ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKER (M) VERHAD vs COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS: In 1985, the High Court of Malaysia ordered the Philippine National Construction Corporation
(PNCC) to pay $5.1 million to Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad. This was the result of a recovery
suit filed by Asiavest against PNCC in Malaysia for PNCCs failure to complete a construction project
there despite due payment from Asiavest. Despite demand, PNCC failed to comply with the judgment in
Malaysia hence Asiavest filed a complaint for the enforcement of the Malaysian ruling against PNCC in
the Philippines. The case was filed with the Pasig RTC which eventually denied the complaint. The Court
of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Asiavest appealed. In its defense, PNCC alleged that the foreign judgment cannot be enforced here
because of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to PNCC, collusion and/or fraud, and there is a clear
mistake of law or fact. Asiavest assailed the arguments of PNCC on the ground that PNCCs counsel
participated in all the proceedings in the Malaysian Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Malaysian Court judgment should be enforced against PNCC in the
Philippines.

HELD: Yes. PNCC failed to prove and substantiate its bare allegations of want of jurisdiction, want of
notice, collusion and/or fraud, and mistake of fact. On the contrary, Asiavest was able to present
evidence as to the validity of the proceedings that took place in Malaysia. Asiavest presented the certified
and authenticated copies of the judgment and the order issued by the Malaysian Court. It also presented
correspondences between Asiavests lawyers and PNCCs lawyers in and out of court which belied
PNCCs allegation that the Malaysian court never acquired jurisdiction over it. PNCCs allegation of
fraud is not sufficient too, further, it never invoked the same in the Malaysian Court.
The Supreme Court notes, to assail a foreign judgment the party must present evidence of want of
jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Otherwise, the
judgment enjoys the presumption of validity so long as it was duly certified and authenticated. In this
case, PNCC failed to present the required evidence.

CADALIN vs POEA
G.R. No. L-104776, Dec. 5, 1994

GENERAL RULE: A foreign procedural law will not be applied in the forum.
EXCEPTION: When the country of the forum has a "borrowing statute," the country of the forum will
apply the foreign statute of limitations.
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: The court of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious
to the forum's public policy.

FACTS:
Cadalin et al. are overseas contract workers recruited by respondent-appellant AIBC for its accredited
foreign principal, Brown & Root, on various dates from 1975 to 1983. As such, they were all deployed at
various projects in several countries in the Middle East as well as in Southeast Asia, in Indonesia and
Malaysia. The case arose when their overseas employment contracts were terminated even before their
expiration. Under Bahrain law, where some of the complainants were deployed, the prescriptive period
for claims arising out of a contract of employment is one year.

ISSUE:
Whether it is the Bahrain law on prescription of action based on the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 or a
Philippine law on prescription that shall be the governing law
HELD:
As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be applied in the forum. Procedural matters, such as
service of process, joinder of actions, period and requisites for appeal, and so forth, are governed by teh
laws of the forum. This is true even if the action is based upon a foreign substantive law.

A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict of Laws in the sense that it may be viewed
either as procedural or substantive, depending on the characterization given such a law.

However, the characterization of a statute into a procedural or substantive law becomes irrelevant when
the country of the forum has a borrowing statute. Said statute has the practical effect of treating the
foreign statute of limitation as one of substance. A borrowing statute directs the state of the forum to
apply the foreign statute of limitations to the pending claims based on a foreign law. While there are
several kinds of borrowing statutes, one form provides that an action barred by the laws of the place
where it accrued, will not be enforced in the forum even though the local statute has not run against it.
Section 48 of our Code of Civil Procedure is of this kind. Said Section provides:

If by the laws of the state or country where the cause of action arose, the action is barred, it is also barred
in the Philippine Islands.

In the light of the 1987 Constitution, however, Section 48 cannot be enforced ex propio vigore insofar as it
ordains the application in this jurisdiction of Section 156 of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976.

The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claims obnoxious to the forums public policy. To
enforce the one-year prescriptive period of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 as regards the claims in
question would contravene the public policy on the protection to labor.