✏ Edit  Share

by Angela Lindley Leoncio

PRISCILLA C. MIJARES v. SANTIAGO JAVIER RANADA, GR

NO. 139325, 2005-04-12

Facts:

On 9 May 1991, a complaint was filed with the United States

District Court (US District Court), District of Hawaii, against
the Estate of former Philippine President Ferdinand E.
Marcos (Marcos Estate). The action was brought forth by...
ten Filipino citizens[2] who each alleged having suffered
human rights abuses... was invoked as basis... for the US
District Court's jurisdiction over the complaint, as it involved
a suit by aliens for tortious violations of international law...
plaintiffs brought the action on their own behalf and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals,... particularly
consisting of all current civilian citizens of the Philippines,
their heirs and beneficiaries, who between 1972 and 1987
were tortured, summarily executed or had disappeared while
in the custody of military or paramilitary groups.

institution of a class action suit was warranted under Rule

23(a) and (b)(1)(B) of the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the provisions of which were invoked by the plaintiffs.

jury rendered a verdict and an award of compensatory and

exemplary damages in favor of the plaintiff class. Then, on 3
February 1995, the US District

Court, presided by Judge Manuel L. Real, rendered a Final

Judgment (Final Judgment) awarding the plaintiff class a total
of One Billion Nine Hundred Sixty Four Million Five
Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Nine Dollars and Ninety Cents
($1,964,005,859.90).

Final

Judgment was eventually affirmed by the US Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a decision rendered on 17
December 1996.[6]

20 May 1997, the present petitioners filed Complaint with

the Regional Trial Court, City of Makati (Makati RTC) for the
enforcement of the Final Judgment.

They argued that since the Marcos Estate failed to file a

petition for certiorari with the US Supreme Court after the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had affirmed the Final
Judgment, the decision of the US District Court had become
final... and executory, and hence should be recognized and
enforced in the Philippines, pursuant to Section 50, Rule 39
of the Rules of Court then in force.

5 February 1998, the Marcos Estate filed a motion to dismiss,

raising, among others, the non-payment of the correct filing
fees.

Four Hundred Ten Pesos (P410.00) as docket and filing fees,

notwithstanding the fact that they sought to... enforce a
monetary amount of damages in the amount of over Two and
a Quarter Billion US Dollars (US$2.25 Billion).

response, the petitioners claimed that an... action for the

enforcement of a foreign judgment is not capable of
pecuniary estimation; hence, a filing fee of only Four Hundred
Ten Pesos (P410.00) was proper, pursuant to Section 7(c) of
Rule 141.[9]

9 September 1998, respondent Judge Santiago Javier

Ranada[10] of the Makati RTC issued the subject Order
dismissing the complaint without prejudice.

the subject matter of the... complaint was indeed capable of

pecuniary estimation, as it involved a judgment rendered by a
foreign court ordering the payment of definite sums of
money,... Section 7(a) of Rule 141 of the Rules... of Civil
Procedure would find application, and the RTC estimated the
proper amount of filing fees was approximately Four
Hundred Seventy Two Million Pesos, which obviously had not
been paid.

They prayed for the annulment of the questioned orders, and

an order directing the reinstatement of Civil Case No. 97-
1052 and the conduct of appropriate proceedings thereon.

Petitioners submit that their action is incapable of pecuniary

estimation as the subject matter of the suit is the
enforcement of a foreign judgment, and not an action for the
collection of a sum of money or recovery of damages. They
also point out that to require the class... plaintiffs to pay Four
Hundred Seventy Two Million Pesos (P472,000,000.00) in
filing fees would negate and render inutile the liberal
construction ordained by the Rules of Court, as required by
Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly
the inexpensive... disposition of every action.

Section 11, Article III of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution,

which provides that "Free access to the courts and quasi-
judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be
denied to any person by reason of poverty,"

Commission on Human Rights (CHR) was permitted to

intervene in this case.

