G.R. No.

112573 February 9, 1995 Dinozo refused to accept the same claiming

that he was no longer an employee of the
NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, INC. petitioner, defendant.
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and C.F. SHARP & COMPANY After the two attempts of service were
INC., respondents. unsuccessful, the judge of the Tokyo District
Court decided to have the complaint and the
writs of summons served at the head office
of the defendant in Manila. On July 11, 1980,
the Director of the Tokyo District Court
PADILLA, JR., J.:
requested the Supreme Court of Japan to
serve the summons through diplomatic
This petition for review on certiorari seeks to set aside the channels upon the defendant's head office in
decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal of the Manila.
petitioner's complaint to enforce the judgment of a Japanese
court. The principal issue here is whether a Japanese court can
On August 28, 1980, defendant received
acquire jurisdiction over a Philippine corporation doing from Deputy Sheriff Rolando Balingit the
business in Japan by serving summons through diplomatic
writ of summons (p. 276, Records). Despite
channels on the Philippine corporation at its principal office in receipt of the same, defendant failed to
Manila after prior attempts to serve summons in Japan had
appear at the scheduled hearing. Thus, the
failed. Tokyo Court proceeded to hear the plaintiff's
complaint and on [January 29, 1981],
FACTS: Petitioner Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. rendered judgment ordering the defendant
(hereinafter NORTHWEST), a corporation organized under the to pay the plaintiff the sum of 83,158,195 Yen
laws of the State of Minnesota, U.S.A., sought to enforce in and damages for delay at the rate of 6% per
Civil Case No. 83-17637 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), annum from August 28, 1980 up to and until
Branch 54, Manila, a judgment rendered in its favor by a payment is completed (pp. 12-14, Records).
Japanese court against private respondent C.F. Sharp &
Company, Inc., (hereinafter SHARP), a corporation
On March 24, 1981, defendant received from
incorporated under Philippine laws. Deputy Sheriff Balingit copy of the
judgment. Defendant not having appealed
As found by the Court of Appeals in the challenged decision of the judgment, the same became final and
10 November 1993, 1 the following are the factual and executory.
procedural antecedents of this controversy:
Plaintiff was unable to execute the decision
ORIGINAL CASE: COLLECTION OF in Japan, hence, on May 20, 1983, A SUIT
MONEY: On May 9, 1974, plaintiff FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE
Northwest Airlines and defendant C.F. JUDGMENT WAS FILED BY PLAINTIFF
Sharp & Company, through its Japan branch, BEFORE THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
entered into an International Passenger Sales OF MANILA BRANCH 54.2
Agency Agreement, whereby the former
authorized the latter to sell its air DEFENSE: On July 16, 1983, defendant filed
transportation tickets. Unable to remit the
its answer averring that the judgment of the
proceeds of the ticket sales made by Japanese Court sought to be enforced is null
defendant on behalf of the plaintiff under the
and void and unenforceable in this
said agreement, plaintiff on March 25, 1980 jurisdiction having been rendered without
sued defendant in Tokyo, Japan, for
due and proper notice to the defendant
collection of the unremitted proceeds of the and/or with collusion or fraud and/or upon
ticket sales, with claim for damages.
a clear mistake of law and fact (pp. 41-45,
Rec.).
On April 11, 1980, a writ of summons was
issued by the 36th Civil Department, Tokyo
Unable to settle the case amicably, the case
District Court of Japan against defendant at was tried on the merits. After the plaintiff
its office at the Taiheiyo Building, 3rd floor,
rested its case, defendant on April 21, 1989,
132, Yamashita-cho, Naka-ku, Yokohoma, filed a Motion for Judgment on a Demurrer
Kanagawa Prefecture. The attempt to serve
to Evidence based on two grounds:
the summons was unsuccessful because the (1) the foreign judgment sought to be
bailiff was advised by a person in the office
enforced is null and void for want of
that Mr. Dinozo, the person believed to be jurisdiction and (2) the said judgment is
authorized to receive court processes was in
contrary to Philippine law and public policy
Manila and would be back on April 24, 1980. and rendered without due process of law.
