "!nner pres3ri%ed % #!.4/15 It is

+urter deter"ined % te !##e$!tions o+ te 3o"p#!int irrespe3tive o+ eter te p#!inti++ is entit#ed to !##

or so"e o+ te 3#!i"s !sserted terein.4/;5 To su33eed in its "otion +or te dis"iss!# o+ !n !3tion +or #!3@ o+

=urisdi3tion over te su%=e3t "!tter o+ te 3#!i",48(5 te "ov!nt "ust so t!t te 3ourt or tri%un!# 3!nnot

!3t on te "!tter su%"itted to it %e3!use no #! $r!nts it te poer to !d=udi3!te te 3#!i"s.4805

In te inst!nt 3!se, petitioners, in teir "otion to dis"iss, do not 3#!i" t!t te tri!# 3ourt is not proper#

vested % #! it =urisdi3tion to e!r te su%=e3t 3ontrovers +or, indeed, Civi# C!se No. ((-(&8 +orspe3i+i3 per+or"!n3e !nd d!"!$es is one not 3!p!%#e o+ pe3uni!r esti"!tion !nd is proper# 3o$niD!%#e

% te RTC o+


6/33


7/33

CHESTER DE JOYA, G.R. No. 162416Petitioner,Present:PNO, J., Chairperson,

- !ers"s - SANDO#A$-GT%ERRE&,CORONA,

A&CNA, 'n(GARC%A, JJ.

JDGE P$AC%DO C. )AR*E&,in +is ''it 's Presi(in/ J"(/e o0 r'n+ 4, )'ni3'-RTC, PEOP$E Pro"3/'te(:O5 THE PH%$%PP%NES 'n( THESECRETARY O5 THE DEPART)ENT J'n"'r 1, 26O5 JST%CE,Reson(ents.x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION AZCUNA, J.:

T+is is ' etition 0or ertior'ri 'n( ro+i7ition t+'t see8s t+e Co"rt to n"33i0 'n( set'si(e t+e 9'rr'nt o0 'rrest iss"e( 7 reson(ent "(/e '/'inst etitioner in Criin'3C'se No. -21;; No. 16?;. Petitioner 'sserts t+'t reson(ent

"(/e erre( in @n(in/ t+e existene o0 ro7'73e '"se t+'t "sti@es t+e iss"'ne o0 '9'rr'nt o0 'rrest '/'inst +i 'n( +is o-'"se(.

Setion 6, R"3e 112 o0 t+e Re!ise( R"3es o0 Criin'3 Proe("re ro!i(es: Sec. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. (a) By the Regional

Trial Court . it+in ten =1> ('s 0ro t+e @3in/ o0 t+e o3'int orin0or'tion, t+e "(/e s+'33 erson'33 e!'3"'te t+e reso3"tion o0 t+erose"tor 'n( its s"ortin/ e!i(ene. He ' ie(i'te3 (isiss t+e 'sei0 t+e e!i(ene on reor( 3e'r3 0'i3s to est'73is+ ro7'73e '"se. If he ndsprobable cause, he shall issue a warran of arres, or a co!!i!enorder if he accused has alread" been arresed pursuan o a warranissued b" he #ud$e who conduced he preli!inar" in%esi$aion orwhen he co!plain or infor!aion was led pursuan o secion & ofhis 'ule. %n 'se o0 (o"7t on t+e existene o0 ro7'73e '"se, t+e "(/e 'or(er t+e rose"tor to resent '((ition'3 e!i(ene 9it+in @!e = ('s 0ro

notie 'n( t+e iss"'ne "st 7e reso3!e( 7 t+e o"rt 9it+in t+irt => ('s0ro t+e @3in/ o0 t+e o3'int or in0or'tion.

x x xB1

T+is Co"rt @n(s 0ro t+e reor(s o0 Criin'3 C'se No. -21;;


8/33

1. T+e reort o0 t+e N'tion'3 "re'" o0 %n!esti/'tion to C+ie0 St'te

Prose"tor Jo!enito R. &"o 's re/'r(s t+eir in!esti/'tion on t+eo3'int @3e( 7 ri!'te o3'in'nt )'n"e3 D A9iten '/'inst )in'

T'n H'o )'. Gr'i' T'n H'o 'n( #itor N/o T'n 0orsn(i'te( est'0'. T+e reort s+o9s t+'t H'o in("e( D to in!est

ore t+'n ' +"n(re( i33ion esos in St'te Reso"res De!e3oent)'n'/eent Coror'tion, 7"t 9+en t+e 3'tters in!estents 0e33 ("e,t+e +e8s iss"e( 7H'o in 0'!or o0 D 's 'ent 0or +is in!estents9ere (is+onore( 0or 7ein/ (r'9n '/'inst ins"ient 0"n(s or t+'t t+e'o"nt 9's 3ose(.B2

2. A('!it-Co3'int o0 ri!'te o3'in'nt )'n"e3 D A9iten.B

. Coies o0 t+e +e8s iss"e( 7 ri!'te o3'in'nt in 0'!or o0 St'te

Reso"res Coror'tion.B4

4. Coies o0 t+e +e8s iss"e( to ri!'te o3'in'nt reresentin/ t+e

s"ose( ret"rn o0 +is in!estents in St'te Reso"res.B


9/33

T+e 0ore/oin/ (o"ents 0o"n( in t+e reor(s 'n( ex'ine( 7 reson(ent "(/e ten( to s+o9 t+'t t+erein ri!'te o3'in'nt 9's entie( to in!est ' 3'r/es" o0 one in St'te Reso"res De!e3oent )'n'/eent Coror'tionI t+'t +eiss"e( se!er'3 +e8s 'o"ntin/ to P114,2?6,?6.14 in 0'!or o0 t+e oror'tionIt+'t t+e oror'tion, in t"rn, iss"e( se!er'3 +e8s to ri!'te o3'in'nt,"rorte(3 reresentin/ t+e ret"rn o0 +is in!estentsI t+'t s'i( +e8s 9ere 3'ter

(is+onore( 0or ins"ient 0"n(s 'n( 3ose( 'o"ntI t+'t etitioner 'n( +is o-'"se(, 7ein/ inoror'tors 'n( (iretors o0 t+e oror'tion, +'( 8no93e(/e o0 its'ti!ities 'n( tr'ns'tions. T+ese 're '33 t+'t nee( to 7e s+o9n to est'73is+ro7'73e '"se 0or t+e "rose o0 iss"in/ ' 9'rr'nt o0 'rrest. %t nee( not 7e s+o9nt+'t t+e '"se( 're in(ee( /"i3t o0 t+e rie +'r/e(. T+'t 'tter s+o"3( 7e 3e0tto t+e tri'3. %t s+o"3( 7e e+'sie( t+'t 7e0ore iss"in/ 9'rr'nts o0 'rrest, "(/esere3 (eterine erson'33 t+e ro7'7i3it, not t+e ert'int, o0 /"i3t o0 'n'"se(. Hene, "(/es (o not on("t ' de novo +e'rin/ to (eterine t+eexistene o0 ro7'73e '"se. T+e "st erson'33 re!ie9 t+e initi'3 (eterin'tion o0t+e rose"tor @n(in/ ' ro7'73e '"se to see i0 it is s"orte( 7 s"7st'nti'3e!i(ene.B1 %n 'se o0 (o"7t on t+e existene o0 ro7'73e '"se, t+e R"3es '33o9 t+e

"(/e to or(er t+e rose"tor to resent '((ition'3 e!i(ene.%n t+e resent 'se, it

is not'73e t+'t t+e reso3"tion iss"e( 7 St'te Prose"tor enn Ni('o t+oro"/+3ex3'ins t+e 7'ses 0or +is @n(in/s t+'t t+ere is ro7'73e '"se to +'r/e '33 t+e'"se( 9it+ !io3'tion o0 Arti3e 1 o0 t+e Re!ise( Pen'3 Co(e in re3'tionto P.D. No. 16?;.

T+e /ener'3 r"3e is t+'t t+is Co"rt (oes not re!ie9 t+e 0't"'3 @n(in/s o0 t+e

tri'3 o"rt, 9+i+ in3"(e t+e (eterin'tion o0 ro7'73e '"se 0or t+e iss"'ne o09'rr'nt o0 'rrest. %t is on3 in exetion'3 'ses 9+ere t+is Co"rt sets 'si(e t+eon3"sions o0 t+e rose"tor 'n( t+e tri'3 "(/e on t+e existene o0 ro7'73e '"se,t+'t is, 9+en it is neess'r to re!ent t+e is"se o0 t+e stron/ 'r o0 t+e 3'9 or torotet t+e or(er3 '(inistr'tion o0 "stie. T+e 0'ts o7t'inin/ in t+is 'se (o not9'rr'nt t+e '3i'tion o0 t+e exetion.

%n '((ition, it ' not 7e 'iss to note t+'t etitioner is not entit3e( to see8

re3ie0 0ro t+is Co"rt nor 0ro t+e tri'3 o"rt 's +e ontin"o"s3 re0"ses to s"rren(er'n( s"7it to t+e o"rts "ris(ition. J"stie 53oren D. Re/'3'(o ex3'ins t+ere"isites 0or t+e exerise o0 "ris(ition 'n( +o9 t+e o"rt '"ires s"+

"ris(ition, t+"s:

x x x Re"isites 0or t+e exerise o0 "ris(ition 'n( +o9 t+e o"rt'"ires s"+ "ris(ition:

'. Jurisdiction over the plainti or petitioner: T+is is '"ire( 7 t+e

@3in/ o0 t+e o3'int, etition or initi'tor 3e'(in/ 7e0ore t+e o"rt 7 t+e

3'inti or etitioner. b. Jurisdiction over the defendant or respondent: (his is

ac)uired b" he %olunar" appearance or sub!ission b" hedefendan or responden o he cour or b" coerci%e process issuedb" he cour o hi!, $enerall" b" he ser%ice of su!!ons.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/G.R.%20No.%20162416.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/G.R.%20No.%20162416.htm#_ftn10


10/33

. Jurisdiction over the subject matter: T+is is on0erre( 7 3'9 'n(,"n3i8e "ris(ition o!er t+e 'rties, 'nnot 7e on0erre( on t+e o"rt 7 t+e!o3"nt'r 't or '/reeent o0 t+e 'rties.

