FACTS: Northwest Airlines and Sharp, through its
Japan branch, entered into an
International Passenger Sales Agency Agreement, whereby the former
authorized the latter to sell its air transportation tickets. Unable to remit the proceeds of the ticket
sales made by defendant on behalf of the plaintiff under the said agreement,
plaintiff sued defendant in Tokyo, Japan, for collection of the unremitted
proceeds of the ticket sales, with claim for damages.
After
the two attempts of service were unsuccessful, the judge of the Tokyo District
Court decided to have the complaint and the writs of summons served at the head
office of the defendant in Manila. The Director of the Tokyo
District Court requested the Supreme Court of Japan to serve the summons
through diplomatic channels upon the defendant’s head office in Manila.
On August 28, 1980, defendant received
from Deputy Balingit the writ of summons. Despite receipt of the same, defendant failed
to appear at the scheduled hearing. Thus, the Tokyo Court proceeded to hear the
plaintiff’s complaint and, rendered judgment ordering the defendant to pay the
plaintiff the sum of 83,158,195 Yen and damages for delay. Defendant received from Deputy Sheriff Balingit copy of
the judgment. Defendant not having appealed the judgment, the same became final
and executory.
Plaintiff was unable to execute the decision
in Japan, hence, a suit for enforcement of the judgment was filed by plaintiff
before the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch 54.
Defendant filed its answer averring that the
judgment of the Japanese Court: (1) the foreign judgment sought to be enforced
is null and void for want of jurisdiction and (2) the said judgment is contrary
to Philippine law and public policy and rendered without due process of law.
ISSUE: Whether
a Japanese court can acquire jurisdiction over a Philippine Corporation doing
business in Japan by serving summons through diplomatic channels on the
Philippine corporation at its principal office in Manila after prior attempts
to serve summons in Japan had failed.
HELD:
YES
A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid
and binding in the country from which it comes, until the contrary is shown. It
is also proper to presume the regularity of the proceedings and the giving of
due notice therein. 6
The judgment may, however, be assailed by evidence of want of jurisdiction,
want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
Being the party challenging the judgment
rendered by the Japanese court, SHARP had the duty to demonstrate the
invalidity of such judgment. It was then incumbent upon SHARP to present
evidence as to what that Japanese procedural law is and to show that under it,
the assailed extraterritorial service is invalid. It did not. Accordingly, the
presumption of validity and regularity of the service of summons and the
decision thereafter rendered by the Japanese court must stand.
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.
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; and (c)
the Securities and Exchange Commission, in the case of other foreign
corporations duly licensed to do business in the Philippines.
Nowhere in its pleadings did SHARP profess to
having had a resident agent authorized to receive court processes in Japan.
No comments:
Post a Comment