Plaintiff filed its opposition after which the
On April 24, 1980, bailiff returned to the court a quo rendered the now assailed
defendant's office to serve the summons. Mr. decision dated June 21, 1989 granting the
demurrer motion and dismissing the person of the defendant
complaint (Decision, pp. 376-378, Records). but it must be served upon
In granting the demurrer motion, the trial the defendant in the
court held that: territorial jurisdiction of
the foreign court. Such is
RTC HELD THAT not the case here because
THERE WAS NO the defendant was served
JURISDICTION ON with summons in the
DEFENDANT; WRONG Philippines and not in
The foreign judgment in Japan.
the Japanese Court sought
in this action is null and Unable to accept the said decision, plaintiff
void for want of on July 11, 1989 moved for reconsideration
jurisdiction over the of the decision, filing at the same time a
person of the defendant conditional Notice of Appeal, asking the
considering that this is an court to treat the said notice of appeal "as in
action in personam; the effect after and upon issuance of the court's
Japanese Court did not denial of the motion for reconsideration."
acquire jurisdiction over
the person of the Defendant opposed the motion for
defendant because reconsideration to which a Reply dated
jurisprudence requires that August 28, 1989 was filed by the plaintiff.
the defendant be served
with summons in Japan in
On October 16, 1989, the lower court
order for the Japanese
disregarded the Motion for Reconsideration
Court to acquire
and gave due course to the plaintiff's Notice
jurisdiction over it, the
of Appeal. 3
process of the Court in
Japan sent to the
Philippines which is In its decision, the COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THE
outside Japanese TRIAL COURT. It agreed with the latter in its reliance
jurisdiction cannot confer upon Boudard vs. Tait  4 wherein it was held that "the process of
jurisdiction over the the court has no extraterritorial effect and no jurisdiction is
defendant in the case acquired over the person of the defendant by serving him
before the Japanese Court beyond the boundaries of the state." To support its position,
of the case at bar. Boudard the Court of Appeals further stated:
versus Tait 67 Phil. 170. The
plaintiff contends that the In an action strictly in personam, such as the
Japanese Court acquired instant case, personal service of summons
jurisdiction because the within the forum is required for the court to
defendant is a resident of acquire jurisdiction over the defendant
Japan, having four (4) (Magdalena Estate Inc. vs. Nieto, 125 SCRA
branches doing business 230). To confer jurisdiction on the court,
therein and in fact had a personal or substituted service of summons
permit from the Japanese on the defendant not extraterritorial service
government to conduct is necessary (Dial Corp vs. Soriano, 161
business in Japan (citing SCRA 739).
the exhibits presented by
the plaintiff); if this is so
But while plaintiff-appellant concedes that
then service of summons
the collection suit filed is an action in
should have been made
personam, it is its theory that a distinction
upon the defendant in
must be made between an action in
Japan in any of these
personam against a resident defendant and an
alleged four branches; as
action in personam  against a non-resident
admitted by the plaintiff
defendant. Jurisdiction is acquired over a
the service of the
non-resident defendant only if he is served
summons issued by the
personally within the jurisdiction of the
Japanese Court was made
court and over a resident defendant if by
in the Philippines thru a
personal, substituted or constructive service
Philippine Sheriff. This
conformably to statutory authorization.
Court agrees that if the
Plaintiff-appellant argues that since the
defendant in a foreign
defendant-appellee maintains branches in
court is a resident in the
Japan it is considered a resident defendant.
court of that foreign court
Corollarily, personal, substituted or
such court could acquire
constructive service of summons when made
jurisdiction over the
in compliance with the procedural rules is and not Japan. While defendant-appellee
sufficient to give the court jurisdiction to maintains branches in Japan, this will not
render judgment in personam. make it a resident of Japan. A corporation
does not become a resident of another by
Such an argument does not persuade. engaging in business there even though
licensed by that state and in terms given all
the rights and privileges of a domestic
It is a general rule that processes of the court
corporation (Galveston H. & S.A.R. Co. vs.
cannot lawfully be served outside the Gonzales, 151 US 496, 38 L ed. 248, 4 S Ct.
territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the
401).
court from which it issues (Carter vs. Carter;
41 S.E. 2d 532, 201) and this is regardless of the
residence or citizenship of the party thus On this premise, defendant appellee is a non-
served (Iowa-Rahr vs. Rahr, 129 NW 494, 150 resident corporation. As such, court
Iowa 511, 35 LRC, NS, 292, Am. Case 1912 processes must be served upon it at a place
D680). There must be actual service within within the state in which the action is
the proper territorial limits on defendant or brought and not elsewhere (St. Clair vs. Cox,
someone authorized to accept service for 106 US 350, 27 L ed. 222, 1 S. Ct. 354).5
him. Thus, a defendant, whether a resident
or not in the forum where the action is filed, It then concluded that the service of summons effected in
must be served with summons within that Manila or beyond the territorial boundaries of Japan was null
forum. and did not confer jurisdiction upon the Tokyo District Court
over the person of SHARP; hence, its decision was void.