(. Jurisdiction over the issues of the case: T+is is (eterine( 'n(

on0erre( 7 t+e 3e'(in/s @3e( in t+e 'se 7 t+e 'rties, or 7 t+eir

'/reeent in ' re-tri'3 or(er or sti"3'tion, or, 't ties 7 t+eir i3ie(onsent 's 7 t+e 0'i3"re o0 ' 'rt to o7et to e!i(ene on 'n iss"e noto!ere( 7 t+e 3e'(in/s, 's ro!i(e( in Se.


11/33

G.R. No. 47517 June 27, 1941

IDONAH SLADE PERKINS, petitioner,vs.MAMERTO ROXAS, ET AL., respondents.

Alva J. Hill for petitioner.DeWitt, Perkins & Ponce Enrile for respondent Judge and respondent Perkins.Ross, Lawrence, elp! & "arrascoso, Jr., for respondent #enguet "onsolidated $ining "o.

LAUREL, J.

On July 5, 1938, the respondent Eugene Arthur Perkins, filed a o!plaint in the "ourt of #irst$nstane of %anila against the &enguet "onsolidated %ining "o!pany for the reovery of the su! of P'1,3'9.9(, onsisting of dividends )hih have *een delared and !ade paya*le on 5+,8' sharesof stok registered in his na!e, pay!ent of )hih )as *eing )ithheld *y the o!pany, and for thereognition of his right to the ontrol and disposal of said shares, to the e-lusion of all others. o theo!plaint, the o!pany filed its ans)er, alleging, *y )ay of defense, that the )ithholding of plaintiff/s

right to the disposal and ontrol of the shares )as due to ertain de!ands !ade )ith respet to saidshares *y the petitioner herein. $donah 0lade Perkins, and *y one eorge 2. Engelhard. he ans)er prays that the adverse lai!ants *e !ade parties to the ation and served )ith notie thereof *ypu*liation, and that thereafter all suh parties *e reuired to interplead and settle the rights a!ongthe!selves.

On 0epte!*er 5, 1938, the trial ourt ordered the respondent, Eugene Arthur Perkins, to inlude inhis o!plaint as parties defendants petitioner, $donah 0lade Perkins, and eorge 2. Engelhard. heo!plaint )as aordingly a!ended and in addition to the relief prayed for in the original o!plaint,respondent Perkins prayed that petitioner $donah 0lade Perkins and eorge 2. Engelhard *ead4udged )ithout interest in the shares of stok in uestion and e-luded fro! any lai! they assertthereon. hereafter, su!!ons *y pu*liation )ere served upon the nonresident defendants, $donah0lade Perkins and eorge 2. Engelhard, pursuant to the order of the trial ourt. On 6ee!*er 9,1938, Engelhard filed his ans)er to the a!ended o!plaint, and on January 8, 19(, petitioner/so*4etion to the ourt/s 4urisdition over her person having *een overruled *y the trial ourt and *ythis ourt in . 7. o. 831, petitioner filed her ans)er )ith a rosso!plaint in )hih she sets upa 4udg!ent allegedly o*tained *y her against respondent, Eugene Arthur Perkins, fro! the 0upre!e"ourt of the 0tate of e) :ork, )herein it is delared that she is the sole legal o)ner and entitled tothe possession and ontrol of the shares of stok in uestion together )ith all the ash dividendsdelared thereon *y the &enguet "onsolidated %ining "o!pany, and prays for various affir!ativereliefs against the respondent. o the ans)er and rosso!plaint thus filed, the respondent,Eugene Arthur Perkins, filed a reply and an ans)er in )hih he sets up several defenses to theenfore!ent in this 4urisdition of the 4udg!ent of the 0upre!e "ourt of the 0tate of e) :ork a*ovealluded to. $nstead of de!urring to the reply on either of the t)o grounds speified in setion 1(( ofthe "ode of "ivil Proedure, petitioner, $donah 0lade Perkins, on June 5, 19(, filed a de!urrer

thereto on the ground that ;the ourt has no 4urisdition of the su*4et of the ation,; *eause thealleged 4udg!ent of the 0upre!e "ourt of the 0tate of e) :ork is res %udicata.

Petitioner/s de!urrer having *een overruled, she no) filed in this ourt a petition entitled ;"ertiorari ,Prohi*ition and $andaus,; alleging that ;the respondent 4udge is a*out to and )ill render 4udg!entin the a*ove!entioned ase disregarding the onstitutional rights of this petitioner< ontrary to andannulling the final, su*sisting, valid 4udg!ent rendered and entered in this petitioner/s favor *y theourts of the 0tate of e) :ork, ... )hih deision is res %udicata on all the uestions onstituting thesu*4et !atter of ivil ase o. 5331', of the "ourt of #irst $nstane of %anila< and )hih e) :ork


12/33

4udg!ent the "ourt of #irst $nstane of %anila is )ithout 4urisdition to annul, a!end, reverse, or!odify in any respet )hatsoever;< and praying that the order of the respondent 4udge overruling thede!urrer *e annulled, and that he and his suessors *e per!anently prohi*ited fro! taking anyation on the ase, e-ept to dis!iss the sa!e.

he only uestion here to *e deter!ined, therefore, is )hether or not, in vie) of the alleged

4udg!ent entered in favor of the petitioner *y the 0upre!e "ourt of e) :ork, and )hih is lai!ed*y her to *e res %udicata on all uestions raised *y the respondent, Eugene Arthur Perkins, in ivilase o. 5331' of the "ourt of #irst $nstae of %anila, the loal ourt has 4urisdition over thesu*4et !atter of the ation in the said ase. &y 4urisdition over the su*4et !atter is !eant thenature of the ause of ation and of the relief sought, and this is onferred *y the sovereign authority)hih organi=es the ourt, and is to *e sought for in general nature of its po)ers, or in authorityspeially onferred. $n the present ase, the a!ended o!plaint filed *y the respondent, Eugene

Arthur Perkins, in the ourt *elo) alleged the o)nership in hi!self of the on4ugal partnership*et)een hi! and his )ife, $donah 0lade Perkins< that the petitioner, $donah 0lade Perkins, andeorge 2. Engelhard assert lai!s to and interests in the said stok adverse to Eugene ArthurPerkins< that suh lai!s are invalid, unfounded, and !ade only for the purpose of ve-ing, hinderingand delaying Eugene Arthur Perkins in the e-erise of the la)ful ontrol over and use of said sharesand dividends aorded to hi! and *y la) and *y previous orders and derees of this ourt< and thesaid a!ended o!plaint prays, inter alia, ;that defendant &enguet "onsolidated %ining "o!pany *ereuired and ordered to reogni=e the right of the plaintiff to the ontrol and disposal of said sharesso standing in his na!e to the e-lusion of all others< that the additional defendants, $donah 0ladePerkins and eorge 2. Engelhard, *e eah held to have no interest or lai! in the su*4et !atter ofthe ontroversy *et)een plaintiff and defendant &enguet "onsolidated %ining "o!pany, or in orunder the 4udg!ent to *e rendered herein and that *y said 4udg!ent they, and eah of the! *ee-luded therefro!< and that the plaintiff *e a)arded the osts of this suit and general relief.; herespondent/s ation, therefore, alls for the ad4udiation of title to ertain shares of stok of the&enguet "onsolidated %ining "o!pany, and the granting of affir!ative reliefs, )hih fall )ithin thegeneral 4urisdition of the "ourt of #irst $nstane of %anila. >'ide? se. 1, et se(., Ad!. "ode, asa!ended *y "o!!on)ealth At o. 15< se. 5, At o. 13, as a!ended *y At o. ((.@

0i!ilarly, the "ourt of #irst $nstane of %anila is e!po)ered to ad4udiate the several de!andsontained in petitioner/s rosso!plaint. he rosso!plaint sets up a 4udg!ent allegedlyreovered *y $donah 0lade Perkins against Eugene Arthur Perkins in the 0upre!e "ourt of e):ork and *y )ay of relief prays?

>1@ Judg!ent against the plaintiff Eugene Arthur Perkins in the su! of one hundred eightyfive thousand and four hundred dollars >185,((@, representing ash dividends paid to hi!*y defendant &enguet "onsolidated %ining "o. fro! #e*ruary, 193(, up to and inluding thedividend of %arh 3(, 193'.

>+@ hat plaintiff Eugene Arthur Perkins *e reuired to deliver to this defendant theertifiates representing the 8,((( shares of apital stok of &enguet "onsolidated %ining

"o. issued as a stok dividend on the +,((( shares o)ned *y this defendant as desri*edin the 4udg!ent E-hi*it 1A.

>3@ hat this defendant reover under that 4udg!ent E-hi*it 1A interest upon the a!ount ofeah ash dividend referred to in that 4udg!ent reeived *y plaintiff Eugene Arthur Perkinsfro! #e*ruary, 193(, to and inluding the dividend of %arh 3(, 193', fro! the date ofpay!ent of eah of suh dividends at the rate of ' per ent per annu! until paid.


