Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    PNCC vs. Asiavest Merchant Bankers

    Uploaded by

    Tan Tan
    PNCC was ordered by a Malaysian court to pay $5.1 million to Asiavest for failing to complete a construction project. Asiavest filed to enforce the Malaysian ruling in the Philippines, but lower courts denied the complaint. The Supreme Court ruled the Malaysian judgment should be enforced, as PNCC did not prove its claims of lack of jurisdiction, notice, or fraud. The court found Asiavest provided authenticated documents showing the validity of the Malaysian proceedings against PNCC.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PNCC vs. Asiavest Merchant Bankers

    Uploaded by

    Tan Tan
    30 views1 page
    PNCC was ordered by a Malaysian court to pay $5.1 million to Asiavest for failing to complete a construction project. Asiavest filed to enforce the Malaysian ruling in the Philippines, but lower courts denied the complaint. The Supreme Court ruled the Malaysian judgment should be enforced, as PNCC did not prove its claims of lack of jurisdiction, notice, or fraud. The court found Asiavest provided authenticated documents showing the validity of the Malaysian proceedings against PNCC.

    Original Description:

    nnnnn

    Original Title

    Case Diegst

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    PNCC was ordered by a Malaysian court to pay $5.1 million to Asiavest for failing to complete a construction project. Asiavest filed to enforce the Malaysian ruling in the Philippines, but lower courts denied the complaint. The Supreme Court ruled the Malaysian judgment should be enforced, as PNCC did not prove its claims of lack of jurisdiction, notice, or fraud. The court found Asiavest provided authenticated documents showing the validity of the Malaysian proceedings against PNCC.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    30 views1 page

    PNCC vs. Asiavest Merchant Bankers

    Uploaded by

    Tan Tan
    PNCC was ordered by a Malaysian court to pay $5.1 million to Asiavest for failing to complete a construction project. Asiavest filed to enforce the Malaysian ruling in the Philippines, but lower courts denied the complaint. The Supreme Court ruled the Malaysian judgment should be enforced, as PNCC did not prove its claims of lack of jurisdiction, notice, or fraud. The court found Asiavest provided authenticated documents showing the validity of the Malaysian proceedings against PNCC.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PNCC vs.

    Asiavest Merchant Bankers


    In 1985, the High Court of Malaysia ordered the Philippine National Construction
    Corporation (PNCC) to pay $5.1 million to Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad. This was
    the result of a recovery suit filed by Asiavest against PNCC in Malaysia for PNCC’s failure
    to complete a construction project there despite due payment from Asiavest. Despite
    demand, PNCC failed to comply with the judgment in Malaysia hence Asiavest filed a
    complaint for the enforcement of the Malaysian ruling against PNCC in the Philippines. The
    case was filed with the Pasig RTC which eventually denied the complaint. The Court of
    Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC.
    Asiavest appealed. In its defense, PNCC alleged that the foreign judgment cannot be
    enforced here because of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to PNCC, collusion and/or
    fraud, and there is a clear mistake of law or fact. Asiavest assailed the arguments of PNCC
    on the ground that PNCC’s counsel participated in all the proceedings in the Malaysian
    Court.
    ISSUE: Whether or not the Malaysian Court judgment should be enforced against PNCC in
    the Philippines.
    HELD: Yes. PNCC failed to prove and substantiate its bare allegations of want of
    jurisdiction, want of notice, collusion and/or fraud, and mistake of fact. On the contrary,
    Asiavest was able to present evidence as to the validity of the proceedings that took place
    in Malaysia. Asiavest presented the certified and authenticated copies of the judgment and
    the order issued by the Malaysian Court. It also presented correspondences between
    Asiavest’s lawyers and PNCC’s lawyers in and out of court which belied PNCC’s allegation
    that the Malaysian court never acquired jurisdiction over it. PNCC’s allegation of fraud is not
    sufficient too, further, it never invoked the same in the Malaysian Court.
    The Supreme Court notes, to assail a foreign judgment the party must present evidence of
    want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or
    fact. Otherwise, the judgment enjoys the presumption of validity so long as it was duly
    certified and authenticated. In this case, PNCC failed to present the required evidence.

    You might also like