[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
324 views2 pages

Case Digest - Tung Ho Vs Ting Guan

This document summarizes a Supreme Court of the Philippines case between Tung Ho Steel Enterprises Corporation and Ting Guan Trading Corporation regarding the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award. The RTC denied Ting Guan's motion to dismiss. The CA then dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction over Ting Guan. The Supreme Court ruled that the case was not barred by res judicata and that the RTC had acquired jurisdiction over Ting Guan since it voluntarily appeared before the court in its motion to dismiss without raising lack of jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the decision in favor of Tung Ho.

Uploaded by

MDR Lutchavez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
324 views2 pages

Case Digest - Tung Ho Vs Ting Guan

This document summarizes a Supreme Court of the Philippines case between Tung Ho Steel Enterprises Corporation and Ting Guan Trading Corporation regarding the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award. The RTC denied Ting Guan's motion to dismiss. The CA then dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction over Ting Guan. The Supreme Court ruled that the case was not barred by res judicata and that the RTC had acquired jurisdiction over Ting Guan since it voluntarily appeared before the court in its motion to dismiss without raising lack of jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the decision in favor of Tung Ho.

Uploaded by

MDR Lutchavez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

TUNG HO STEEL ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS.

TING GUAN TRADING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.


2014-04-07 | G.R. NO. 182153

FACTS:
Ting Guan obligated itself under a contract of sale to deliver heavy metal scrap iron and
steel to Tung Ho. Subsequently, Tung Ho filed a request for arbitration before the ICC
International Court of Arbitration (ICC) in Singapore after Ting Guan failed to deliver the full
quantity of the promised heavy metal scrap iron and steel.
The ICC ruled in favor of Tung Ho. Tung Ho filed an action against Ting Guan for the
recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Makati, Branch 145. Ting Guan moved to dismiss the case based on Tung Ho’s lack of capacity
to sue and for prematurity. Ting Guan subsequently filed a supplemental motion to dismiss based
on improper venue. Ting Guan argued that the complaint should have been filed in Cebu where its
principal place of business was located.

The RTC denied the motion to dismiss ruling that Ting Guan had voluntarily submitted to the
court’s jurisdiction when it raised other arguments apart from lack of jurisdiction in its motion to
dismiss. The CA dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the person of Ting Guan.
Both parties moved to partially reconsider the CA decision. In Ting Guan’s Petition before the SC,
the court issued a Resolution denying the petition for lack of merit and referred the matter back to
the RTC for further proceedings. The RTC then declared the case closed and terminated in its
Order.

ISSUES:
1) Whether the present petition is barred by res judicata
2) Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of Ting Guan

DECISION:
Contrary to Ting Guan’s position, the ruling in G.R. No. 176110 does not operate as res
judicata on Tung Ho’s appeal; G.R. No. 176110 did not conclusively rule on all issues raised by
the parties in this case so that the Court would now be barred from taking cognizance of Tung
Ho’s petition. The Court’s disposition in G.R. No. 176110 only dwelt on technical or collateral
aspects of the case, and not on its merits. Specifically, the court did not rule on whether Tung Ho
may enforce the foreign arbitral award against Ting Guan in that case.
Further, Ting Guan voluntarily appeared before the trial court hence the court acquired
jurisdiction. Ting Guan’s failure to raise the alleged lack of jurisdiction over its person in the first
motion to dismiss is fatal to its cause. Ting Guan voluntarily appeared before the RTC when it
filed a motion to dismiss and a “supplemental motion to dismiss” without raising the RTC’s lack
of jurisdiction over its person.
To recognize the finality of the Resolution of Ting Guan petition and to allow it to foreclose
the present meritorious petition of Tung Ho would cause unfair and unjustified injury to Tung Ho.
First, the Ting Guan petition did not question or assail the full merits of the CA decision. Second,
Tung Ho already won in the foreign arbitration and the present case is simply for the enforcement
of this arbitral award in our jurisdiction. Third, Tung Ho properly and timely availed of the
remedies available to it under the Rules of Court.

OPINION:
I concur with the Decision of the Court.

You might also like