13/33

>@ hat this defendant reover of plaintiff her osts and dis*urse!ents in that e) :orkation a!ounting to the su! of one thousand five hundred eightyfour and +(B(( dollars>1,58.+(@, and the further su! of t)o thousand dollars >+,(((@ granted her in that

4udg!ent E-hi*it 1A as an e-tra allo)ane, together )ith interest.

>5@ #or an order direting an e-eution to *e issued in favor of this defendant and against the

plaintiff for a!ounts suffiient to satisfy the e) :ork 4udg!ent E-hi*it 1A in its entirety, andagainst the plaintiff and the defendant &enguet "onsolidated %ining "o. for suh othera!ounts prayed for herein as this ourt !ay find to *e due and paya*le *y eah of the!<and ordering the! to o!ply )ith all other orders )hih this ourt !ay issue in favor of thedefendant in this ase.

>@ #or the osts of this ation, and

>'@ #or suh other relief as !ay *e appropriate and proper in the pre!ises.

$n other )ords, $donah 0lade Perkins in her rosso!plaint *rought suit against Eugene ArthurPerkins and the &enguet "onsolidated %ining "o!pany upon the alleged 4udg!ent of the 0upre!e

"ourt of the 0tate of e) :ork and asked the ourt *elo) to render 4udg!ent enforing that e):ork 4udg!ent, and to issue e-eution thereon. his is a for! of ation reogni=ed *y setion 3(9 ofthe "ode of "ivil Proedure >no) setion ', 7ule 39, 7ules of "ourt@ and )hih falls )ithin thegeneral 4urisdition of the "ourt of #irst $nstane of %anila, to ad4udiate, settled and deter!ine.

he petitioner e-presses the fear that the respondent 4udge !ay render 4udg!ent ;annulling thefinal, su*sisting, valid 4udg!ent rendered and entered in this petitioner/s favor *y the ourts of the0tate of e) :ork, ... )hih deision is res %udicata on all the uestions onstituting the su*4et!atter of ivil ase o. 5331',; and argues on the assu!ption that the respondent 4udge is )ithout

4urisdition to take ogni=ane of the ause. Chether or not the respondent 4udge in the ourse ofthe proeedings )ill give validity and effiay to the e) :ork 4udg!ent set up *y the petitioner inher rosso!plaint is a uestion that goes to the !erits of the ontroversy and relates to the rightsof the parties as *et)een eah other, and not to the 4urisdition or po)er of the ourt. he test of

4urisdition is )hether or not the tri*unal has po)er to enter upon the inuiry, not )hether itsonlusion in the ourse of it is right or )rong. $f its deision is erroneous, its 4udg!ent ase *ereversed on appeal< *ut its deter!ination of the uestion, )hih the petitioner here antiipates andseeks to prevent, is the e-erise *y that ourt D and the rightful e-erise D of its 4urisdition.

he petition is, therefore, here*y denied, )ith osts against the petitioner. 0o ordered.


14/33


15/33

either is the seond uestion one of 4urisdition )ithin the purvie) of the legal provisions a*oveuoted. Chether ertain *allots are or are not pertinent to the issue raised in the pleadings, is !erelya uestion of relevany of evidene. $t !ay *e true that the ourt *y an erroneous ruling on suhuestion !y enroah upon issues o!pletely foreign to those defined in the pleadings, *ut in suhase the uestion of 4urisdition that !ay arise )ould not *e one of 4urisdition over the su*4et!atter *ut of 4urisdition over the issue. $n order that a ourt !ay validly try and deide a ase, it

!ust have 4urisdition over the persons of the parties. >&ano EspaHol #ilipino vs.Palana, 3' Phil.9+1< Perkins vs. 6i=on, ( Off. a=. o. ', 3d 0up. p. +1.@ &ut in so!e instanes it is said that theourt should also have 4urisdition over the issue >15 ". J. '3< 2utts vs. %artin, 13 $nd. 58', 33 .E. '@, !eaning there*y that the issue *eing tried and deided *y the ourt *e )ithin the issuesraised in the pleadings. &ut this kind of 4urisdition should *e distinguished fro! 4urisdition over thesu*4et!atter the latter *eing onferred *y la) and the for!er *y the pleadings. Jurisdition overthe issue, unlike 4urisdition over the su*4et!atter, !ay *e onferred *y onsent either e-press ori!plied of the parties. >7ule 1', se. , 7ules of "ourt.@ Although an issue is not duly pleaded it !ayvalidly *e tried and deided if no ti!ely o*4etion is !ade thereto *y the parties. his annot *e done)hen 4urisdition over the su*4et!atter is involved. $n truth, 4urisdition over the issue is ane-pression of a priniple that is involved in 4urisdition over the persons of the parties. Chere, forinstane, an issue is not duly pleaded in the o!plaint, the defendant annot *e said to have *eenserved )ith proess as to that issue. >"f. Atkins et. "o. vs. 6o!ingo, Phil. 8(@. At any rate,

)hether or not the ourt has 4urisdition over a speifi issue is a uestion that reuires nothinge-ept an e-a!ination of the pleadings, and this funtion is )ithout suh i!portane as all for theintervention of this "ourt.

#urther!ore, this uestion of 4urisdition is unsu*stantial. $t is )ellsettled rule that the institution ofsuffrage is of pu*li, not private, interest, and the ourt !ay e-a!ine all the *allots after the *allot*o-es are opened in order to deter!ine )hih are legal and )hih are illegal, even though neither of the parties raised any uestion as to their illegality. >:alung vs. Atien=a, 5+ Phil. '81<"eilio vs. o!aru=, + Phil. 89< "osulluela vs. aston, 3 Phil. 1@.

Cherefore, this ase is here*y re!anded to the "ourt of Appeals for further proeedings.


16/33


17/33

$f the servie has *een !ade *y pu*liation, servie !ay *e proved *y the affidavit of theprinter, his fore!an or prinipal lerk, or of the editor, *usiness or advertising !anager, to)hih affidavit a opy of the pu*liation shall *e attahed, and *+ an affidavit s!owing t!edeposit of a cop+ of t!e suons and order for pu*lication in t!e post office, postage

prepaid, directed to t!e defendant *+ ordinar+ ail to !is last known address. >E!phasissupplied.@.

Plaintiff alleges, ho)ever, that the provision applia*le to the ase at *ar is not this setion +1, *utsetion 1, of 7ule ', of the 7ules of "ourt, )hih provides?

Chenever the defendant is designated as an unkno)n o)ner, or the like, or )henever theaddress of a defendant is unkno)n and annot *e asertained *y diligent inuiry, servie!ay, *y leave of ourt, *e effet upon hi! *y pu*liation in suh plaes and for suh ti!esas the ourt !ay order.

$t is, !oreover, urged *y the plaintiff that the reuire!ent, in said setion +1, of an affidavit sho)ingthat opy of the su!!ons and of the order for its pu*liation had *een sent *y !ail to defendant/slast kno)n address, refers to the e-traterritorial servie of su!!ons, provided for in setion 1' of

said 7ule ', pursuant to )hih?

Chen the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines and the ation affetsthe personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the su*4et of )hih is, property )ithin thePhilippines, in )hih the defendant has or lai!s a lien or interest, atual or ontingent, or in)hih the relief de!anded onsists, )holly or in part, in e-luding the defendant fro! anyinterest therein, or the property of the defendant has *een attahed )ithin the Philippines,servie !ay, *y leave of ourt, *e effeted out of the Philippines *y personal servie asunder setion '< or *y registered !ail< or *y pu*liation in suh plaes and for suh ti!e asthe ourt !ay order, in )hih ase a opy of the su!!ons and order of the ourt shall *esent *y ordinary !ail to the last kno)n address of the defendant< or in any other !anner theourt !ay dee! suffiient. Any order granting suh leave shall speify a reasona*le ti!e,)hih shall not *e less than si-ty >(@ days after notie, )ithin )hih the defendant !ust

ans)er.

0aid setion +1, ho)ever, is unualified. $t presri*es the ;proof of servie *y pu*liation;,regardless of )hether the defendant is a resident of the Philippines or not. 0etion 1 !ust *e readin relation to setion +1, )hih o!ple!ents it. hen, too, )e oneive of no reason, and plaintiffhas suggested none, )hy opy of the su!!ons and of the order for its pu*liation should *e !ailedto nonresident defendants, *ut not to resident defendants. Ce an not even say that defendantherein, )ho, aording to the return of the 0heriff of ueva Ei4a, )as reportedly residing in 7i=al D)here he, in fat >0an #raniso del %onte and Iue=on "ity used to *e part of 7i=al@, )as residingD ould reasona*ly *e e-peted to read the su!!ons pu*lished in a ne)spaper said to *e ageneral irulation in ueva Eci%a.

"onsidering that strit o!pliane )ith the ter!s of the statute is neessary to onfer 4urisditionthrough servie *y pu*liation >&ahrah arage and a-i "o. vs. 2othkiss and "o., 3 Phil., 5(<&ano EspaHol#ilipino vs.Palana, 3' Phil., 9+1< %ills vs. 0!iley, 9 $daho 31', 3+5, ' Pa. '85<"harles vs. %arro), 99 %o. 38< 0underland, "ases on Proedure, Annotated, rial Pratie, p. 51@,the onlusion is inesapa*le that the lo)er ourt had no authority )hatsoever to issue the order ofJuly 1+, 1955, delaring the defendant in default and to render the deision of 0epte!*er 8, 1955,and that *oth are null and void ad initio.


