A JUDGMENT creditor in California obtains a final money judgment from a California court (state or federal) against a Philippine company or Philippine resident, and seeks recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment in the Philippine court.
A petition to recognize and enforce the California (state or federal) court’s judgment is filed with the Philippine regional trial court that has jurisdiction over the respondent Philippine company or Philippine resident: where the company’s principal office is located, or where the Philippine resident resides.
Basis of petition for recognition and enforcement under Philippine Law
The petition for recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment filed with the Philippine court is based on Section 48 of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines, which states the effect of a foreign judgment of a tribunal having jurisdiction to render the judgment as: conclusive upon the title of the specific thing, which is the subject-matter of the foreign judgment; and presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest, in case the foreign judgment is against a person.
The respondent Philippine company or resident may repel or oppose the aforesaid petition by evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice of the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact, under aforesaid Section 48 of Rule 39.
Another ground for repelling a foreign judgment in a Philippine court is contravention of Philippine public policy, under Article 17 of the Philippine Civil Code, which provides:
“Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments, or by determinations or conversations agreed on in a foreign judgment.”
Examples of contravention of public policy may be “adhesive” contracts that are one-sided against one party and application of foreign law to the domestic acts of a Philippine company or resident.
Philippine Law requires reciprocity; California does not
The Philippines is not a signatory to any convention or treaty on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, except for the New York Convention For the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.
Consequently, Philippine law requires reciprocity of recognition and enforcement on the part of the foreign court, for the latter court’s judgment to be recognized and enforced in the Philippines, under the principle of international comity founded on mutuality and reciprocity.
The United States of America has not likewise signed and ratified any convention or treaty on enforcement of foreign judgments; nor has it enacted any federal statute on such enforcement. So, enforcement of foreign judgments in the United States continues to be governed by state law and principle of international comity.
On the order hand, California does not require reciprocity in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment in California courts.
Mandatory and discretionary resistance to foreign judgments in California
Under Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) Section 1716(b), California courts shall not recognize a foreign-country judgment under the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgment Recognition Act if: (a) the foreign country does not provide impartial tribunals or due process of law; (b) the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant; or (c) the foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.
And California courts are not required to recognize a foreign-country judgment under CCP Section 1716(c), if there is: (1) no sufficient notice to defend; (2) fraud; (3) repugnance to state or federal public policy; (4) conflict with another judgment; (5) violation of an agreement between the parties; (6) serious inconvenient forum; (7) substantial doubt about integrity of rendering foreign court; and (8) incompatibility of the foreign proceedings with due process of law.
Recognition and endorsement of foreign judgments involve complex issues and expertise on applicable domestic and foreign laws.
* * *
Roman P. Mosqueda has practiced criminal defense and Immigration law for over 20 years. He is a long-time member of the California Public Defenders Association. , and trained as a prosecutor with the Los Angeles City Attorney under the Trial Advocacy Program of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. He is also a volunteer, State-Bar trained arbitrator on attorney’s fees dispute resolution. Send comments or inquiries to [email protected] , or call (213) 252-9481 for free consultation appointment, or visit his website at www.mosquedalaw.com
