Você está na página 1de 2


G.R. No. 114323 July 23, 1998

The petitioner is a foreign corporation owned and controlled by the Government of
India while the private respondent is a private corporation existing under the laws of
the Philippines. The present conflict between the petitioner and the private
respondent has its roots in a contract entered into by and between both parties
whereby the private respondent undertook to supply the petitioner (4,300) metric
tons of oil well cement. the petitioner bound itself to pay the private respondent by
opening an irrevocable, divisible, and confirmed letter of credit in favor of the latter.
The oil well cement was loaded on board the ship MV SURUTANA NAVA at the port of
Surigao City, Philippines for delivery at Bombay and Calcutta, India. However, due
to a dispute between the shipowner and the private respondent, the cargo was held
up in Bangkok and did not reach its point destination. Notwithstanding the fact that
the private respondent had already received payment and despite several demands
made by the petitioner, the private respondent failed to deliver the oil well cement.
The petitioner then informed the private respondent that it was referring its claim to
an arbitrator pursuant to Clause 16 of their contract
Without responding to the above communication, the foreign court refused to admit
the private respondent's objections for failure to pay the required filing fees, and
thereafter issued an
whether or not the judgment of the foreign court is enforceable in this
jurisdiction in view of the private respondent's allegation that it is bereft
of any statement of facts and law upon which the award in favor of the
petitioner was based.
The constitutional mandate that no decision shall be rendered by any court without
expressing therein dearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based
does not preclude the validity of "memorandum decisions" which adopt by
reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the decisions of
inferior tribunals. Furthermore, the recognition to be accorded a foreign judgment is
not necessarily affected by the fact that the procedure in the courts of the country
in which such judgment was rendered differs from that of the courts of the country
in which the judgment is relied on. 31 This Court has held that matters of remedy
and procedure are governed by the lex fori or the internal law of the forum. 32 Thus,
if under the procedural rules of the Civil Court of Dehra Dun, India, a valid judgment
may be rendered by adopting the arbitrator's findings, then the same must be

accorded respect. In the same vein, if the procedure in the foreign court mandates
that an Order of the Court becomes final and executory upon failure to pay the
necessary docket fees, then the courts in this jurisdiction cannot invalidate the
order of the foreign court simply because our rules provide otherwise. the essence
of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit
any evidence one may have in support of one's defense 33 or stated otherwise, what
is repugnant to due process is the denial of opportunity to be heard. 34 Thus, there is
no violation of due process even if no hearing was conducted, where the party was
given a chance to explain his side of the controversy and he waived his right to do
so. 35