SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 172301, August 19, 2015
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
This case stemmed from an action for recovery of sum of money filed before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig by respondent Malaysian corporation against petitioner Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC), formerly Construction & Development Corporation of the Philippines. PNCC is a government-acquired asset corporation.
We resolve whether our courts have subject matter jurisdiction over an action for recovery of sum of money filed by a Malaysian corporation against a Philippine corporation involving a contract executed and performed in Malaysia, and the applicability of the forum non conveniens principle.
PNCC filed this Petition1 assailing the Court of Appeals Decision2 dated June 10, 2005 dismissing its appeal, and Resolution3 dated April 7, 2006 denying reconsideration.4 The trial court ruled in favor of Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad and ordered PNCC to reimburse it the sum of Malaysian Ringgit (MYR) 3,915,053.54 or its equivalent in Philippine peso.5
PNCC prays that this court reverse and set aside the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution, as well as the trial court's Decision6 declaring it in default.7 It prays the trial court's order of default be reversed and it be allowed to file its Answer, or, the cause of action having already prescribed under Malaysian laws, the case be dismissed outright.8
PNCC and Asiavest Holdings (M) Sdn. Bhd. (Asiavest Holdings) caused the incorporation of an associate company known as Asiavest-CDCP Sdn. Bhd. (Asiavest-CDCP), through which they entered into contracts to construct rural roads and bridges for the State of Pahang, Malaysia.9
In connection with this construction contract, PNCC obtained various guarantees and bonds from Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad to guarantee the due performance of its obligations.10 The four contracts of guaranty stipulate that Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad shall guarantee to the State of Pahang "the due performance by PNCC of its construction contracts . . . and the repayment of the temporary advances given to PNCC[.]"11 These contracts were understood to be governed by the laws of Malaysia.12
There was failure to perform the obligations under the construction contract, prompting the State of Pahang to demand payment against Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad's performance bonds.13 It "entered into a compromise agreement with the State of Pahang by paying . . . the reduced amount of [Malaysian Ringgit (MYR)] 3,915,053.54[.]"14 Consequently, the corporation demanded indemnity from PNCC by demanding the amount it paid to the State of Pahang.15
On April 12, 1994, Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad filed a Complaint16 for recovery of sum of money against PNCC before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig.17 It based its action on Malaysian laws. Specifically, it invoked Section 9818 of the Malaysian Contracts Act of 1950 and Section 1119 of the Malaysian Civil Law Act of 1956.20
PNCC filed Motions for extension of time to file its Answer on May 18, 1994, June 2, 1994, and June 17, 1994. The trial court granted these motions, with the last one set to expire on July 3, 1994. On July 4, 1994, PNCC filed a Motion for another five-day extension. The trial court denied this Motion on July 13, 1994.21
On July 27, 1994, the trial court declared PNCC in default for failure to file any responsive pleading, and allowed Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad to present its evidence ex parte.22
The Regional Trial Court, in its Decision dated November 29, 1994, rendered judgment in favor of Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered and it appearing that plaintiff hads [sic] proved its claim by preponderance of evidence, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Philippine National Construction Corporation ordering the latter to pay the plaintiff:The trial court found that Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad complied with the requisites for proof of written foreign laws.24 The Malaysian laws invoked were found to be similar with Articles 2066 and 2067 of the Civil Code:25cralawredSO ORDERED.23ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
- The sum of Malaysian Ringgit M $3,915,053.54 or its equivalent in [Philippine peso at the bank rate of exchange (on the date of payment) plus legal interest from the date of demand until fully paid.
- The sum of P300,000.00 as and by way of attorney's fees; and
- Cost of suit.
ART. 2066. The guarantor who pays for a debtor must be indemnified by the latter.On January 30, 1995, the trial court denied PNCC's Motion to Lift Order of Default26 filed on December 12, 1994.27 On August 11, 1995, it also denied PNCC's Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam28 dated December 21, 1994.29 PNCC brought its case before the Court of Appeals.30
The indemnity comprises:
(1) The total amount of the debt; (2) The legal interests thereon from the time the payment was made known to the debtor, even though it did not earn interest for the creditor; (3) The expenses incurred by the guarantor after having notified the debtor that payment had been demanded of him; (4) Damages, if they are due.
ART. 2067. The guarantor who pays is subrogated by virtue thereof to all the rights which the creditor had against the debtor.
If the guarantor has compromised with the creditor, he cannot demand of the debtor more than what he has really paid.ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:A question of law exists "when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts[,]"62 while a question of fact exists "when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts[.]"63 Questions of fact require the examination of the probative value of the parties' evidence.64
. . . .
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari , as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
. . . .
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN RENDERING THE QUESTIONED DECISION AS IT HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE.The argument on the two Malaysian corporations was raised by petitioner for the first time in its Motion to Lift Order of Default with Affidavit of Merit dated December 9, 1994:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
II. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AD CAUTELAM FILED BY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT AS IT DEPRIVED THE LATTER OF HIS DAY IN COURT.75ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
7. If the Defendant be given the chance to present its evidence, it will prove the following:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryOn January 30, 1995, the trial court denied petitioner's Motion to Lift Order of Default.77 There is no showing whether petitioner questioned this trial court Order as petitioner opted to file the Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam dated December 21, 1994, praying, among others, that it "be considered as Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision dated November 29, 1994 in the event that the Motion to Lift Order of Default is denied[.]"78 On August 11, 1995, the trial court also denied this later Motion,79 and there is no showing whether petitioner questioned this trial court Order.. . . .
b. Per subcontract agreement entered into by and between defendant and a third party, Asiavest CDCP Sdn. Bhd., the liability of defendant (CDCP) in the event of default regarding the performance bonds and guarantees alleged in the complaint which were posted in the name of the defendant shall be borne by Asiavest CDCP Sdn. Bhd.
