G.R. No. 110263 - ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the presumption of validity and regularity of service of summons and the decision thereafter rendered by the High Court of Malaya must stand. [44] 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, [45] but of greater significance is the fact that petitioner offered in evidence relevant Malaysian jurisprudence [46] to the effect that (a) 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, (b) that counsel appearing before the Malaysian High Court has full authority to compromise the suit, and (c) 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. [47] Furthermore, there is no basis for or truth to the appellate court's conclusion that the conditional appearance of private respondent's counsel who was allegedly not authorized to appear and represent, cannot be considered as voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the High Court of Malaya, inasmuch as said conditional appearance was not premised on the alleged lack of authority of said counsel but the conditional appearance was entered to question the regularity of the service of the writ of summons. Such conditional appearance was in fact subsequently withdrawn when counsel realized that the writ was properly served. [48] 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. The facts which the trial court found "intriguing" amounted to mere conjectures and specious observations. The trial court's finding on the absence of judgment against Asiavest-CDCP Sdn. Bhd. is contradicted by evidence on record that recovery was also sought against Asiavest-CDCP Sdn. Bhd. but the same was found insolvent. [49] Furthermore, even when the foreign judgment is based on the drafts prepared by counsel for the successful party, such is not per se indicative of collusion or fraud. Fraud to hinder the enforcement within the jurisdiction of a foreign judgment must be extrinsic, i.e ., fraud based on facts not controverted or resolved in the case where judgment is rendered, [50] or that which would go to the jurisdiction of the court or would deprive the party against whom judgment is rendered a chance to defend the action to which he has a meritorious defense. [51] Intrinsic fraud is one which goes to the very existence of the cause of action is deemed already adjudged, and it, therefore, cannot militate against the recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment. [52] Evidence is