18/33

Apart fro! the foregoing, it is a )ellsettled priniple of "onstitutional Ga) that, in an ation stritly inpersona!, like the one at *ar, personal servie of su!!ons, wit!in the foru!, is essential to theauisition of 4urisdition over the person of the defendant, )ho does not voluntarily su*!it hi!selfto the authority of the ourt. $n other )ords, su!!ons *y pu*liation annot D onsistently )ith thedue proess lause in the &ill of 7ights D onfer upon the ourt 4urisdition over said defendant.

6ue proess of la) reuires personal servie to support a personal 4udg!ent, and, )hen theproeeding isstrictl+ in persona *rought to deter!ine the personal rights and o*ligations ofthe parties, personal servie )ithin the state or a voluntary appearane in the aseis essential to t!e ac(uisition of %urisdiction so as to constitute copliance wit! t!econstitutional re(uireent of due process. . . .

Although a state legislature has !ore ontrol over the for! of servie on its o)n residentsthan nonresidents, it has *een held that in action in persona . . . service *+ pu*lication onresident defendants, )ho are personally )ithin the state and an *e found therein is not ;due

process of law ;, and a statute allo)ing it is unonstitutional. >1A ".J.0., pp. '8, '89<E!phasis ours.@

Gastly, fro! the vie)point of su*stantial 4ustie and euity, )e are of the opinion that defendant/spetition for relief should have *een granted. o *egin )ith, it )as filed )ell )ithin the periodsprovided in the 7ules of "ourt. 0eondly, and, this is !ore i!portant, defendant/s verified ans)er,)hih )as attahed to said petition, ontains allegations )hih, if true, onstitute a good defense.hus, for instane, in paragraph >+@ of the ;speial denials; therein, he alleged?

hat it is not true that he failed to pay the said inde*tedness of his said )ife, as alleged inparagraph 3 of the o!plaint, for as a !atter of fat, plaintiff and defendant agreed upon asettle!ent of the said inde*tedness of the latter/s deeased )ife on 6ee!*er 5, 198,)here*y defendant )as allo)ed to pay it out of his !onthly salary *y instal!ent of P1(.((!onthly *eginning January, 199, and in aordane there)ith, defendant paid unto plaintiffthe follo)ing su!s?

$nstal!ent for January#e*ruary, 198

%arh 199D P3(.(( paid personally April +, 199D 1(.(( *y !oney order '88%ay 11, 199D 1(.(( *y !oney order '9+1June 1(, 199D 1(.(( *y !oney order 8+3(July 11, 199D 1(.(( *y !oney order 8595

August 1(, 199D 1(.(( *y !oney order 8930epte!*er 199D 1(.(( paid personallyOto*er 199D 1(.(( paid personallyove!*er 1, 199D 1(.(( *y !oney order 9''6ee!*er 13, 199D 1(.(( *y !oney order (('

January 1(, 195(D 1(.(( *y !oney order (5#e*ruary 9, 195(D 1(.(( *y !oney order ('31%arh 1(, 195(D 1(.(( *y !oney order 119

April 1(, 195(D 1(.(( *y !oney order 138'%ay 11, 195(D 1(.(( *y !oney order 199(June 1+, 195(D 1(.(( *y !oney order 1(55July 11, 195(D 1(.(( *y !oney order 885(

August 11, 195(D 1(.(( *y !oney order 9+930epte!*er , 195(D 1(.(( *y !oney order 918


19/33

Oto*er 1(, 195(D 1(.(( *y !oney order (((8ove!*er 8, 195(D 1(.(( *y !oney order (396ee!*er 195(D 1(.(( paid personallyJanuary +, 1951D 1(.(( paid personally#e*ruary 1(, 1951D 1(.(( paid personally%arh 1+, 1951D 1(.(( paid personally

April 1951D 1(.(( paid personally%ay 1951D 1(.(( paid personallyJune 1951D 1(.(( paid personallyJuly 1951D 1(.(( paid personally

August 1951D 1(.(( paid personally0epte!*er 1951D 1(.(( paid personallyove!*er 1951D 1(.(( paid personally6ee!*er 1951D 1(.(( paid personally0epte!*er 195+D 3(.(( paid personally6ee!*er 195+D +(.(( paid personallyJanuary 1953D 1(.(( paid personally#e*ruary 1953D 1(.(( paid personally%arh 1953D 1(.(( paid personally

April 1953D 1(.(( paid personally%ay 1953D 1(.((otal paid D P(.((

he speifiation of the dates of pay!ent, of the a!ounts paid eah ti!e, of the !anner in )hiheah pay!ent )as !ade, and of the nu!*er of the !oney orders in )hih eighteen >18@ pay!entshad *een effeted, onstitutes a strong indiation of the pro*a*le veraity of said allegation, fully

4ustifying the grant of an opportunity to prove the sa!e.

Cherefore, said order of July 1+, 1955, and the afore!entioned deision of 0epte!*er 8, 1955, arehere*y set aside and annulled, and let the reord of this ase *e re!anded to the lo)er ourt forfurther proeedings )ith osts against plaintiffappellee. $t is so ordered.


20/33

G.R. No. L!1"1'4 Jnu&- 2+, 19'7

/ILLIAM 0. GEMPERLE, plaintiffappellant,vs.HELEN SHENKER n PAUL SHENKER 3e& 3u%n, defendantsappellees.

-a*oa & -a*oa for plaintiffappellant. A. R. arvasa for defendantsappellees.

ONEPION, C. J.:

Appeal, taken *y plaintiff, Cillia! #. e!perle, fro! a deision of the "ourt of #irst $nstane of 7i=aldis!issing this ase for lak of 4urisdition over the person of defendant Paul 0henker and for )antof ause of ation against his )ife and odefendant, 2elen 0henker said Paul 0henker ;*eing inno position to *e 4oined )ith her as party defendant, *eause he is *eyond the reah of the!agistray of the Philippine ourts.;

he reord sho)s that so!eti!e in 195+, Paul 0henkerhereinafter referred to as 0henker D

ating through his )ife and attorneyinfat, 2elen 0henker D hereinafter referred to as %rs.0henker D filed )ith the "ourt of #irst $nstane of 7i=al, a o!plaint D )hih )as doketed as"ivil "ase o. I+'9 thereof D against herein plaintiff Cillia! #. e!perle, for the enfore!ent of0henker/s allegedly initial su*sription to the shares of stok of the Philippines0)iss rading "o.,$n. and the e-erise of his alleged pree!ptive rights to the then unissued original apital stok ofsaid orporation and the inrease thereof, as )ell as for an aounting and da!ages. Alleging that,in onnetion )ith said o!plaint, %rs. 0henker had aused to *e pu*lished so!e allegationsthereof and other !atters, )hih )ere i!pertinent, irrelevant and i!!aterial to said ase o. I+'9, aside fro! *eing false and derogatory to the reputation, good na!e and redit of e!perle,;)ith the only purpose of attaking; his; honesty, integrity and reputation; and of *ringing hi! ;intopu*li hatred, disredit, disrepute and onte!pt as a !an and a *usiness!an;, e!perleo!!ened the present ation against the 0henkers for the reovery of P3((,((( as da!ages,P3(,((( as attorney/s fees, and osts, in addition to praying for a 4udg!ent ordering %rs. 0henker;to retrat in )riting the said defa!atory e-pressions;. $n due ourse, thereafter, the lo)er ourt,rendered the deision a*ove referred to. A reonsiderating thereof having *een denied, e!perleinterposed the present appeal.

he first uestion for deter!ination therein is )hether or not the lo)er ourt had auired 4urisditionover the person of 0henker. Ad!ittedly, he, a 0)iss iti=en, residing in urih, 0)it=erland, has not*een atually served )ith su!!ons in the Philippines, although the su!!ons address to hi! and%rs. 0henker had *een served personally upon her in the Philippines. $t is urged *y plaintiff that

4urisdition over the person of 0henker has *een seured through voluntary appearane on hispart, he not having !ade a speial appearane to assail the 4urisdition over his person, and anans)er having *een filed in this ase, stating that ;the defendants, *y ounsel, ans)ering theplaintiff/s o!plaint, respetfully aver;, )hih is allegedly a general appearane a!ounting to a

su*!ission to the 4urisdition of the ourt, onfir!ed, aording to plaintiff, *y a P++5,(((ounterlai! for da!ages set up in said ans)er< *ut this ounterlai! )as set up *y %rs. 0henkeralone, not inluding her hus*and. %oreover, said ans)er ontained several affir!ative defenses,one of )hih )as lak of 4urisdition over the person of 0henker, thus negating the alleged )aiverof this defense. evertheless, Ce hold that the lo)er ourt had auired 4urisdition over saiddefendant, through servie of the su!!ons addressed to hi! upon %rs. 0henker, it appearing fro!said ans)er that she is the representative and attorneyinfat of her hus*and afore!entioned ivilase o. I+'9, )hih apparently )as filed at her *ehest, in her afore!entioned representativeapaity. $n other )ords, %rs. 0henker had authority to sue, and had atually sued on *ehalf of her


21/33

hus*and, so that she )as, also, e!po)ered to represent hi! in suits filed against hi!, partiularly ina ase, like the of the one at *ar, )hih is onseuene of the ation *rought *y her on his *ehalf.

$nas!uh as the alleged a*sene of a ause of ation against %rs. 0henker is pre!ised upon thealleged lak of 4urisdition over the person of 0henker, )hih annot *e sustained, it follo)s that theonlusion dra)n therefore fro! is, like)ise, untena*le.