But even assuming a distinction between a
resident defendant and non-resident Unable to obtain a reconsideration of the decision,
defendant were to be adopted, such NORTHWEST elevated the case to this Court contending that
distinction applies only to natural persons the respondent court erred in holding that SHARP was not a
and not in the corporations. This finds resident of Japan and that summons on SHARP could only be
support in the concept that "a corporation validly served within that country.
has no home or residence in the sense in
which those terms are applied to natural A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the
persons" (Claude Neon Lights vs. Phil. country from which it comes, until the contrary is shown. It is
Advertising Corp., 57 Phil. 607). Thus, as also proper to presume the regularity of the proceedings and
cited by the defendant-appellee in its brief: the giving of due notice therein.6

Residence is said to be an attribute of a Under Section 50, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a judgment in
natural person, and can be predicated on an an action in personam  of a tribunal of a foreign country having
artificial being only by more or less jurisdiction to pronounce the same is presumptive evidence of
imperfect analogy. Strictly speaking, a right as between the parties and their successors-in-interest
therefore, a corporation can have no local by a subsequent title. THE JUDGMENT MAY, HOWEVER,
residence or habitation. It has been said that BE ASSAILED BY EVIDENCE OF WANT OF
a corporation is a mere ideal existence, JURISDICTION, WANT OF NOTICE TO THE PARTY,
subsisting only in contemplation of law — COLLUSION, FRAUD, OR CLEAR MISTAKE OF LAW OR
an invisible being which can have, in fact, no FACT. Also, under Section 3 of Rule 131, a court, whether of
locality and can occupy no space, and the Philippines or elsewhere, enjoys the presumption that it
therefore cannot have a dwelling place. (18 was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction and has
Am. Jur. 2d, p. 693 citing Kimmerle v. regularly performed its official duty.
Topeka, 88 370, 128 p. 367; Wood v. Hartfold
F. Ins. Co., 13 Conn 202)
CONSEQUENTLY, THE PARTY ATTACKING A FOREIGN
JUDGMENT HAS THE BURDEN OF OVERCOMING THE
Jurisprudence so holds that the foreign or PRESUMPTION OF ITS VALIDITY.7 Being the party
domestic character of a corporation is to be challenging the judgment rendered by the Japanese court,
determined by the place of its origin where SHARP had the duty to demonstrate the invalidity of such
its charter was granted and not by the judgment. In an attempt to discharge that burden, it contends
location of its business activities (Jennings v. that the extraterritorial service of summons effected at its home
Idaho Rail Light & P. Co., 26 Idaho 703, 146 office in the Philippines was not only ineffectual but also void,
p. 101), A corporation is a "resident" and an and the Japanese Court did not, therefore acquire jurisdiction
inhabitant of the state in which it is over it.
incorporated and no other (36 Am. Jur. 2d, p.
49).
It is settled that MATTERS OF REMEDY AND PROCEDURE
SUCH AS THOSE RELATING TO THE SERVICE OF
Defendant-appellee is a Philippine PROCESS UPON A DEFENDANT ARE GOVERNED BY
Corporation duly organized under the THE LEX FORI OR THE INTERNAL LAW OF THE
Philippine laws. Clearly, its residence is the FORUM.8 In this case, it is the procedural law of Japan where
Philippines, the place of its incorporation, the judgment was rendered that determines the validity of the
extraterritorial service of process on SHARP. As to what this that it had none. Hence, service on the designated government
law is is a question of fact, not of law. It may not be taken official or on any of SHARP's officers or agents in Japan could
judicial notice of and must be pleaded and proved like any be availed of. The respondent, however, insists that only
other fact.9 Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court service of any of its officers or employees in its branches in
provide that it may be evidenced by an official publication or Japan could be resorted to. We do not agree. As found by the
by a duly attested or authenticated copy thereof. It was then respondent court, two attempts at service were made at
incumbent upon SHARP to present evidence as to what that SHARP's Yokohama branch. Both were unsuccessful. On the
Japanese procedural law is and to show that under it, the first attempt, Mr. Dinozo, who was believed to be the person
assailed extraterritorial service is invalid. It did not. authorized to accept court process, was in Manila. On the
Accordingly, the presumption of validity and regularity of the second, Mr. Dinozo was present, but to accept the summons
service of summons and the decision thereafter rendered by because, according to him, he was no longer an employee of
the Japanese court must stand. SHARP. While it may be true that service could have been
made upon any of the officers or agents of SHARP at its three
SINCE HINDI OFFERED ANG PROCEDURAL LAW OF other branches in Japan, the availability of such a recourse
JAPAN, WE USE OURS Alternatively in the light of the would not preclude service upon the proper government
absence of proof regarding Japanese law, the presumption of official, as stated above.