Section 48, Rule 39 of... the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

For the CHR, the Makati RTC erred in interpreting the action
for the execution of a foreign judgment as a new case, in
violation of the principle that once a case has been decided
between the same parties in one country on the same issue
with... finality, it can no longer be relitigated again in another
country.[13] The CHR likewise invokes the principle of
comity, and of vested rights.

An examination of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court readily

evinces that the respondent judge ignored the clear letter of
the law when he concluded that the filing fee be computed
based on the total sum claimed or the stated value of the
property in litigation.

In dismissing the complaint, the respondent judge relied on

Section 7(a), Rule 141 as basis for the computation of the
filing fee of over P472 Million. The provision states:

Obviously, the above-quoted provision covers, on one hand,

ordinary actions, permissive counterclaims, third-party, etc.
complaints and complaints-in-interventions, and on the other,
money claims against estates which are not based on
judgment.

Issues:

whether the action filed with the lower court is a "money

claim against an estate not based on judgment."

W... hat provision, if any, then... should apply in determining

the filing fees for an action to enforce a foreign judgment?

What provision then governs the proper computation of the

filing fees over the instant complaint?

Ruling:

Obviously, the above-quoted provision covers, on one hand,

ordinary actions, permissive counterclaims, third-party, etc.
complaints and complaints-in-interventions, and on the other,
money claims against estates which are not based on
judgment.

Petitioners' complaint may have been lodged against an

estate, but it is clearly based on a judgment, the Final
Judgment of the US District Court.

It is worth noting that the provision also provides that in real

actions, the assessed value or estimated value of the property
shall be alleged by the claimant and shall be the basis in
computing the fees. Yet again, this provision does not apply in
the case at bar.

he complaint nor the award of damages adjudicated by the

US District Court involves any real... property of the Marcos
Estate.

proper understanding is required on the nature and effects of

a foreign judgment in this jurisdiction.

The rules of comity, utility and convenience of nations have

established a usage among civilized states by which final
judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are
reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious under
certain conditions that may vary in different... countries.[17]
This principle was prominently affirmed in the leading
American case of Hilton v. Guyot[

Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure has

remained unchanged down to the last word in nearly a
century. Section 48 states:

EC. 48. Effect of foreign judgments. - The effect of a judgment

of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to
pronounce the judgment is as follows:

(a) In case of a judgment upon a specific thing, the judgment is

conclusive upon the title to the thing;

(b) In case of a judgment against a person, the judgment is

presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and
their successors in interest by a subsequent title;... judgment
or final order may be repelled by evidence of a want of
jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or
clear mistake of law or fact.

ere is an evident distinction between a foreign judgment in an

action in rem and one in personam... if only for the purpose of
allowing the losing party an... opportunity to challenge the
foreign judgment, and in order for the court to properly
determine its efficacy... clearly an action to enforce a foreign
judgment is in essence a vindication of a right prescinding
either from a "conclusive judgment upon title" or the
"presumptive evidence of a... right."[30] Absent perhaps a
statutory grant of jurisdiction to a quasi-judicial body, the
claim for enforcement of judgment must be brought before
the regular courts... between the cause of action arising from
the enforcement of a foreign judgment, and that arising from
the facts or allegations that occasioned the foreign judgment.

may pertain to the same set of facts, but there is an... essential
difference in the right-duty correlatives that are sought to be
vindicated.

On the other hand, in an action to enforce a foreign judgment,

the matter left for proof is the foreign judgment itself, and not
the facts from... which it prescinds.

Section 48, Rule 39, the actionable issues are generally

restricted to a review of jurisdiction of the foreign court, the
service of personal notice, collusion, fraud, or mistake of fact
or law.

For in all practical intents and purposes, the matter at hand is

capable of pecuniary estimation, down to the last cent.

The subject matter of the present case is the judgment

rendered by the foreign court ordering defendant to pay
plaintiffs definite sums of money, as and for compensatory
damages. The

Court finds that the value of the foreign judgment can be

estimated; indeed, it can even be easily determined.

while the subject matter of the action is undoubtedly the

enforcement of a foreign judgment, the effect of a
providential award would be the adjudication of a sum of
money.