Cherefore, the deision appealed fro! should *e, is here*y, reversed, and the ase re!anded tothe lo)er ourt for proeedings, )ith the osts of this instane defendantsappellees. $t is soordered.


22/33

G.R. No. L!115"" Ju- 2, 1959

6AL6INO SEUITO, ET AL., plaintiffsappellees,vs.ANATALIO LETRONDO, defendantappellant.

Antonio 'eloso for appellees.)ernando ". udario for appellant.

LA6RADOR, J .

Appeal against a deision of the "ourt of #irst $nstane of Geyte, 2on. 0. ". %ososo, presiding,a)arding to plaintiffs &al*ino 0euito, et al., o)nership of a parel of land situated in 6aga!i, Geyte,and ordering defendant Anatolio Getrondo to vaate the pre!ises and to pay da!ages in the a!ountof P,(((.

he reord disloses the follo)ing? On Oto*er +1, 1955, the o!plaint in this ase )as filed in ourtand the su!!ons )as served *y polie sergeant &or4a upon defendant/s daughter )ho )as then 1+

years old and a fourth grade pupil >p. appellant/s *rief@. 6efendant failed to file an ans)er and so,upon plaintiffs/ !otion, he )as delared in default. Plaintiffs presented their evidene e-parte< thesa!e onsists of the testi!ony of plaintiff &al*ino 0euito only. Fpon this testi!ony the ourt on#e*ruary ', 195 rendered the 4udg!ent appealed fro!.

On %arh 13, 195, the defendant, !oved for ne) trial, alleging that he did not reeive of thesu!!ons and that he a!e to kno) a*out the ase only )hen he reeived a opy of the deision on#e*ruary +3, 195. 2e attahed to his !otion affidavits of !erit and a opy of a deed of sale of theland. he !otion )as denied, hene this appeal.

he sole issue is, 6id the trial ourt err in denying appellant/s !otion for ne) trial. 7esolution of thisuestion depends upon )hether or not there had *een a valid su*stituted servie of su!!ons in

aordane )ith 0etion 8, 7ule ' of the 7ules of "ourt.

he reord sho)s that the servie of the su!!ons )as irregular. $t )as served *y one poliesergeant, Paifio &or4a, )ho )as not a sheriff or a ourt offier, and )ho )as not authori=ed *y theourt to deliver the su!!ons. his violates the provisions of 0etion 5, 7ule ', 7ules of "ourt. heproof of servie is also not under oath as reuired *y 0etion +( of said rule.

%oreover, even if the su!!ons )as really served upon defendant/s daughter, still there )as no validsu*stituted servie *eause she, *eing only 1+ years of age and a grade four pupil, ould not haveappreiated the i!portane of the paper delivered to her. Ce an not say )ith ertainty that thedaughter )as at the ti!e of a suita*le age and disretion to *e entrusted )ith so i!portant adou!ent as a ourt su!!ons >0etion 8, 7ule ', 7ules of "ourt@.

As there is no evidene to sho) that defendant ever a!e to kno) a*out the ase *efore hereeived the deision, the irregularity in the servie )as not ured. 6efendant/s failure to file hisans)er is, therefore, 4ustified.

he reord )ould also reveal that the defendant has a valid defense, )hih onsists of Anne- ;&;>pp. 1315, 7.O.A.@, a deed of sale of the land e-euted *y #raniso 0euito, predeessor ininterest of the plaintiffs, in favor of iente "apatay, )ho, in turn, sold it to the defendant >pp. 1+13,


23/33

7.O.A.@. &esides, the defendant lai!s to have *een in possession of the land fro! the date ofpurhase up to the present ti!e.

he deision and the order appealed fro! are here*y set aside and the ase re!anded to the lo)erourt for further proeedings in aordane )ith this deision.


24/33

.7. o. G5+9 Oto*er 11, 195

G$G$ 0$0O JA7A$GGA, )ith her hus*and AO$O JA7A$GGA, G$A 0$0O KAGAC, )ith herhus*and AFF0O KAGAC, EA$6A 0$0O, &O$#A"$O 0$0O, J7., and 7F#O 0$0O,represented *y their guardian ad lite! G$G$ 0$0O JA7A$GGA, plaintiffs and appellees,

vs.ONSOLAION GON*ALES, (IENTA PU*ON, 8:3 3e& 3u%n DOMINGO PARAS, ARLOSPU*ON, 6ELEN PU*ON, 8:3 3e& 3u%n ARTURO DE GU*MAN, ASELA PU*ON, SALUDPU*ON, ANGELA PU*ON n JOSE0A MAASIE6 SISON, defendants and appellants.

Augusto /alaw for appellees.'icente #eng0on for appellants.

PADILLA, J .

his is an appeal fro! a 4udg!ent of the "ourt of #irst $nstane of Pangasinan rendered in ivil aseo. 11+(, )hih delared that the 4udg!ent rendered in ivil ase o. 89' of the sa!e "ourt and

the 4udg!ent of the "ourt of Appeals in "A7 o. +9(37 reversing it on appeal are *inding uponplaintiff Gili 0ison Jaranilla *ut that said 4udg!ents, in so far as the plaintiffs Gita 0ison Kala),enaida 0ison, &onifaio 0ison, Jr., and 7ufo 0ison are onerned, are null and void for lak of

4urisdition over their persons *y the ourts rendering the!< that the )rit of e-eution in pursuanethereof issued therein against the aforesaid plaintiffs is null and void< and that after the 4udg!entrendered herein shall have *eo!e final, said plaintiffs )ill *e allo)ed to present evidene in supportof the seond ause of ation alleged in their o!plaint, )ithout osts. he 4udg!ent appealed fro!)as rendered on a stipulation of fats )hih reads, as follo)s?

"o!e no) the parties in the a*oveentitled ase and in order to si!plify the proeedingsagree on the follo)ing fats?

1. hat in "ivil "ase o. 89' of this "ourt of Pangasinan, "onsolaion on=ales, ienta,"arlos, &elen, Asela, 0alud and Angela, all surna!ed Pu=on, )ido) and hildren of thedeeased 7afael Pu=on, respetively, )ere the plaintiffs, and Gourdes $hon da. de 0ison,)as the original defendant.

+. hat in her a!ended ans)er of June 13, 19, in said ase, the defendant therein,Gourdes $hon 0ison, stated that ;it )ould *e neessary to inlude >in the o!plaint@ all thehildren of the deeased &onifaio 0ison >hus*and of defendant Gourdes $hon@ insu*stitution of the deeased< that the legiti!ate hildren are? Gili 0ison, of legal age, !arriedto Antonio Jaranilla, Gita A!elia 0ison, 19 years, enaida 0ison, 1' years, &onifaio 0ison,Jr., 15 years, and 7ufo 0ison, 1+ years, all residing )ith defendant Gourdes $hon de 0isonin Frdaneta, Pangasinan, and that inas!uh as the last four are still !inors, it )ould *eneessary that a guardian ad lite *e appointed for the!, and it is suggested that defendant

Gourdes $hon de 0ison *e appointed as suh.

3. hat on June +5, 19, the plaintiffs in said ase again a!ended their o!plaint *yna!ing therein as odefendants the a*ove!entioned hildren of the deeased &onifaio0ison and reuested that their !other, the original defendant, *e appointed as theirguardian ad lite in the ase, *ut Antonio Jaranilla, hus*and of Gili 0ison Jaranilla, ho)ever,)as not inluded as one of the party defendants. he age and ivil status of the hildren asstated in paragraph + hereof is here*y ad!itted *y the parties to *e true and orret at theti!e of the filing of the a!ended o!plaint 4ust !entioned.


25/33

. hat on July 1, 19, the "ourt issued the follo)ing order?

o o*4etion having *een presented *y the defendants to the ad!ission of the seonda!ended o!plaint filed *y plaintiffs in the a*oveentitled ase, the sa!e is here*yad!itted.

he "lerk of "ourt is here*y ordered to issue the orresponding su!!ons against the ne)defendants Gili 0ison and the !inors Gita A!elia 0ison, enaida 0ison, &onifaio 0ison, Jr.,and 7ufo 0ison, through their guardian ad lite Gourdes $hon.

he plaintiffs herein agree that the a*ove order )as in fat issued )ithout ad!itting thatGourdes $hon 0ison had already then *een appointed their guardian ad lite.

5. hat on July 1, 19, the "ourt issued su!!ons addressed ;to Gili 0ison, Frdaneta,Pangasinan, and the !inors Gita A!elia 0ison, enaida 0ison, &onifaio, 0ison, Jr., and7ufo 0ison, represented *y their guardian ad lite, Gourdes $hon, Frdaneta, Pangasinan,;)hih )as served on Gourdes $. 0ison on July 9, 19, and on Gili 0ison Jaranilla on July 15,19, *ut no su!!ons )ere personally ever served to eah of the !inors Gita A!elia 0ison,

enaida 0ison, &onifaio 0ison, Jr., and 7ufo 0ison. A ertified opy of said su!!ons andits return is attahed as Anne- ;&; of the herein plaintiffs/ !otion for reonsideration datedJuly 1, 195(, and is here*y inorporated *y referenes as part of this stipulation of fats.

. hat the property o*4et of the litigation in said ase )as originally the on4ugal property of the spouses &onifaio 0ison and Gourdes $hon, )hih the therein plaintiffs, through 7afaelPu=on, lai!ed to have auired fro! Josefa %aasie* da. de 0ison.

