OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION v Court of Appeals, 293 SCRA 96

( 1998)
FACTS:
The conflict between the and the private respondent, rooted from the failure of the
respondent to deliver 43,000 metric tons of oil well cement to the petitioner even it
had already received payment and despite petitioners several demands. The
petitioner then referred its claim to an arbitrator pursuant to Clause 16 of their
contract which stipulates that he venue for arbitration shall be at Dehra Dun. The
chosen arbitrator, one Shri N.N. Malhotra, resolved the dispute in favor of the
petitioner setting forth the arbitral award. Despite several demands for compliance
still the respondent refused to pay the amount adjudged. The petitioner filed a
complaint with Branch 30 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Surigao City for the
enforcement of the aforementioned judgment of the foreign court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the arbitrator had jurisdiction over the dispute between the
petitioner and the private respondent under Clause 16 of the contract.
RULING:
YES. 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.

ASIAVEST v. CA, 361 SCRA 489

FACTS:
In 1984, a Hong Kong court ordered Antonio Heras to pay US$1.8 million or its
equivalent, with interest, to Asiavest Ltd. Apparently, Heras guaranteed a certain
loan in Hong Kong and the debtor in said loan defaulted hence, the creditor,
Asiavest, ran after Heras. But before said judgment was issued and even during
trial, Heras already left for good Hong Kong and he returned to the Philippines. So
when in 1987, when Asiavest filed a complaint in court seeking to enforce the
foreign judgment against Heras, the latter claim that he never received any
summons, not in Hong Kong and not in the Philippines. He also claimed that he
never received a copy of the foreign judgment. Asiavest however contends that
Heras was actually given service of summons when a messenger from the Sycip
Salazar Law Firm served said summons by leaving a copy to one Dionisio Lopez who
was Heras son in law.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the foreign judgment can be enforced against Heras in the
Philippines.
RULING:
No. Although the foreign judgment was duly authenticated (Asiavest was able to
adduce evidence in support thereto) and Heras was never able to overcome the
validity of it, it cannot be enforced against Heras here in the Philippines because
Heras was not properly served summons. Hence, as far as Philippine law is
concerned, the Hong Kong court has never acquired jurisdiction over Heras. This
means then that Philippine courts cannot act to enforce the said foreign judgment.