identity or similarity or the so-called processual
presumption 10 may be invoked. Applying it, the Japanese law THE SERVICE HERE WAS MADE THROUGH A
on the matter is presumed to be similar with the Philippine law GOVERNMENT OFFICER, PROPERLY. READ: As found by
on service of summons on a private foreign corporation doing the Court of Appeals, it was the Tokyo District Court which
business in the Philippines. Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of ordered that summons for SHARP be served at its head office
Court provides that if the defendant is a foreign corporation in the Philippine's after the two attempts of service had
doing business in the Philippines, service may be made: (1) on failed. 16 The Tokyo District Court requested the Supreme
its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that Court of Japan to cause the delivery of the summons and other
purpose, or, (2) if there is no such resident agent, on the legal documents to the Philippines. Acting on that request, the
government official designated by law to that effect; or (3) on Supreme Court of Japan sent the summons together with the
any of its officers or agents within the Philippines. other legal documents to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Japan which, in turn, forwarded the same to the Japanese
If the foreign corporation has designated an agent to receive Embassy in Manila . Thereafter, the court processes were
summons, the designation is exclusive, and service of delivered to the Ministry (now Department) of Foreign Affairs
summons is without force and gives the court no jurisdiction of the Philippines, then to the Executive Judge of the Court of
unless made upon him. 11 First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Manila, who
forthwith ordered Deputy Sheriff Rolando Balingit to serve the
same on SHARP at its principal office in Manila. This service is
Where the corporation has no such agent, service shall be
equivalent to service on the proper government official under
made on the government official designated by law, to wit: (a) Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section
the Insurance Commissioner in the case of a foreign insurance
128 of the Corporation Code. Hence, SHARP's contention that
company; (b) the Superintendent of Banks, in the case of a such manner of service is not valid under Philippine laws
foreign banking corporation; and (c) the Securities and
holds no water.17
Exchange Commission, in the case of other foreign
corporations duly licensed to do business in the Philippines.
Whenever service of process is so made, the government office In deciding against the petitioner, the respondent court
or official served shall transmit by mail a copy of the summons sustained the trial court's reliance on Boudard vs.  Tait  18 where
or other legal proccess to the corporation at its home or this Court held:
principal office. The sending of such copy is a necessary part of
the service. 12 The fundamental rule is that jurisdiction in
personam over nonresidents, so as to sustain a
SHARP contends that the laws authorizing service of process money judgment, must be based upon
upon the Securities and Exchange Commission, the personal service within the state which
Superintendent of Banks, and the Insurance Commissioner, as renders the judgment.
the case may be, presuppose a situation wherein the foreign
corporation doing business in the country no longer has any xxx xxx xxx
branches or offices within the Philippines. Such contention is
belied by the pertinent provisions of the said laws. Thus, The process of a court, has no extraterritorial
Section 128 of the Corporation Code 13 and Section 190 of the effect, and no jurisdiction is acquired over
Insurance Code 14 clearly contemplate two situations: (1) if the the person of the defendant by serving him
corporation had left the Philippines or had ceased to transact beyond the boundaries of the state. Nor has
business therein, and (2) if the corporation has no designated a judgment of a court of a foreign country
agent. Section 17 of the General Banking Act 15 does not even against a resident of this country having no
speak a corporation which had ceased to transact business in property in such foreign country based on
the Philippines. process served here, any effect here against
either the defendant personally or his
Nowhere in its pleadings did SHARP profess to having had a property situated here.
resident agent authorized to receive court processes in Japan.