'. hat on July 1', 19, Attorneys Pere=, ayagoy, A*eno4ar and $gnaio 6. "astillo, filedan ans)er to the a!ended o!plaint stated to *e on *ehalf of the ne) defendants Gili 0ison,Gita A!elia 0ison, enaida 0ison, &onifaio 0ison, Jr., and 7ufo 0ison. his stipulation issu*4et to the plaintiffs/ reservation in paragraph 1 hereof.

8. hat on 0epte!*er 1, 19, Attys. Pere=, A*eno4ar and $gnaio 6. "astillo, filed anans)er, speial defense and ounterlai!, alleging a!ong others, ;that the defendantGourdes $hon da. de 0ison and the other defendants, here*y reprodue all the allegationsstated *y the! in the last ans)er dated June 13, 19 and July 1', 19, filed *y the! inthis ase, as their ans)er to the last and seond a!ended o!plaint of the plaintiffs.; hisstipulation is also su*4et to plaintiffs/ reservation in paragraph 1.

9. hat Atty. $gnaio 6. "astillo, appearing for the defendants, stated in an affidavit attahedto the a!ended ans)er of 0epte!*er 5, 19, ;that Gili 0ison, Gita A!elia 0ison, enaida0ison, &onifaio 0ison, Jr., )ere only su!!oned last July, 19, and that they have so farfiled only one ans)er.; his stipulation ad!its as a fat that suh affidavit )as filed )ithoutthe herein plaintiffs ad!itting its !ateriality and o!peteny )hih they here)ith uestion

and is su*4et to the reservation in paragraph 1.

1(. hat upon petition filed *y attorney for the plaintiffs in said ase, the hearing of "ivil "aseo. 89' )as set for 0epte!*er 1+, 19, and on said date the "ourt issued the follo)ingorder?

Fpon petition of Atty. $gnaio 6. "astillo, the petitioner herein, Gourdes $hon da. de 0ison,is here*y appointed as guardian ad lite of her !inor hildren, na!ely, Gita A!elia 0ison,


26/33

enaida 0ison, &onifaio 0ison, Jr., and 7ufo 0ison, to represent the! in this proeeding.he said petitioner is here*y reuired to take her oath *efore disharging her duties as suhguardian ad lite.

11. hat the !inutes of the "ourt on the hearing on 0epte!*er 1+, 19, ertifies, a!ongother things, that ;*efore proeeding )ith the hearing of the ase, ounsel for the

defendants, prayed that defendant Gourdes $hon da. de 0ison *e appointed asguardian ad lite ad her !inor hildren Gita A!elia 0ison, enaida 0ison, &onifaio 0ison,Jr., and 7ufo 0ison to represent the! in this ase. he "ourt granted the petition.Chereupon, defendant Gourdes $hon da. de 0ison took her oath as suh guardian adlite*efore 6eputy "lerk of this "ourt, %r. enaro #errer.

1+. hat on #e*ruary 11, 198, upon !otion of the defendants therein, the "ourt of #irst$nstane rendered an order dis!issing the o!plaint in "ivil "ase o. 89' after plaintiffshad introdued all their evidene and after the defendant had presented five )itnesses, oneof the! *eing Gourdes $hon )ho )as still testifying *ut *efore the defense had o!pletedtheir evidene.

13. at the plaintiffs *rought up the ase on appeal to the "ourt of Appeals, .7. o. +9(37and said "ourt of Appeals, on 0epte!*er +', 199, reversed the order of dis!issal andrendered a deision in favor of the plaintiffs, applying the dotrine in the ase of Arroyo vs.

A=ur, 3 Off. a=., 5.

1. hat in the "ourt of #irst $nstane, in the "ourt of Appeals and in the 0upre!e "ourt, Attys. Pere=, 0antos L A*eno4ar, itoriano ayagoy, $gnaio 6. "astillo, Auino L Allas andPorfirio . 0ison have !ade it appear in all their pleadings and appearanes that they )ereappearing for all of the defendants in the ase, *ut the herein plaintiffs deny that they hadauthori=ed said attorneys to represent the! in any )ay in said "ivil "ase o. 89'.

15. hat opy of the !otion for the e-eution of the 4udg!ent and opy of the )rit ofe-eution issued pursuant thereto )ere served upon the attorney of reord of thedefendants, *ut )ere not served personally again upon the herein plaintiffs.

1. hat in aordane )ith the )rit of e-eution, the Provinial 0heriff of Pangasinan plaedthe herein defendants in possession of the land involved in "ivil "ase o. 89'.

1'. he parties agree that the plaintiffs herein, e-ept Gili 0ison, )ill testify that they had notkno)n of "ivil "ase o. 89' until their !other infor!ed the! a*out it after the denial of the0upre!e "ourt of the petition for ertiorari, )ithout the defendants ad!itting the veraity ofsuh fat.

18. hat ounsel for the plaintiffs herein !arried the plaintiff Gita 0ison on 6ee!*er 1,198, and )as pratising attorney sine 195, *ut lai!s that he had no kno)ledge of "ivil

"ase o. 89' until he )as infor!ed *y his !otherinla), Gourdes 0ison, of its defeat.

Cherefore, the parties su*!it the first ause of ation for deision on the a*ove stipulation of fats, )ith the reservation ontained in plaintiffs/ !otion of 0epte!*er +(, 1951.

Parties further pray that they *e granted a period of 1( days fro! date to su*!itsi!ultaneous !e!orandu! and an additional 5 days to su*!it reply !e!orandu!.


27/33

Gingayen, Pangasinan, 0epte!*er +(, 1951.

>0gd.@ AFF0O KAGAC Attorney for the plaintiffs

>0gd.@ $"EE &EO Attorney for the defendants

and the follo)ing additional stipulation of fats designated as paragraph 13a of the stipulation?

hat ounsel for the defendants filed in the 0upre!e "ourt a petition for a )rit of ertiorariagainst the deision of the "ourt of Appeals, .7. o. G3, and the 0upre!e "ourt in itsresolution of January 31, 195(, ordered the dis!issal of the petition for ertiorari for lak of!erit )ithout reuiring the respondents to ans)er it. his stipulation is su*4et to thereservation in paragraph 1.

here is no dou*t that plaintiff Gili 0ison Jaranilla is *ound *y the 4udg!ent rendered in ivil ase o.89' of the "ourt of #irst $nstane of Pangasinan and reversed on appeal *y the "ourt of Appeals in

"A7 o. +9(37, *eause her hus*and )as not a neessary party, the ontroversy thereininvolved *eing her share in the parels of land )hih she had inherited fro! her deeased father.

As to the seond point raised and deided in favor of the rest of the plaintiffs *y the "ourt of #irst$nstane of Pangasinan, it appears that the plaintiffs )ho )ere !inors e-ept Gili 0ison Jaranilla)ere not su!!oned in the ation >ivil ase o. 89'@, as provided for in setion 1(, 7ule '< thatGourdes $hon da. de 0ison, the defendant therein, represented to the "ourt that as her hildren)ere neessary parties they should *e 4oined as defendants< that on +5 June 19, as prayed for *ythe defendant therein, the plaintiffs therein a!ended their o!plaint i!pleading said hildren )ho,as the agreed state!ent of fats stipulates )ith the e-eption of Gili 0ison )ho )as of age, )ere!inors over 15 years of age and 7ufo, 1+ years old< that on 1 July 19 the "ourt ad!itted thea!ended o!plaint and ordered the ne) defendants to *e su!!oned< that the su!!ons issued on

that date *y the lerk of ourt )as served on the 9th of that !onth upon Gourdes $hon da. de0ison and on the 15th of that !onth upon Gili 0ison Jaranilla< that on 1' July 19 attorneys Pere=,ayagoy, A*eno4ar and $gnaio 6. "astillo filed an ans)er to the a!ended o!plaint in *ehalf of thei!pleaded defendants Gili 0ison Jaranilla, Gita 0ison, enaida 0ison, &onifaio 0ison, Jr., and 7ufo0ison< that on 1+ 0epte!*er 19, as prayed for *y the attorney appearing for the defendantstherein, Gourdes $hon da. de 0ison )as appointed guardian ad lite to represent her !inorhildren and ualified as suh *y taking her oath *efore deputy lerk of ourt enaro #errer< andthat in the "ourt of #irst $nstane, "ourt of Appeals and 0upre!e "ourt, attorneys Pere=, ayagoy,0antos L A*eno4ar, $gnaio 6. "astillo, Auino L Allas and Porfirio . 0ison represented in all theirpleadings that they )ere appearing for all the defendants therein. aking into onsideration all theiru!stanes of the ase, )e are of the opinion that the appearane of the attorneys in *ehalf ofthe !inors in the ation is euivalent to servie.1 he denial *y the !inors of having authori=ed saidattorneys to represent the! !ay *e oneded *ut suh denial does not destroy the presu!ption that

the servies of the attorneys had *een engaged *y the guardian ad litenot only to represent her*ut also the !inors. $f the duly appointed guardian ad lite, )ho is the !other of the !inors, did notonsider the su!!ons served on her alone as a su!!ons also on her !inor hildren, or if she didnot authori=e her attorneys to represent her !inor hildren, she should have raised the uestion inthe ase *efore or during the trial or thereafter *ut *efore 4udg!ent )as rendered. he failure of theguardian ad lite and of her attorneys to raise the point of lak of su!!ons servie upon the !inorspersonally is a )aiver on the part of said !inors represented *y their !other, their guardian ad lite,to uestion the lak of suh servie upon the! personally. As already stated, the voluntary


28/33

appearane of the attorneys not only for Gourdes $hon da. de 0ison *ut also for the !inors iseuivalent to servie.

he 4udg!ent appealed fro!, in so far as it annuls the 4udg!ent rendered in ivil ase o. 89' andthe 4udge!ent of the "ourt of Appeals in "A7 o. +9(37 reversing it on appeal and the )rit ofe-eution issued therein, is reversed, )ithout pronoune!ent as to osts.

