B.
Bases of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
1) Comity
According to Cheshire, the theory on comity mean that in order to
maintain reciprocal treatment from the courts of other countries, we are
compelled to take foreign judgments as they stand & to give them Full
faith & Credit.
Comity calls for reciprocity between the concerned jurisdictions. Thus,
forum A will withhold recognition & enforcement of prior judgment if it
comes from Forum B, w/c does not give same concession to forum A
judgment.
2) Obligation of foreign judgments
This doctrine of obligation is derived from the rigid & unyielding vested
rights theory.Judgment of a foreign court of competent jurisdiction is
considered as imposing a duty or obligation on the losing litigant.
i.e.:Forum 1- adjudicates debt owing to
plaintiffForum 2- treats F1 judgment as
evidence of debt w/c may be enforced in F2 by an action of debt
Goddard vs. Godard(1870)
FACTS:
Godard (French) obtained a favorable ruling by a French court arising
on a charter party obligation against Gray (English). The French court
interpreted the clause penalty for non-performance of this agreement,
estimated amount of freight as a clause that sets the limits to liability to
one voyage between the parties to the charter party contrary to the
English interpretation. When this French judgment was sought to be
enforced in England, Gray interposed in defense that the erroneous
French judgement is a bar to the action for enforcement in England.
HELD:
It is not a bar. In common law countries such as England, foreign
judgment are enforced based on the principle that where a court of
competent jurisdiction has adjudicated a sum of money to be due from
one person to another, a legal obligation arises to pay the sum, on which
an action of debt to enforce the judgment may be maintained and not
merely out of politeness and courtesy to other tribunals of other
countries.
Anything that negates the existence of a legal obligation or excuses the
defendant from performance is a good defense to the action (ex.
Evidence that court exceeded its jurisdiction or the judgment was
obtained thru fraud)
In addition, a judgment in personam of a foreign court of competent
jurisdiction cannot be questioned by the parties on the merits when
recognition or enforcement of the judgment is sought in England,
notwithstanding that it may have been wrong either in fact or law. This
derived from the mode of pleading an action on a foreign judgment in
debt, and not merely as evidence of the obligation to pay the underlying
liability.
C. Policies Underlying Recognition and Enforcement
1. Res judicata
Many courts recognize & enforce foreign judgments on ground of res
judicata, under which principle:
a. those who contested an issue shall be bound by the result &
b. matters once tried & decided w/ finality in one jurisdiction shall be
considered as settled b/w the parties
Thus, parties are prevented from litigating issues already determined by
a local judgment.
In Anglo-American jurisprudence, foreign judgments are not open to
reexamination on merits when placed in issue before local courts subject
to a few exceptions.
The principle seeks to accomplish the policy of giving finality to
litigation. Public policy dictates diminishing the judicial energy invested
in deciding suits, encouraging confidence in court decrees and securing
the legitimate expectations of successful plaintiff or defendant that he
will no longer be harassed into protecting his interests.
Rule 39 Sec 40:A foreign judgment of a tribunal of a foreign country,
having jurisdiction to pronounce judgment renders it conclusive upon
the title to the thing while a judgment against a person is presumptive
evidence of a right as between the parties & their successors in interest
2. Merger
It considers the plaintiffs cause of action as merged in the judgment.
Thus, he may not relitigate that exact same claim.
3. Bar
This is where a successful defendant interposes the judgment in his
favor to avert a second action by plaintiff on the same claim. By direct
estoppel, the relitigation of all matters decided are precluded
In addition, DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL renders
conclusive all essential issues of fact actually litigated in the suit
decided on by the foreign court.
Distinction between Res Judicata & Collateral Estoppel
RES JUDICATA- seeks to end litigation by disallowing suit on the same
claim
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL- concerned with preclusion by barring
relitigation of an issue already litigated on in a prior proceeding
D. Requisites for Recognition or Enforcement
1) The foreign judgment was rendered by a judicial or a quasi-judicial
tribunal which had jurisdiction over the parties & the case in the proper
judicial proceeding.
A court validly asserts jurisdiction over actions in personam based on
consent of parties or relation of the parties or events to the forum, thus
satisfying minimum standards of fair play & substantial justice.
In in rem proceeding, jurisdiction is based on the power of the state over
the property found within the territory
2) The judgment must be valid under the laws of the court that rendered
it
although there was error in procedure, since the Florida court was
competent & no substantial injustice was committed, the English court
did not consider the error as to significantly alter an otherwise valid
decree.
3) The judgment must be final & executory to constitute res judicata in
another action
If judgment is interlocutory or provisional in character w/c
contemplates that a fuller investigation leading to final decision may
later be held, it creates no obligation on the forum court to recognize it.
4) The state where the foreign judgment was obtained allows
recognition or enforcement of Philippine judgment
5) The judgment must be for a fixed sum of money
Unless theperformance or delivery, there is nothing for the forum
court to enforce. In Sadler vs. Roberis, the English court held that until
taxation, the plaintiff could not enforce his claim because the Jamaican
court decided that from the sum due him should first be subtracted the
costs incurred by the defendant which was to be taxed. Hence, the
amount decreed was not fixed.

6) The foreign judgment must not be contrary to the public policy or the
good morals of the country where it is to be enforced

7) The judgment must not have been obtained by fraud, collusion,

mistake of fact or mistake

Whether or not there is fraud is decided by the court where enforcement

of judgment is sought on the basis of its own internal law. A problem
may arise when the internal law is not in agreement with the notions of
equity of the foreign state.