NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES INC. VS COURT OF APPEALS AND C.F.

SHARP
AND COMPANY INC.
GR No. 112573, February 9, 1995
Petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals
affirming the dismissal of petitioners complaint to enforce the judgment of a
Japanese Court
Facts:
Petitioner, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, sought
to enforce a judgment rendered in its favor by a Japanese Court against respondent,
a corporation incorporated under Philippine Laws.
The factual and the procedural antecedents are as follows:
On May 1974, parties entered into an International Passenger Sales
Agency Agreement whereby the former authorized the latter to sell its air
transportation tickets. Petitioner sought defendant for failure to remit the
proceeds of the ticket sales, with claims for damages. A writ of summons was
issued by the Tokyo District Court of Japan but was unsuccessfully served to
the defendant. In lieu of the unsuccessful attempts, the judge of the Tokyo
district court decided to have the complaint and writs of summons served at
the head office of the defendant in Manila. Defendant received a copy of the
summons on April 28, 1980. However, it still failed to appear during the
scheduled hearings. The Tokyo Court proceeded with hearing the complaint
and rendered judgment ordering defendant to pay plaintiff a sum of 83, 158,
195 Yen with damages. For failure to appeal despite receipt of judgment, the
same became final and executory. Plaintiff was unable to execute judgment in
Japan so a suit for enforcement was filed by plaintiff before the RTC of Manila.
Defendant filed its answer averring that the judgment of the Japanese Court
sought to be enforced is null, void and unenforceable in this jurisdiction
having been rendered without due and proper notice to the defendant and
with collusion or fraud and/or upon a clear mistake of law and fact. The case
was tried on the merits where defendant then filed a motion for judgment on
a demurrer to evidence. The court granted the motion and dismissed the
case. It argued that the foreign judgment is null and void for want of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The Case was appealed but the
Court of Appeals sustained the decision of the Trial Court
Issue: Whether a Japanese Court can acquire Jurisdiction over a Philippine
Corporation doing business in Japan by serving summons through diplomatic
channels of the Philippine Corporation at its principal office in Manila after prior
attempts to serve summons in Japan had failed.
Ruling:
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. Consequently, the party attacking
a foreign judgment has the burden of overcoming the presumption of its validity.
Being the party challenging the judgment rendered by the Japanese court, SHARP
had the duty to demonstrate the invalidity of such judgment.

It is settled that matters f remedy and procedure such as those relating to the
service of process upon a defendant are governed by the lex fori or the internal law
of the forum. In this case, it is the procedural law of Japan where the judgment was
rendered that determines the validity of the extraterritorial service of process on
SHARP. Accordingly, the extraterritorial service of summons on it by the Japanese
Court was valid not only under the processual resumption but also because of the
presumption of regularity of performance of official duty.
Northwests claim for attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and exemplary
damages are found by the court to be without merit. There were no
evidences that would justify the award for attorneys fees and litigation
expenses. An award for exemplary damages cannot also be granted in
absence of a clear showing that he is entitled to moral, temperate or
compensatory damages.