This silence could only mean, or least create an impression,
 Process issuing from the courts of one state state which domicile creates. That
or country cannot run into another, and relationship is not dissolved by mere absence
although a nonresident defendant may have from the state. The attendant duties, like the
been personally served with such process in rights and privileges incident to domicile,
the state or country of his domicile, it will are not dependent on continuous presence in
not give such jurisdiction as to authorize a the state. One such incident of domicile is
personal judgment against him. amenability to suit within the state even
during sojourns without the state, where the
It further availed of the ruling in Magdalena Estate, state has provided and employed a
Inc. vs. Nieto 19 and Dial Corp. vs. Soriano, 20 as well as the reasonable method for apprising such an
principle laid down by the Iowa Supreme Court in the 1911 absent party of the proceedings against
case of Raher vs. Raher. 21 him. 23

The first three cases are, however, The domicile of a corporation belongs to the state where it was
inapplicable. Boudard  involved the enforcement of a judgment incorporated. 24 In a strict technical sense, such domicile as a
of the civil division of the Court of First Instance of Hanoi, corporation may have is single in its essence and a corporation
French Indo-China. The trial court dismissed the case because can have only one domicile which is the state of its creation. 25
the Hanoi court never acquired jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant considering that "[t]he, evidence adduced at the Nonetheless, a corporation formed in one-state may, for certain
trial conclusively proves that neither the appellee [the purposes, be regarded a resident in another state in which it
defendant] nor his agent or employees were ever in Hanoi, has offices and transacts business. This is the rule in our
French Indo-China; and that the deceased Marie Theodore jurisdiction and apropos thereto, it may be necessery to quote
Jerome Boudard had never, at any time, been his employee." what we stated in State Investment House, Inc, vs. Citibank,
In Magdalena Estate, what was declared invalid resulting in the N.A., 26 to wit:
failure of the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of
the defendants in an action in personam was the service of The issue is whether these Philippine
summons through publication against non-appearing resident branches or units may be considered
defendants. It was claimed that the latter concealed themselves "residents of the Philippine Islands" as that
to avoid personal service of summons upon them. In Dial, the term is used in Section 20 of the Insolvency
defendants were foreign corporations which were not, Law . . . or residents of the state under the
domiciled and licensed to engage in business in the Philippines laws of which they were respectively
and which did not have officers or agents, places of business, incorporated. The answer cannot be found in
or properties here. On the other hand, in the instant case, the Insolvency Law itself, which contains no
SHARP was doing business in Japan and was maintaining four definition of the term, resident, or any clear
branches therein. indication of its meaning. There are however
other statutes, albeit of subsequent
Insofar as to the Philippines is concerned, Raher is a thing of enactment and effectivity, from which
the past. In that case, a divided Supreme Court of Iowa enlightening notions of the term may be
declared that the principle that there can be no jurisdiction in a derived.
court of a territory to render a personal judgment against
anyone upon service made outside its limits was applicable The National Internal Revenue Code
alike to cases of residents and non-residents. The principle was declares that the term "'resident foreign
put at rest by the United States Supreme Court when it ruled in corporation' applies to a foreign corporation
the 1940 case of Milliken vs.  Meyer  22 that domicile in the state is engaged in trade or business within the
alone sufficient to bring an absent defendant within the reach Philippines," as distinguished from a "'non-
of the state's jurisdiction for purposes of a personal judgment resident foreign corporation' . . . (which is
by means of appropriate substituted service or personal service one) not engaged in trade or bussiness
without the state. This principle is embodied in section 18, Rule within the Philippines." [Sec. 20, pars. (h)
14 of the Rules of Court which allows service of summons on and (i)].
residents temporarily out of the Philippines to be made out of
the country. The rationale for this rule was explained
The Offshore Banking Law, Presidential
in Milliken  as follows:
Decree No. 1034, states "that branches,
subsidiaries, affiliation, extension offices or
[T]he authority of a state over one of its any other units of corporation or juridical
citizens is not terminated by the mere fact of person organized under the laws of any
his absence from the state. The state which foreign country operating in the Philippines
accords him privileges and affords shall be considered residents of the
protection to him and his property by virtue Philippines. [Sec. 1(e)].
of his domicile may also exact reciprocal
duties. "Enjoyment of the privileges of
The General Banking Act, Republic Act No.
residence within the state, and the attendant
337, places "branches and agencies in the
right to invoke the protection of its laws, are
Philippines of foreign banks . . . (which are)
inseparable" from the various incidences of
called Philippine branches," in the same
state citizenship. The responsibilities of that
category as "commercial banks, savings
citizenship arise out of the relationship to the
associations, mortgage banks, development this policy should we
banks, rural banks, stock savings and loan make a discrimination
associations" (which have been formed and against a foreign
organized under Philippine laws), making corporation, like the
no distinction between the former and the petitioner, and subject its
latter in so far as the terms "banking property to the harsh writ
institutions" and "bank" are used in the Act of seizure by attachment
[Sec. 2], declaring on the contrary that in "all when it has complied not
matters not specifically covered by special only with every
provisions applicable only to foreign banks, requirement of law made
or their branches and agencies in the specially of foreign
Philippines, said foreign banks or their corporations, but in
branches and agencies lawfully doing addition with every
business in the Philippines "shall be bound requirement of law made
by all laws, rules, and regulations applicable of domestic
to domestic banking corporations of the corporations. . . .
