Asiavest v.

CA The petitioner Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad : Malaysian corporation Private respondent Philippine National Construction Corporation : Philippine corporation 1983 : petitioner initiated a suit for collection against private respondent before the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur. Petitioner sought to recover the indemnity of the performance bond it had put up in favor of private respondent to guarantee the completion of the Felda Project and the nonpayment of the loan it extended to Asiavest-CDCP Sdn. Bhd. for the completion of Paloh Hanai and Kuantan By Pass; Project. September 13, 1985: the High Court of Malaya (Commercial Division) rendered judgment in favor of the petitioner and against the private respondent The private respondent was asked to pay 5,108,290.23 Ringgits Following UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS to secure payment from private respondent under the judgment, petitioner initiated on September 5, 1988 the complaint before Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, to ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT of the High Court of Malaya The RTC of Manila and the CA denied the motion for lack of want of jurisdiction

ISSUE: Whether or not the Malaysian High Court acquired jurisdiction over the PNCC or the private respondent Contentions of Private Respondent: (more of the rules of procedure) 1. The Malaysian High Court did not serve the summons to the right persons a. The summons was sent to the accountant of the PNCC, Cora Deala; she is not authorized to receive the summons for and in behalf of the private respondent. 2. Private respondent was not represented by counsel in the proceedings a. According to Abelardo, the private respondents executive secretary said that there is no resolution granting or authorizing Allen and Glendhill (the said to be lawyers of the company) to admit all the claims of the petitioner. 3. That the decision of the Malaysian High Court is tainted with fraud and clear mistake of fact/law; a. Since there is no statement of facts and law given which the award is given in favor of the petitioner.

Held: GRANTED. The Malaysian High Court acquired jurisdiction over PNCC due to the following grounds: 1. The rules of procedure (such as those serving of summons) are governed by the lex fori or the internal law forumwhich is in this case is Malaysia a. It is the procedural law of Malaysia where the judgment was rendered that determines the validity of the service of court process on private respondent as well as other matters raised by it. i. Since the burden of proof of showing that there are irregularities in the serving of summons as to the procedural rules of the Malaysian high court should be shouldered by the private respondents; however, the private respondent failed to show or give proof in the said irregularities therefore the PRESUMPTION of validity and regularity of service of summons and the decision rendered by the High Court of Malaya should stand. 2. On the matter of alleged lack of authority of the law firm of Allen and Gledhill to represent private respondent, not only did the private respondent's witnesses admit that the said law firm of Allen and Gledhill were its counsels in its transactions in Malaysia. a. but of greater significance is the fact that petitioner offered in evidence relevant Malaysian jurisprudence to the effect that i. it is not necessary under Malaysian law for counsel appearing before the Malaysian High Court to submit a special power of attorney authorizing him to represent a client before said court, ii. that counsel appearing before the Malaysian High Court has full authority to compromise the suit iii. That counsel appearing before the Malaysian High Court need not comply with certain pre-requisites as required under Philippine law to appear and compromise judgments on behalf of their clients before said court. 3. On the ground that collusion, fraud and, clear mistake of fact and law tainted the judgment of the High Court of Malaya, no clear evidence of the same was adduced or shown. Since the burden of proof again should be shouldered by the private respondent a. As aforestated, the lex fori or the internal law of the forum governs matters of remedy and procedure. i. Considering that under the procedural rules of the High Court of Malaya, a valid judgment may be

rendered even without stating in the judgment every fact and law upon which the judgment is based, then the same must be accorded respect and the courts in the jurisdiction cannot invalidate the judgment of the foreign court simply because our rules provide otherwise.