NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, INC. vs. CA Digest




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