same class, except such laws, rules and
regulations as provided for the creation, Obviously, the assimilation of foreign
formation, organization, or dissolution of corporations authorized to do business in the
corporations or as fix the relation, liabilities, Philippines "to the status
responsibilities, or duties of members, of domestic  corporations, subsumes their
stockholders or officers of corporation. [Sec. being found and operating as corporations,
18]. hence, residing, in the country.

This court itself has already had occasion to The same principle is recognized in
hold [Claude Neon Lights, Fed. Inc. vs. American law: that the residence of a
Philippine Advertising Corp., 57 Phil. 607] corporation, if it can be said to have a
that a foreign corporation licitly doing residence, is necessarily where it exercises
business in the Philippines, which is a corporate functions . . .;" that it is considered
defendant in a civil suit, may not be as dwelling "in the place where its business
considered a non-resident  within the scope of is done . . .," as being "located where its
the legal provision authorizing attachment franchises are exercised . . .," and as being
against a defendant not residing in the "present where it is engaged in the
Philippine Islands; [Sec. 424, in relation to Sec. prosecution of the corporate enterprise;" that
412 of Act No. 190, the Code of Civil a "foreign corporation licensed to do
Procedure; Sec. 1(f), Rule 59 of the Rules of business in a state is a resident of any
1940, Sec. 1(f), Rule 57, Rules of 1964] in country where it maintains an office or agent
other words, a preliminary attachment may for transaction of its usual and customary
not be applied for and granted solely on the business for venue purposes;" and that the
asserted fact that the defendant is a foreign "necessary element in its signification is
corporation authorized to do business in the locality of existence." [Words and Phrases,
Philippines — and is consequently and Permanent Ed., vol. 37, pp. 394, 412, 493].
necessarily, "a party who resides out of the
Philippines." Parenthetically, if it may not be
SUMMARY In as much as SHARP was admittedly doing
considered as a party not residing in the
business in Japan through its four duly registered branches at
Philippines, or as a party who resides out of
the time the collection suit against it was filed, then in the light
the country, then, logically, it must be
of the processual presumption, SHARP may be deemed a
considered a party who does reside in the
resident of Japan, and, as such, was amenable to the
Philippines, who is a resident of the country.
jurisdiction of the courts therein and may be deemed to have
Be this as it may, this Court pointed out that:
assented to the said courts' lawful methods of serving
process. 27
. . . Our laws and
jurisprudence indicate a
Accordingly, the extraterritorial service of summons on it by
purpose to assimilate
the Japanese Court was valid not only under the processual
foreign corporations, duly
presumption but also because of the presumption of regularity
licensed to do business
of performance of official duty.
here, to the status of
domestic corporations. (Cf.
Section 73, Act No. 1459, We find NORTHWEST's claim for attorney's fees, litigation
and Marshall Wells Co. vs. expenses, and exemplary damages to be without merit. We
Henry W. Elser & Co., 46 find no evidence that would justify an award for attorney's fees
Phil. 70, 76; Yu Cong Eng and litigation expenses under Article 2208 of the Civil Code of
vs. Trinidad, 47 Phil. 385, the Philippines. Nor is an award for exemplary damages
411) We think it would be warranted. Under Article 2234 of the Civil Code, before the
entirely out of line with court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary
damages should be awarded, the plaintiff must show that he is
entitled to moral, temperate, or compensatory damaged. There
being no such proof presented by NORTHWEST, no
exemplary damages may be adjudged in its favor.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is partly GRANTED, and

the challenged decision is AFFIRMED insofar as it denied
NORTHWEST's claims for attorneys fees, litigation expenses,
and exemplary damages but REVERSED insofar as in
sustained the trial court's dismissal of NORTHWEST's
complaint in Civil Case No. 83-17637 of Branch 54 of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, and another in its stead is
hereby rendered ORDERING private respondent C.F. SHARP
L COMPANY, INC. to pay to NORTHWEST the amounts
adjudged in the foreign judgment subject of said case, with
interest thereon at the legal rate from the filing of the
complaint therein until the said foreign judgment is fully
satisfied.

Costs against the private respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Bellosillo, Quaison and Kapunan, JJ., concur.