In the case of St. Aviation Services v. Grand International Airways, Petitioner St.

Aviation Services
entered into two maintenance agreements with respondent Grand International Airways for the
maintenance and modification works on respondent’s aircrafts. For services rendered, petitioner billed
the respondent the sum of $452,560.18, which respondent the failed to pay. Thus, petitioner filed with
the high court of the Republic of Singapore a collection suit against the respondent. The Singaporean
court issued a Writ of Summons to be served extraterritorially upon the respondent in the Philippines.
The sheriff of Pasay City effected service of the summons upon respondent which failed to answer the
complaint. The Singapore High Court then rendered a judgment by default against respondent.
Subsequently, petitioner filed a petition for enforcement of judgment with Branch 117 of the Regional
Trial Court of Pasay City. Respondent sought to dismiss the petition on the grounds that Singapore court
had no jurisdiction over the person and that the foreign judgment violated his rights to due process of
law. The motion to dismiss was denied so respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA then set
aside the order of the RTC, sustaining respondent’s claim of lack of jurisdiction over its person. Petitioner
then appealed to the Supreme Court. The issues in this case are: a) whether or not the Singaporean High
Court has acquired jurisdiction over the person of the respondent by the service of summons upon its
office in the Philippines and b) whether the judgment by default in suit no. 2101 by the Singaporean
High Court is enforceable in the Philippines.

The Supreme Court ruled that generally, matters of remedy and procedure such as those relating to the
service of process upon a defendant are governed by the international law of the forum, which in this
case is the law of Singapore. Here, petitioner moved for leave of Court to serve a copy of the writ of
summons outside Singapore. In an order dated December 24, 1997, the Singapore high court granted
leave to serve a copy of the writ of summons on the defendant by a method of service authorized by the
law of the Philippines for services of any originating process issued by the Philippines at Ground Floor,
APMC building, 136 Amorsolo corner Gamboa Street, 1229 Makati City, or elsewhere in the Philippines.
This service of summons outside Singapore is in accordance with Order 11, r. 4(2) of the Rules of Court
1996 of Singapore, which provides:

2) Where in accordance these Rules, an originating process is to be served on a defendant in

any country with respect to which there does not subsist a Civil Procedure Convention
providing for services in that country of process of the High Court, the originating process
may be served.
a) Through the government of that country, where that government is willing to effect service;
b) Through a Singapore consular authority in that country, except where services through such
an authority is contrary to the law of the country; or
c) By a method of service authorized by the law of that country for service of any originating
process issued by that country.

For the second issue, the Supreme Court ruled that in the Philippines the jurisdiction over a party is
acquired by the service of summons by the sheriff, his deputy, or other proper court officer either
personally by handling a copy thereof to the defendant or by substituted service. In this case, the Writ of
Summons issued by the Singapore High Court was served upon respondent at its office. The Sheriff’s
return shows that it was received on May 2, 1998 but respondent completely ignored the summons,
hence, it was declared in default. Considering that the Writ of Summons was served upon respondent in
accordance with our rules, jurisdiction was acquired by the Singapore high court over its person. Clearly,
the judgment of default rendered by that court against respondent is valid.

The Local Court is not a Refuge for failed Business Dealings, It is an accepted practice in the Philippines
that where a foreign judgment, convention, or agreement contravene the state’s public policy or
prohibitive laws, said foreign judgments or convictions are void and cannot be enforced in our
jurisdiction. Hence, in labor cases, where Filipino laborers are prejudiced by foreign laws or agreements,
the same may not be enforced by our local court. However, this rule does not mean that local courts are
refuges for failed business dealings nor of transactions gone awry on foreign jurisdiction where the
underlying agreement is both valid in the jurisdiction where the underlying agreement is both valid in
the Philippines and in the foreign jurisdiction. Hence, so long as the party was properly given an
opportunity to be heard by a foreign court, the latter’s judgment may appropriately be enforced in our
jurisdiction. Also, the acts of a party freely and voluntarily undertaken in a foreign jurisdiction will have
the same effect as estoppels in our foreign jurisdiction will have the same effect as estoppels in our
jurisdiction. As member of the international community, the Philippines accords reciprocity and comity
to decisions of foreign tribunals save only when these violate public policy or a prohibitive law of the
Philippines.

In the case of Philippine Aluminum Wheels v. FASGI Enterprises, respondent FASGI, a California
corporation, entered into an agreement with petitioner PAWI, a Philippine corporation and Fratelli
Pedrini Sarezzo, an Italian corporation, for the importation and distributorship in PAWI. PAWI shipped to
FASGI a total of 8,594 wheels. Worth $216,444.30, which FASGI paid promptly. However, some items in
the shipment were later discovered to be defective and non compliant with the stipulated requirements.
Thus, FASGI sued PAWI and FPS for breach of contract and recovery of damages before the United States
district court for the central district of California. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, but
this was violated by PAWI. Petitioner returned to the California court to pursue its claim against PAWI
and FPS. The parties once more entered into another settlement agreement but again it was violated by
PAWI. FASGI, then filed a petition for enforcement of foreign judgment with the RTC of Makati city. The
RTC, however, dismissed the suit on the grounds of collusion, fraud and clear mistake of law and fact,
reasoning that the foreign judgment ignored the reciprocal obligations of the parties and that the
agreement was entered into by Thomas without PAWI’s consent. The issue in this case is whether the
decision of the California court may be enforced in the Philippines.

The Supreme Court ruled that a valid judgment rendered by a foreign tribunal may be recognized insofar
as the immediate parties and the underlying cause of action are concerned so long as it is convincingly
shown that there has been an opportunity for a full and fair hearing before a court of competent
jurisdiction; that trial upon regular proceedings has been conducted, following due citations or voluntary
appearance of the defendant and under a system of jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial
administration of justice; and that there is nothing to indicate either a prejudice in court and in the
system of laws under which it is sitting or fraud in procuring the judgment. A foreign judgment is
presumed to be valid and binding in the country from which it comes, until a contrary showing, on the
basis of a presumption of regularity of proceedings and the giving of due notice in the foreign forum.
Under Proof of Foreign Law, it must be borne in mind that local courts do not take judicial notice of
foreign judgment and laws. For a foreign judgment to be enforceable in our jurisdiction, the foreign
judgment itself must be properly proved before our courts. A party invoking a foreign law or foreign
judgment as a source of right has to show in the first place the authenticity and genuineness of the
foreign document and foreign law he is relying upon. Without proper proof, processual presumption sets
in and Philippine laws shall govern as if the foreign law itself was Philippine law.