G.R. No. 112573 February 9, 1995
Lessons Applicable: Territoriality Principle (conflicts of law)
FACTS:
- Northwest Airlines (Northwest) and C.F. Sharp & Company (C.F.), through its Japan branch, entered into an International Passenger Sales Agency Agreement, whereby the Northwest authorized the C.F. to sell its air transportation tickets
- March 25, 1980: Unable to remit the proceeds of the ticket sales, Northwest sued C.F. in Tokyo, Japan, for collection of the unremitted proceeds of the ticket sales, with claim for damages
- April 11, 1980: writ of summons was issued by the 36th Civil Department, Tokyo District Court of Japan
- The attempt to serve the summons was unsuccessful because Mr. Dinozo was in Manila and would be back on April 24, 1980
- April 24, 1980: Mr. Dinozo returned to C.F. Office to serve the summons but he refused to receive claiming that he no longer an employee
- After the 2 attempts of service were unsuccessful, Supreme Court of Japan sent the summons together with the other legal documents to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan> Japanese Embassy in Manila>Ministry (now Department) of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines>Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Manila who ordered Deputy Sheriff Rolando Balingit>C.F. Main Office
- August 28, 1980: C.F. received from Deputy Sheriff Rolando Balingit the writ of summons but failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.
- January 29, 1981: Tokyo Court rendered judgment ordering the C.F. to pay 83,158,195 Yen and damages for delay at the rate of 6% per annum from August 28, 1980 up to and until payment is completed
- March 24, 1981: C.F. received from Deputy Sheriff Balingit copy of the judgment. C.F. did not appeal so it became final and executory
- May 20, 1983: Northwest filed a suit for enforcement of the judgment a RTC
- July 16, 1983: C.F. averred that the Japanese Court sought to be enforced is null and void and unenforceable in this jurisdiction having been rendered without due and proper notice and/or with collusion or fraud and/or upon a clear mistake of law and fact. The foreign judgment in the Japanese Court sought in this action is null and void for want of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant considering that this is an action in personam. The process of the Court in Japan sent to the Philippines which is outside Japanese jurisdiction cannot confer jurisdiction over the defendant in the case before the Japanese Court of the case at bar
- CA sustained RTC: Court agrees that if the C.F. in a foreign court is a resident in the court of that foreign court such court could acquire jurisdiction over the person of C.F. but it must be served in the territorial jurisdiction of the foreign court
ISSUE: W/N the Japanese Court has jurisdiction over C.F.
HELD: YES. instant petition is partly GRANTED, and the challenged decision is AFFIRMED insofar as it denied NORTHWEST's claims for attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and exemplary damages
- Consequently, the party attacking (C.F.) a foreign judgment has the burden of overcoming the presumption of its validity
- Accordingly, the presumption of validity and regularity of the service of summons and the decision thereafter rendered by the Japanese court must stand.
- Applying it, the Japanese law on the matter is presumed to be similar with the Philippine law on service of summons on a private foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines. Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that if the defendant is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines, service may be made:
- (1) on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or,
- (2) if there is no such resident agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect; or
- (3) on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.
- If the foreign corporation has designated an agent to receive summons, the designation is exclusive, and service of summons is without force and gives the court no jurisdiction unless made upon him.
- Where the corporation has no such agent, service shall be made on the government official designated by law, to wit:
- (a) the Insurance Commissioner in the case of a foreign insurance company
- (b) the Superintendent of Banks, in the case of a foreign banking corporation
- (c) the Securities and Exchange Commission, in the case of other foreign corporations duly licensed to do business in the Philippines. Whenever service of process is so made, the government office or official served shall transmit by mail a copy of the summons or other legal proccess to the corporation at its home or principal office. The sending of such copy is a necessary part of the service.
- The service on the proper government official under Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 128 of the Corporation Code
- Our laws and jurisprudence indicate a purpose to assimilate foreign corporations, duly licensed to do business here, to the status of domestic corporations
- We think it would be entirely out of line with this policy should we make a discrimination against a foreign corporation, like the petitioner, and subject its property to the harsh writ of seizure by attachment when it has complied not only with every requirement of law made specially of foreign corporations, but in addition with every requirement of law made of domestic corporations
- In as much as SHARP was admittedly doing business in Japan through its four duly registered branches at the time the collection suit against it was filed, then in the light of the processual presumption, SHARP may be deemed a resident of Japan, and, as such, was amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts therein and may be deemed to have assented to the said courts' lawful methods of serving process.
- Accordingly, the extraterritorial service of summons on it by the Japanese Court was valid not only under the processual presumption but also because of the presumption of regularity of performance of official duty.
