7/27/2019 G.R. No. 140288 | St. Aviation Services Co., Pte., Ltd. v.

Grand

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 140288. October 23, 2006.]

ST. AVIATION SERVICES CO., PTE., LTD., petitioner, vs.

GRAND INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS, INC., respondent.

DECISION

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J : p

Challenged in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari are the

Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 30, 1999 and its Resolution
dated September 29, 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 51134 setting aside the
Orders dated October 30, 1998 and December 16, 1998 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 117, Pasay City in Civil Case No. 98-1389.
St. Aviation Services Co., Pte., Ltd., petitioner, is a foreign
corporation based in Singapore. It is engaged in the manufacture, repair,
and maintenance of airplanes and aircrafts. Grand International Airways,
Inc., respondent, is a domestic corporation engaged in airline operations.
Sometime in January 1996, petitioner and respondent executed an
"Agreement for the Maintenance and Modification of Airbus A 300 B4-103
Aircraft Registration No. RP-C8882" (First Agreement). Under this
stipulation, petitioner agreed to undertake maintenance and modification
works on respondent's aircraft. The parties agreed on the mode and
manner of payment by respondent of the contract price, including interest
in case of default. They also agreed that the "construction, validity and
performance thereof" shall be governed by the laws of Singapore. They
further agreed to submit any suit arising from their agreement to the non-
exclusive jurisdiction of the Singapore courts.
At about the same time, or on January 12, 1996, the parties verbally
agreed that petitioner will repair and undertake maintenance works on
respondent's other aircraft, Aircraft No. RP-C8881; and that the works shall
be based on a General Terms of Agreement (GTA). The GTA terms are
similar to those of their First Agreement.
Petitioner undertook the contracted works and thereafter promptly
delivered the aircrafts to respondent. During the period from March 1996 to
October 1997, petitioner billed respondent in the total amount of

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/9556/print 1/6
7/27/2019 G.R. No. 140288 | St. Aviation Services Co., Pte., Ltd. v. Grand

US$303,731.67 or S$452,560.18. But despite petitioner's repeated

demands, respondent failed to pay, in violation of the terms agreed upon.
jur2005

On December 12, 1997, petitioner filed with the High Court of the
Republic of Singapore an action for the sum of S$452,560.18, including
interest and costs, against respondent, docketed as Suit No. 2101. Upon
petitioner's motion, the court issued a Writ of Summons to be served
extraterritorially or outside Singapore upon respondent. The court sought
the assistance of the sheriff of Pasay City to effect service of the summons
upon respondent. However, despite receipt of summons, respondent failed
to answer the claim.
On February 17, 1998, on motion of petitioner, the Singapore High
Court rendered a judgment by default against respondent.
On August 4, 1998, petitioner filed with the RTC, Branch 117, Pasay
City, a Petition for Enforcement of Judgment, docketed as Civil Case No.
98-1389.
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition on two grounds:
(1) the Singapore High Court did not acquire jurisdiction over its person;
and (2) the foreign judgment sought to be enforced is void for having been
rendered in violation of its right to due process.
On October 30, 1998, the RTC denied respondent's motion to
dismiss, holding that "neither one of the two grounds (of Grand) is among
the grounds for a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure."
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the
RTC in its Order dated December 16, 1998.
On February 15, 1999, respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a
Petition for Certiorari assailing the RTC Order denying its motion to
dismiss. Respondent alleged that the extraterritorial service of summons
on its office in the Philippines is defective and that the Singapore court did
not acquire jurisdiction over its person. Thus, its judgment sought to be
enforced is void. Petitioner, in its comment, moved to dismiss the petition
for being unmeritorious.
On July 30, 1999, the Court of Appeals issued its Decision granting
the petition and setting aside the Orders dated October 30, 1998 and
December 16, 1998 of the RTC "without prejudice to the right of private
respondent to initiate another proceeding before the proper court to
enforce its claim." It found:
In the case at bar, the complaint does not involve the personal
status of plaintiff, nor any property in which the defendant has a claim
or interest, or which the private respondent has attached but purely
an action for collection of debt. It is a personal action as well as an
action in personam, not an action in rem or quasi in rem. As a
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/9556/print 2/6
7/27/2019 G.R. No. 140288 | St. Aviation Services Co., Pte., Ltd. v. Grand

