Asiavest v.

CA
G.R. No. 110263
July 20, 2001
Ponente: DELEON, JR

 The petitioner Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad is a corporation organized

under the laws of Malaysia
 Private respondent Philippine National Construction Corporation is a corporation
duly incorporated and existing under Philippine laws.
 In 1983, petitioner initiated a suit for collection against private respondent before
the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur.
 Petitioner sought to recover the indemnity of the performance bond it had put up
in favor of private respondent to guarantee the completion of the Felda Project
and the nonpayment of the loan it extended to Asiavest-CDCP Sdn. Bhd. for the
completion of Paloh Hanai and Kuantan By Pass; Project.
 On September 13, 1985, the High Court of Malaya (Commercial Division)
rendered judgment in favor of the petitioner and against the private respondent
 The private respondent was asked to pay 5,108,290.23 Ringgits
 Following unsuccessful attempts to secure payment from private respondent
under the judgment, petitioner initiated on September 5, 1988 the complaint
before Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, to enforce the judgment of
the High Court of Malaya
 The RTC of Manila and the CA denied the motion for lack of want of jurisdiction

ISSUE: Whether or not the Malaysian High Court acquired jurisdiction over the PNCC ot
the private respondent

Contentions of Private Respondent: (more of the rules of procedure)

1. The Malaysian High Court did not serve the summons to the right persons
a. The summons was sent to the accountant of the PNCC, Cora Deala; she is
not authorized to receive the summons for and in behalf of the private
respondent.
2. And that there is no lawyer who will defend or act in behalf of the private
respondent
a. According to Abelardo, the private respondent’s executive secretary said
that there is no resolution granting or authorizing Allen and Glendhill (the
said to be lawyers of the company) to admit all the claims of the
petitioner.
3. That the decision of the Malaysian High Court is tainted with fraud and clear
mistake of fact/law; since there is no statement of facts and law given which the
award is given in favor of the petitioner.

Held: Petition Granted. The Malaysian High Court acquired jurisdiction over PNCC due
to the following ground:
1. Due to the fact that the rules of procedure (such as those serving of summons) are
governed by the lex fori or the internal law forum—which is in this case is
Malaysia
a. it is the procedural law of Malaysia where the judgment was rendered that
determines the validity of the service of court process on private
respondent as well as other matters raised by it.
i. Since the burden of proof of showing that there are irregularities in
the serving of summons as to the procedural rules of the Malaysian
high court should be shouldered by the private respondents;
however, the private respondent failed to show or give proof in the
said irregularities therefore the PRESUMPTION of validity and
regularity of service of summons and the decision rendered by the
High Court of Malaya should stand.
2. On the matter of alleged lack of authority of the law firm of Allen and Gledhill to
represent private respondent, not only did the private respondent's witnesses admit
that the said law firm of Allen and Gledhill were its counsels in its transactions in
Malaysia.
a. but of greater significance is the fact that petitioner offered in evidence
relevant Malaysian jurisprudence to the effect that
i. it is not necessary under Malaysian law for counsel appearing
before the Malaysian High Court to submit a special power of
attorney authorizing him to represent a client before said court,
ii. that counsel appearing before the Malaysian High Court has full
authority to compromise the suit
iii. that counsel appearing before the Malaysian High Court need not
comply with certain pre-requisites as required under Philippine law
to appear and compromise judgments on behalf of their clients
before said court.
3. On the ground that collusion, fraud and, clear mistake of fact and law tainted the
judgment of the High Court of Malaya, no clear evidence of the same was
adduced or shown. Since the burden of proof again should be shouldered by the
private respondent
a. As aforestated, the lex fori or the internal law of the forum governs
matters of remedy and procedure.
i. Considering that under the procedural rules of the High Court of
Malaya, a valid judgment may be rendered even without stating in
the judgment every fact and law upon which the judgment is based,
then the same must be accorded respect and the courts in the
jurisdiction cannot invalidate the judgment of the foreign
court simply because our rules provide otherwise.