But under the statute defining the jurisdiction of first level

courts, B.P. 129, such courts are not vested with jurisdiction
over actions for the... enforcement of foreign judgments.

Section 33 of B.P. 129 refers to instances wherein the cause

of action or subject matter pertains to an assertion of rights
and interests over property or a sum of money. But as earlier
pointed out, the subject matter of an action to enforce a
foreign judgment is the foreign... judgment itself, and the
cause of action arising from the adjudication of such
judgment.

An examination of Section 19(6), B.P. 129 reveals that the

instant complaint for enforcement of a foreign judgment,
even if capable of pecuniary estimation, would fall under the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts, thus negating the
fears of the petitioners.

For this case and other similarly situated instances, we find

that it is covered by Section 7(b)(3), involving as it does,
"other actions not involving... property."

The petitioners thus paid the correct amount of filing fees,

and... it was a grave abuse of discretion for respondent judge
to have applied instead a clearly inapplicable rule and
dismissed the complaint.

Yet even if there is no unanimity as to the applicable theory

behind the recognition and enforcement of foreign
judgments or a universal treaty rendering it obligatory force,
there is consensus that the viability of such recognition and
enforcement is essential.

Moreover, the Marcos Estate is not precluded to present

evidence, if any,... of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the
party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.

Principles:

The Alien Tort Act... real... action is one where the plaintiff
seeks the recovery of real property or an action affecting title
to or recovery of possession of real property.

For an action in rem, the foreign judgment is deemed

conclusive upon the title to the thing, while in an action in
personam, the foreign judgment is... presumptive, and not
conclusive, of a right as between the parties and their
successors in interest by a subsequent title.[21] However, in
both cases, the foreign judgment is susceptible to
impeachment in our local courts on the grounds of want of...
jurisdiction or notice to the party,[22] collusion, fraud,[23] or
clear mistake of law or fact.[24] Thus, the party aggrieved by
the foreign judgment is entitled to defend against the
enforcement of such decision... in the local forum. It is
essential that there should be an opportunity to challenge the
foreign judgment, in order for the court in this jurisdiction to
properly determine its efficacy.[25]... in a complaint for
damages against a tortfeasor, the cause of action emanates
from the violation of the right of the complainant through the
act or omission of the respondent.

On... the other hand, in a complaint for the enforcement of a

foreign judgment awarding damages from the same
tortfeasor, for the violation of the same right through the
same manner of action, the cause of action derives not from
the tortious act but from the foreign judgment... itself.

Otherwise known as the policy of preclusion... seeks to

protect party expectations resulting from previous litigation,
to safeguard against the harassment of defendants,... to
insure that the task of courts not be increased by never-
ending litigation of the same disputes, and - in a larger sense -
to promote what Lord Coke in the Ferrer's Case of 1599
stated to be the goal of all law: "rest and quietness."[33] If
every... judgment of a foreign court were reviewable on the
merits, the plaintiff would be forced back on his/her original
cause of action, rendering immaterial the previously
concluded litigation.

If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum... of money, the claim

is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether
jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first
instance would depend on the amount of the claim.

where the basic issue is something other than the right to

recover a sum of... money, where the money claim is purely
incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought,
this Court has considered such actions as cases where the
subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of
money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first...
instance (now Regional Trial Courts).

There is no obligatory rule derived from treaties or

conventions that requires the Philippines to recognize
foreign judgments, or allow a procedure for the enforcement
thereof. However, generally accepted principles of
international law, by virtue of the incorporation clause of...
the Constitution, form part of the laws of the land even if they
do not derive from treaty obligations.

Digests created by other users

K_trina     
Jennifer Abayon     

Copyright Notice | Disclaimer |

Terms of Service | Privacy | Content Policy |
Contact Us