personal action, the service of summons should be personal or

substituted, not extraterritorial, in order to confer jurisdiction on the
court.
Petitioner seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration but it was
denied on September 29, 1999.
Hence, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari.
The issues to be resolved are: (1) whether the Singapore High Court
has acquired jurisdiction over the person of respondent by the service of
summons upon its office in the Philippines; and (2) whether the judgment
by default in Suit No. 2101 by the Singapore High Court is enforceable in
the Philippines.
Generally, in the absence of a special contract, no sovereign is
bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a
tribunal of another country; however, under the rules of comity, utility and
convenience, 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. 1 Certainly, the Philippine legal system
has long ago accepted into its jurisprudence and procedural rules the
viability of an action for enforcement of foreign judgment, as well as the
requisites for such valid enforcement, as derived from internationally
accepted doctrines. 2
The conditions for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign
judgment in our legal system are contained in Section 48, Rule 39 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, thus:
SEC. 48. Effect of foreign judgments. — The effect of a
judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having
jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order is as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific
thing, the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the
title to the thing; and
(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person,
the judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of a
right as between the parties and their successors in
interest by a subsequent title;
In either case, the 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.
Under the above Rule, a foreign judgment or order against a person
is merely presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties. It may be
repelled, among others, by want of jurisdiction of the issuing authority or by

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/9556/print 3/6
7/27/2019 G.R. No. 140288 | St. Aviation Services Co., Pte., Ltd. v. Grand

want of notice to the party against whom it is enforced. The party attacking
a foreign judgment has the burden of overcoming the presumption of its
validity. 3
Respondent, in assailing the validity of the judgment sought to be
enforced, contends that the service of summons is void and that the
Singapore court did not acquire jurisdiction over it.
Generally, matters of remedy and procedure such as those relating
to the service of process upon a defendant are governed by the lex fori or
the internal law of the forum, 4 which in this case is the law of Singapore.
Here, petitioner moved for leave of court to serve a copy of the Writ of
Summons outside Singapore. In an Order dated December 24, 1997, the
Singapore High Court granted "leave to serve a copy of the Writ of
Summons on the Defendant by a method of service authorized by the
law of the Philippines for service of any originating process issued by
the Philippines at ground floor, APMC Building, 136 Amorsolo corner
Gamboa Street, 1229 Makati City, or elsewhere in the Philippines." 5
This service of summons outside Singapore is in accordance with Order
11, r. 4(2) of the Rules of Court 1996 6 of Singapore, which provides. TEHDIA

(2) Where in accordance with these Rules, an originating

process is to be served on a defendant in any country with respect to
which there does not subsist a Civil Procedure Convention providing
for service in that country of process of the High Court, the originating
process may be served —
a) through the government of that country, where that
government is willing to effect service;
b) through a Singapore Consular authority in that country,
except where service through such an authority is contrary to the law
of the country; or
c) by a method of service authorized by the law of that
country for service of any originating process issued by that
country.
In the Philippines, jurisdiction over a party is acquired by service of
summons by the sheriff, 7 his deputy or other proper court officer either
personally by handing a copy thereof to the defendant 8 or by substituted
service. 9 In this case, the Writ of Summons issued by the Singapore High
Court was served upon respondent at its office located at Mercure Hotel
(formerly Village Hotel), MIA Road, Pasay City. The Sheriff's Return shows
that it was received on May 2, 1998 by Joyce T. Austria, Secretary of the
General Manager of respondent company. 10 But respondent completely
ignored the summons, hence, it was declared in default.

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/9556/print 4/6
7/27/2019 G.R. No. 140288 | St. Aviation Services Co., Pte., Ltd. v. Grand

Considering that the Writ of Summons was served upon respondent

in accordance with our Rules, jurisdiction was acquired by the Singapore
High Court over its person. Clearly, the judgment of default rendered by
that court against respondent is valid.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. The challenged Decision
and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 51134 are SET
ASIDE.
The RTC, Branch 117, Pasay City is hereby DIRECTED to hear Civil
Case No. 98-1389 with dispatch. IDTcHa

SO ORDERED.
Puno, Corona, Azcuna and Garcia, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

110263, July 20, 2001, 361 SCRA 489.
2. Mijares v. Ranada, G.R. No. 139325, April 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 397.
3. Ibid.; Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
112573, February 9, 1995, 241 SCRA 192.
4. Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, ibid.; Asiavest
Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad v. Court of Appeals; supra, footnote 1.
5. Rollo, p. 147.
6. The Singapore Supreme Court of Judicature Act, Chapter 322.
7. Section 3, Rule 14, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended:
Sec. 3. By whom served. — The summons may be served by the sheriff,
his deputy, or other proper court officer, or for justifiable reasons by any
suitable person authorized by the court issuing the summons.
8. Section 6, ibid.
Sec. 6. Service in person on defendant. — Whenever practicable, the
summons shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in
person, or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him.
9. Section 7, ibid.
Sec. 7. Substituted service. — If, for justifiable causes, the defendant
cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding
section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at
the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion
then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendant's office or
regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof.
10. Rollo, p. 8.

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/9556/print 5/6
7/27/2019 G.R. No. 140288 | St. Aviation Services Co., Pte., Ltd. v. Grand

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/9556/print 6/6