G.R. No. 1+49+ June 19, 1997

PHILSE IN(ESTMENT ORPORATION, 6PI!INTERNATIONAL 0INANE LIMITED, nATHONA HOLDINGS, N.(., petitioners,vs.THE HONORA6LE OURT O0 APPEALS, 14"", IN., DRAGO DAI, (ENTURA O. DUAT,PREIOSO R. PERLAS, n /ILLIAM H. RAIG, respondents.

MENDO*A, J.:

his ase presents for deter!ination the onlusiveness of a foreign 4udg!ent upon the rights of theparties under the sa!e ause of ation asserted in a ase in our loal ourt. Petitioners *rought thisase in the 7egional rial "ourt of %akati, &ranh 5, )hih, in vie) of the pendeny at the ti!e ofthe foreign ation, dis!issed "ivil "ase o. 153 on the ground of litis pendentia, in additionto foru non conveniens. On appeal, the "ourt of Appeals affir!ed. 2ene this petition for revie)on certiorari .

he fats are as follo)s?

On January 15, 1983, private respondent entura O. 6uat o*tained separate loans fro! petitioners Ayala $nternational #inane Gi!ited >hereafter alled A:AGA@ 1 and Philse $nvest!ent "orporation

>hereafter alled P2$G0E"@ in the su! of F0+,5((,(((.((, seured *y shares of stok o)ned *y 6uat)ith a !arket value of P1,(88,995.((. $n order to failitate the pay!ent of the loans, private respondent188, $n., through its president, private respondent 6rago 6ai, assu!ed 6uat/s o*ligation under an

Agree!ent, dated January +', 1983, )here*y 188, $n. e-euted a Carranty 6eed )ith endor/s Gien *y)hih it sold to petitioner Athona 2oldings, .. >hereafter alled A2OA@ a parel of land in 2arris"ounty, e-as, F.0.A., for F0+,8(',+(9.(+, )hile P2$G0E" and A:AGA e-tended a loan to A2OA inthe a!ount of F0+,5((,(((.(( as initial pay!ent of the purhase prie. he *alane of F03(',+(9.(+)as to *e paid *y !eans of a pro!issory note e-euted *y A2OA in favor of 188, $n. 0u*seuently,upon their reeipt of the F0+,5((,(((.(( fro! 188, $n., P2$G0E" and A:AGA released 6uat fro! hisinde*tedness and delivered to 188, $n. all the shares of stok in their possession *elonging to 6uat.

As A2OA failed to pay the interest on the *alane of F03(',+(9.(+, the entire a!ount overed*y the note *ea!e due and de!anda*le. Aordingly, on Oto*er 1', 1985, private respondent

188, $n. sued petitioners P2$G0E", A:AGA, and A2OA in the Fnited 0tates for pay!ent of the*alane of F03(',+(9.(+ and for da!ages for *reah of ontrat and for fraud allegedlyperpetrated *y petitioners in !isrepresenting the !arketa*ility of the shares of stok delivered to188, $n. under the Agree!ent. Originally instituted in the Fnited 0tates 6istrit "ourt of e-as,15th Judiial 6istrit, )here it )as doketed as "ase o. 855'', the venue of the ation )aslater transferred to the Fnited 0tates 6istrit "ourt for the 0outhern 6istrit of e-as, )here 188,$n. filed an a!ended o!plaint, reiterating its allegations in the original o!plaint. A2OA filed anans)er )ith ounterlai!, i!pleading private respondents herein as ounterdefendants, forallegedly onspiring in selling the property at a prie over its !arket value. Private respondent


29/33

Perlas, )ho had allegedly appraised the property, )as later dropped as ounterdefendant. A2OAsought the reovery of da!ages and e-ess pay!ent allegedly !ade to 188, $n. and, in thealternative, the resission of sale of the property. #or their part, P2$G0E" and A:AGA filed a !otionto dis!iss on the ground of lak of 4urisdition over their person, *ut, as their !otion )as denied,they later filed a 4oint ans)er )ith ounterlai! against private respondents and Edgardo .uevarra, P2$G0E"/s o)n for!er president, for the resission of the sale on the ground that the

property had *een overvalued. On %arh 13, 199(, the Fnited 0tates 6istrit "ourt for the 0outhern6istrit of e-as dis!issed the ounterlai! against Edgardo . uevarra on the ground that it )as;frivolous and M)asN *rought against hi! si!ply to hu!iliate and e!*arrass hi!.; #or this reason,the F.0. ourt i!posed soalled 7ule 11 santions on P2$G0E" and A:AGA and ordered the! topay da!ages to uevarra.

On April 1(, 198', )hile "ivil "ase o. 28( )as pending in the Fnited 0tates, petitioners fileda o!plaint ;#or 0u! of %oney )ith 6a!ages and Crit of Preli!inary Attah!ent; against privaterespondents in the 7egional rial "ourt of %akati, )here it )as doketed as "ivil "ase o. 153.he o!plaint reiterated the allegation of petitioners in their respetive ounterlai!s in "ivil Ationo. 28( of the Fnited 0tates 6istrit "ourt of 0outhern e-as that private respondentso!!itted fraud *y selling the property at a prie (( perent !ore than its true value ofF08((,(((.((. Petitioners lai!ed that, as a result of private respondents/ fraudulent!isrepresentations, A2OA, P2$G0E", and A:AGA )ere indued to enter into the Agree!ent andto purhase the 2ouston property. Petitioners prayed that private respondents *e ordered to returnto A2OA the e-ess pay!ent of F01,'((,(((.(( and to pay da!ages. On April +(, 198', thetrial ourt issued a )rit of preli!inary attah!ent against the real and personal properties of privaterespondents. 2

Private respondent 6uat !oved to dis!iss "ivil "ase o. 153 on the grounds of >1@ litis pendentia, visavis"ivil Ation o. 28( filed *y 188, $n. and 6ai in the F.0., >+@ foru nonconveniens, and >3@ failure of petitioners P2$G0E" and &P$$#G to state a ause of ation. 6uatontended that the alleged overpriing of the property pre4udied only petitioner A2OA, as *uyer,*ut not P2$G0E" and &P$$#G )hih )ere not parties to the sale and )hose only partiipation )as toe-tend finanial ao!!odation to A2OA under a separate loan agree!ent. On the other hand,

private respondents 188, $n. and its president 6ai filed a 4oint ;0peial Appearane and Iualified%otion to 6is!iss,; ontending that the ation *eing in persona!, e-traterritorial servie ofsu!!ons *y pu*liation )as ineffetual and did not vest the ourt )ith 4urisdition over 188, $n.,)hih is a nonresident foreign orporation, and 6ai, )ho is a nonresident alien.

On January +, 1988, the trial ourt granted 6uat/s !otion to dis!iss, stating that ;the evidentiaryreuire!ents of the ontroversy !ay *e !ore suita*ly tried *efore the foru! of the litis pendentia inthe F.0., under the priniple in private international la) of foru non conveniens,; even as it notedthat 6uat )as not a party in the F.0. ase.

A separate hearing )as held )ith regard to 188, $n. and 6ai/s !otion to dis!iss. On %arh 9,1988, the trial ourt + granted the !otion to dis!iss filed *y 188, $n. and 6ai on the ground of litis

pendentia onsidering that

the ;ain factual eleent ; of the ause of ation in this ase )hih is the validity ofthe sale of real property in the Fnited 0tates *et)een defendant 188 and plaintiff

A2OA is the su*4et !atter of the pending ase in the Fnited 0tates 6istrit "ourt)hih, under the dotrine of foru non conveniens, is the *etter >if not e-lusive@foru! to litigate !atters needed to deter!ine the assess!ent andBor flutuations ofthe fair !arket value of real estate situated in 2ouston, e-as, F.0.A. fro! the dateof the transation in 1983 up to the present and verily, . . . >e!phasis *y trial ourt@


30/33

he trial ourt also held itself )ithout 4urisdition over 188, $n. and 6ai *eause they )erenonresidents and the ation )as not an ation in re or (uasi in re, so that e-traterritorialservie of su!!ons )as ineffetive. he trial ourt su*seuently lifted the )rit of attah!entit had earlier issued against the shares of stoks of 188, $n. and 6ai.

Petitioners appealed to the "ourt of Appeals, arguing that the trial ourt erred in applying the

priniple of litis pendentia and foru non conveniens and in ruling that it had no 4urisdition over thedefendants, despite the previous attah!ent of shares of stoks *elonging to 188, $n. and 6ai.

