212 - mijares et al v hon. judge

7/30/2019 212 - Mijares Et Al v Hon. Judge

1/3

Mijares v. Hon. JudgeGR No. 139325 April 12, 2005

Tinga, J.

Petitioners are prominent victims of human rights violations during the Martial Law

years. They filed a complaint with the US District Court, District of Hawaii against theestate of former Pres. Marcos. The petitioners brought a class action suit warrantedunder Rule 23(a) and (b)(1)(B) of the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure invoked by

the plaintiffs. The US District Court certified the case. Trial ensued. The jury rendered averdict and an award of compensatory and exemplary damages in favor of the plaintiff

class. The US District Court rendered a Final Judgment awarding the class a total of$1,964,005,859.90 in damages. The Final Judgment was affirmed by the US Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The petitioners filed a Complaint with the RTC of Makati for the enforcement of the Final

Judgment. They alleged that they are members of the plaintiff class in whose favor theUS District Court awarded damages. They argued that decision rendered by the USNinth Circuit Court of Appeals had become final and executory since the Marcos estate

failed to filed a petition for certiorari with the US Supreme Court. The decision should berecognized and enforced in the Philippines, pursuant the Sec. 50, Rule 39, ROC then inforce.

The Marcos estate filed a Motion to Dismiss. It alleged that petitioners only paid P410 asdocket and filing fees, notwithstanding the fact that they sought to enforce a monetary

amount in damages in the amount of $2.25billion.The Marcos Estate cited SupremeCourt Circular No. 7, pertaining to the proper computation and payment of docket fees.

In response, the petitioners claimed that an action for the enforcement of a foreignjudgment 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.

Respondent Judge Ranada of RTC Makati issued an order dismissing the complaint. Heopined that the subject matter of the complaint was capable of pecuniary estimation as

it involved a judgment rendered by a foreign court ordering the payment of definite sumsof money, allowing for easy determination of the value of the foreign judgment. The

judge applied Sec. 7(a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Civl Procedure and estimated the

amount of filing fees was approximately P472million.

RTC Judge denied the petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioners filed a Petition

for Certiorari under Rule 65 assailing respondent judges orders.

ISSUE:Whether the enforcement of a foreign judgment awarding a monetary amount in

damages is capable of pecuniary estimation


2/3

HELD:

The rules of comity, utility and convenience of nations have established a usage amongcivilized 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. The conditions require by the Philippines for recognition and enforcementof a foreign judgment were originally contained in Section 311 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, which was taken from the California Code of Civil Procedure. Remarkably,

the procedural rule now outlined in Sec. 48, Rule 39 of the Rules on Civil Procedure has

remained unchanged down to the last word in nearly a century.

SEC. 48. Effect of foreign judgments. --The effect of a judgment of a tribunal of aforeign 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;

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.

There is an evident distinction between a foreign judgment in an action in rem and onein personam. 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 bya subsequent title. However, in both cases, the foreign judgment is susceptible toimpeachment in our local courts on the grounds of want of jurisdiction or notice to theparty, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Thus, the party aggrieved by theforeign 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 foreignjudgment, in order for the court in this jurisdiction to properly determine its efficacy.

It is evident that 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 sumof money. Perhaps in theory, such an action is primarily for the enforcement of the

foreign judgment but there is a certain obtuseness to that sort of argument since thereis no denying that the enforcement of the foreign judgment will necessarily result in the

award of a definite sum of money.

The SC asserts that the complaint to enforce the US District Court judgment is one capable of

pecuniary estimation. But at the same time, it is an action based on judgment against an estate,


3/3

thus placing it beyond the ambit of Sec. 7(a) of Rule 141. In this case, the SC finds that the action is

covered by Sec. 7(b)(3) because it involves other actions not involving property.

x x x

The preclusion of an action for enforcement of a foreign judgment in this countrymerely due to an exhorbitant assessment of docket fees is alien to generally

accepted practices and principles in international law. Indeed, there are grave

concerns in conditioning the amount of the filing fee on the pecuniary award or the valueof the property subject of the foreign decision. Such pecuniary award will almost

certainly be in foreign denomination, computed in accordance with the applicable lawsand standards of the forum. The vagaries of inflation, as well as the relative low-income

capacity of the Filipino, to date may very well translate into an award virtuallyunenforceable in this country, despite its integral validity, if the docket fees for the

enforcement thereof were predicated on the amount of the award sought to be enforced.

The theory adopted by respondent judge and the Marcos Estate may even lead toabsurdities, such as if applied to an award involving real property situated in placessuch as the United States or Scandinavia where real property values are inexorably

high. We cannot very well require that the filing fee be computed based on the value ofthe foreign property as determined by the standards of the country where it is located.

As crafted, Rule 141 of the Rules of Civil Procedure avoids unreasonableness, as

it recognizes that the subject matter of an action for enforcement of a foreign

judgment is the foreign judgment itself, and not the right-duty correlatives that

resulted in the foreign judgment. In this particular circumstance, given that the

complaint is lodged against an estate and is based on the US District Court'sFinal Judgment, this foreign judgment may, for purposes of classification under

the governing procedural rule, be deemed as subsumed under Section 7(b)(3) of

Rule 141, i.e., within the class of "all other actions not involving property." Thus,

only the blanket filing fee of minimal amount is required.

212 - mijares et al v hon. judge

Documents