On January , 199+, the "ourt of Appeals 4 affir!ed the dis!issal of "ivil "ase o. 153 against6uat, 188, $n., and 6ai on the ground of litis pendentia, thus?

he plaintiffs in the F.0. ourt are 188 $n. andBor 6rago 6ai, )hile the defendantsare Philse, the Ayala $nternational #inane Gtd. >&P$$#G/s for!er na!e@ and the

Athona 2oldings, . he ase at *ar involves the sa!e parties. he transationsued upon *y the parties, in *oth ases is the Carranty 6eed e-euted *y and*et)een Athona 2oldings and 188 $n. $n the F.0. ase, *reah of ontrat and thepro!issory note are sued upon *y 188 $n., )hih like)ise alleges fraud e!ployed

*y herein appellants, on the !arketa*ility of 6uat/s seurities given in e-hange forthe e-as property. he reovery of a su! of !oney and da!ages, for fraudpurportedly o!!itted *y appellees, in overpriing the e-as land, onstitute theation *efore the Philippine ourt, )hih like)ise ste!s fro! the sa!e Carranty6eed.

he "ourt of Appeals also held that "ivil "ase o. 153 )as an ation in persona! for thereovery of a su! of !oney for alleged tortious ats, so that servie of su!!ons *ypu*liation did not vest the trial ourt )ith 4urisdition over 188, $n. and 6rago 6ai. hedis!issal of "ivil "ase o. 153 on the ground of foru non conveniens )as like)iseaffir!ed *y the "ourt of Appeals on the ground that the ase an *e *etter tried and deided*y the F.0. ourt?

he F.0. ase and the ase at *ar arose fro! only one !ain transation, and involveforeign ele!ents, to )it? 1@ the property su*4et !atter of the sale is situated ine-as, F.0.A.< +@ the seller, 188 $n. is a nonresident foreign orporation< 3@although the *uyer, Athona 2oldings, a foreign orporation )hih does not lai! to*e doing *usiness in the Philippines, is )holly o)ned *y Philse, a do!estiorporation, Athona 2oldings is also o)ned *y &P$$#G, also a foreign orporation< @the Carranty 6eed )as e-euted in e-as, F.0.A.

$n their present appeal, petitioners ontend that?

1. 2E 6O"7$E O# PE6E": O# AO2E7 A"$O &ECEE 2E 0A%EPA7$E0 #O7 2E 0A%E "AF0E >L121 PEDE21A@ 7EG$E6 FPO &: 2E

"OF7 O# APPEAG0 $ A##$7%$ 2E 7$AG "OF7/0 6$0%$00AG O# 2E"$$G A"$O $0 O APPG$"A&GE.

+. 2E P7$"$PGE O# )3R4$ 3 "3'E1E AG0O 7EG$E6 FPO &: 2E"OF7 O# APPEAG0 $ A##$7%$ 2E 6$0%$00AG &: 2E 7$AG "OF7 O#2E "$$G A"$O $0 G$KEC$0E O APPG$"A&GE.

3. A0 A "O7OGGA7: O 2E #$70 CO 7OF60, 2E "OF7 O# APPEAG0E77E6 $ O 2OG6$ 2A P2$G$PP$E PF&G$" POG$": 7EIF$7E6 2E


31/33

A00F%P$O, O 2E 7EG$IF$02%E, &: 2E 7$AG "OF7 O# $07$2#FG JF7$06$"$O $ 2E "$$G A"$O #O7 2E7E $0 EE7:7EA0O O P7OE" A6 $6$"AE PE$$OE70/ 7$20 #O7O7$OF0 O7 C7O#FG A"0 O7 "O6F" P7$AE 7E0PO6E0>C2O A7E %O0G: O7E0$6E AG$E0@ $#G$"E6 FPO 2E% 2E7E $2E P2$G$PP$E0.

Ce )ill deal )ith these ontentions in the order in )hih they are !ade.

)irst . $t is i!portant to note in onnetion )ith the first point that )hile the present ase )as pendingin the "ourt of Appeals, the Fnited 0tates 6istrit "ourt for the 0outhern 6istrit of e-as rendered

4udg!ent 5 in the ase *efore it. he 4udg!ent, )hih )as in favor of private respondents, )as affir!edon appeal *y the "iruit "ourt of Appeals.' hus, the prinipal issue to *e resolved in this ase is )hether"ivil "ase o. 153 is *arred *y the 4udg!ent of the F.0. ourt.

Private respondents ontend that for a foreign 4udg!ent to *e pleaded as res 4udiata, a 4udg!entad!itting the foreign deision is not neessary. On the other hand, petitioners argue that the foreign

4udg!ent annot *e given the effet of res 4udiata )ithout giving the! an opportunity to i!peah it

on grounds stated in 7ule 39, 5( of the 7ules of "ourt, to )it? ;)ant of 4urisdition, )ant of notie tothe party, ollusion, fraud, or lear !istake of la) or fat.;

Petitioners/ ontention is !eritorious. Chile this "ourt has given the effet of res 4udiata to foreign 4udg!ents in several ases, 7 it )as after the parties opposed to the 4udg!ent had *een given a!pleopportunity to repel the! on grounds allo)ed under the la). " $t is not neessary for this purpose toinitiate a separate ation or proeeding for enfore!ent of the foreign 4udg!ent. Chat is essential is thatthere is opportunity to hallenge the foreign 4udg!ent, in order for the ourt to properly deter!ine itseffiay. his is *eause in this 4urisdition, )ith respet to ations in persona!, as distinguished fro!ations in re, a foreign 4udg!ent !erely onstitutes pria facie evidene of the 4ustness of the lai! of a party and, as suh, is su*4et to proof to the ontrary. 9 7ule 39, 5(provides?

0e. 5(. Effect of foreign %udgents. D he effet of a 4udg!ent of a tri*unal of aforeign ountry, having 4urisdition to pronoune the 4udg!ent is as follo)s?

>a@ $n ase of a 4udg!ent upon a speifi thing, the 4udg!ent is onlusive upon thetitle to the thing<

>*@ $n ase of a 4udg!ent against a person, the 4udg!ent is presu!ptive evidene ofa right as *et)een the parties and their suessors in interest *y a su*seuent title<*ut the 4udg!ent !ay *e repelled *y evidene of a )ant of 4urisdition, )ant of notieto the party, ollusion, fraud, or lear !istake of la) or fat.

hus, in the ase of -eneral "orporation of t!e P!ilippines v . 4nion 1nsurance ociet+ of "anton,

Ltd .,1

)hih private respondents invoke for lai!ing onlusive effet for the foreign 4udg!ent in theirfavor, the foreign 4udg!ent )as onsidered res 4udiata *eause this "ourt found ;fro! the evidene as)ell as fro! appellant/s o)n pleadings; 11 that the foreign ourt did not !ake a ;lear !istake of la) orfat; or that its 4udg!ent )as void for )ant of 4urisdition or *eause of fraud or ollusion *y thedefendants. rial had *een previously held in the lo)er ourt and only after)ard )as a deision rendered,delaring the 4udg!ent of the 0upre!e "ourt of the 0tate of Cashington to have the effet of res 4udiatain the ase *efore the lo)er ourt. $n the sa!e vein, in P!ilippines 1nternational !ipping "orp. v . "ourt of

Appeals, 12 this "ourt held that the foreign 4udg!ent )as valid and enforea*le in the Philippines there*eing no sho)ing that it )as vitiated *y )ant of notie to the party, ollusion, fraud or lear !istake of la)or fat. he pria facie presu!ption under the 7ule had not *een re*utted.


32/33

$n the ase at *ar, it annot *e said that petitioners )ere given the opportunity to hallenge the 4udg!ent of the F.0. ourt as *asis for delaring it res 4udiata or onlusive of the rights of privaterespondents. he proeedings in the trial ourt )ere su!!ary. either the trial ourt nor theappellate ourt )as even furnished opies of the pleadings in the F.0. ourt or apprised of theevidene presented thereat, to assure a proper deter!ination of )hether the issues then *einglitigated in the F.0. ourt )ere e-atly the issues raised in this ase suh that the 4udg!ent that

!ight *e rendered )ould onstitute res 4udiata. As the trial ourt stated in its disputed order dated%arh 9, 1988.

On the plaintiff/s lai! in its Opposition that the auses of ation of this ase and thepending ase in the Fnited 0tates are not idential, precisel+ t!e 3rder of Januar+56, 7899 never found t!at t!e causes of action of t!is case and t!e case pending*efore t!e 4A "ourt, were identical . >e!phasis added@

$t )as error therefore for the "ourt of Appeals to su!!arily rule that petitioners/ ation is*arred *y the priniple of res 4udiata. Petitioners in fat uestioned the 4urisdition of theF.0. ourt over their persons, *ut their lai! )as *rushed aside *y *oth the trial ourt andthe "ourt of Appeals. 1+

%oreover, the "ourt notes that on April ++, 199+, 188, $n. and 6ai filed a petition for theenfore!ent of 4udg!ent in the 7egional rial "ourt of %akati, )here it )as doketed as "ivil "aseo. 9+1('( and assigned to &ranh 13, although the proeedings )ere suspended *eause of thependeny of this ase. o sustain the appellate ourt/s ruling that the foreign 4udg!ent onstitutesres 4udiata and is a *ar to the lai! of petitioners )ould effetively prelude petitioners fro!repelling the 4udg!ent in the ase for enfore!ent. An a*surdity ould then arise? a foreign 4udg!entis not su*4et to hallenge *y the plaintiff against )ho! it is invoked, if it is pleaded to resist a lai!as in this ase, *ut it !ay *e opposed *y the defendant if the foreign 4udg!ent is sought to *eenfored against hi! in a separate proeeding. his is plainly untena*le. $t has *een held thereforethat?

MAN foreign 4udg!ent !ay not *e enfored if it is not reogni=ed in the 4urisdition

)here affir!ative relief is *eing sought. 2ene, in the interest of 4ustie, theo!plaint should *e onsidered as a petition for the reognition of the 2ongkong

4udg!ent under 0etion 5( >*@, 7ule 39 of the 7ules of "ourt in order that thedefendant, private respondent herein, !ay present evidene of lak of 4urisdition,notie, ollusion, fraud

Hasegawa - Philsec

Documents

Transcript of Hasegawa - Philsec