Hence, the need for impleading Asiavest CDCP Sdn. Bhd.
c. Assuming that Defendant is liable to the plaintiff, its liability is joint with Asiavest Holdings Company and only to the extent of 49% of the total amount due which is its proportionate share in the joint venture project entered into by them.76ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
3. While in Malaysia, defendant [PNCC] jointly with Asiavest Holdings (M) Sdn[.] Bhd[.], caused the incorporation of an associate company known as Asiavest-CDCP Sdn. Bhd., with which it undertook to construct rural roads and bridges under contracts with the State of Pahang, Malaysia.However, there was no factual finding on the connection between the "financing facilities" received by Asiavest-CDCP from respondent, and the performance bond transactions respondent now claims from. This was argued by respondent in its Brief before the Court of Appeals as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
4. In connection with defendant's construction contracts with the State of Pahang, it obtained various guarantees and bonds from plaintiff to guarantee to the State of Pahang and other parties the due performance of defendant's obligations. Defendant bound itself to indemnify plaintiff for liability or payment on these bonds and guarantees.
Defendant also directly guaranteed to plaintiff, jointly with Asiavest Holdings (M) Sdn. Bhd., the repayment of certain financing facilities received from plaintiff by Asiavest-CDCP Sdn. Bhd.82 (Emphasis supplied)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The suit below was not filed to collect repayment of those financing facilities, whether against the entity that received the facilities or its guarantors. It was filed to enforce PNCC's obligation to indemnify plaintiff Asiavest on its performance bond payments to project owners that PNCC had abandoned. The Asiavest performance bonds were transactions different from the "financing facilities" PNCC refers to. The Asiavest indemnification claims, and the bonds and other contracts on which they were based, were clearly identified in the complaint as follows:....83ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryAlso, since petitioner mentioned its argument on the two Malaysian corporations in its Motion to Lift Order of Default84 and Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam85 filed before the trial court, these were already considered by the lower court when it ruled on both Motions.
SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.-Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:These jurisdictional amounts were adjusted to P300,000.00, and P400,000.00 in the case of Metro Manila.94 Thus, the Regional Trial Court of Pasig has jurisdiction over respondent's complaint for recovery of the sum of Malaysian Ringgit (MYR) 3,915,053.54.
. . . .
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand, exclusive of the abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000).ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
1) The belief that the matter can be better tried and decided elsewhere, either because the main aspects of the case transpired in a foreign jurisdiction or the material witnesses have their residence there;cralawlawlibraryOn the other hand, courts may choose to assume jurisdiction subject to the following requisites: "(1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision."101
2) The belief that the non-resident plaintiff sought the forum[,] a practice known as forum shopping[,] merely to secure procedural advantages or to convey or harass the defendant;cralawlawlibrary
3) The unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to non residents or aliens when the docket may already be overcrowded;cralawlawlibrary
4) The inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for effectuating the right sought to be maintained; and
5) The difficulty of ascertaining foreign law.100 (Emphasis in the original)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Forum non conveniens is soundly applied not only to address parallel litigation and undermine a litigant's capacity to vex and secure undue advantages by engaging in forum shopping on an international scale. It is also grounded on principles of comity and judicial efficiency.Saudi Arabian Airlines also discussed the need to raise forum non conveniens at the earliest possible time, and to show that a prior suit has been brought in another jurisdiction:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Consistent with the principle of comity, a tribunal's desistance in exercising jurisdiction on account of forum non conveniens is a deferential gesture to the tribunals of another sovereign. It is a measure that prevents the former's having to interfere in affairs which are better and more competently addressed by the latter. Further, forum non conveniens entails a recognition not only that tribunals elsewhere are better suited to rule on and resolve a controversy, but also, that these tribunals are better positioned to enforce judgments and, ultimately, to dispense justice. Forum non conveniens prevents the embarrassment of an awkward situation where a tribunal is rendered incompetent in the face of the greater capability — both analytical and practical — of a tribunal in another jurisdiction.107 (Emphasis supplied)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
On the matter of pleading forum non conveniens, we state the rule, thus: Forum non conveniens must not only be clearly pleaded as a ground for dismissal; it must be pleaded as such at the earliest possible opportunity. Otherwise, it shall be deemed waived.The trial court assumed jurisdiction and explained in its Order dated August 11, 1995 that "[o]n the contrary[,] to try the case in the Philippines, it is believed, would be more convenient to defendant corporation as its principal office is located in the Philippines, its records will be more accessible, witnesses would be readily available and entail less expenses in terms of legal services."109 We agree.
. . . .
Consistent with forum non conveniens as fundamentally a factual matter, it is imperative that it proceed from a factually established basis. It would be improper to dismiss an action pursuant to forum non conveniens based merely on a perceived, likely, or hypothetical multiplicity of fora. Thus, a defendant must also plead and show that a prior suit has, in fact, been brought in another jurisdiction.
. . . .
We deem it more appropriate and in the greater interest of prudence that a defendant not only allege supposed dangerous tendencies in litigating in this jurisdiction; the defendant must also show that such danger is real and present in that litigation or dispute resolution has commenced in another jurisdiction and that a foreign tribunal has chosen to exercise jurisdiction.108 (Emphasis in the original)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
It is hornbook principle, however, that the party invoking the application of a foreign law has the burden of proving the law, under the doctrine of processual presumption which, in this case, petitioners failed to discharge. The Court's ruling in EDI-Staffbuilders Int'l, v. NLRC illuminates:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryOur provisions on prescription are found in the Civil Code. Specifically, Article 1144(1) of the Civil Code states that actions upon a written contract must be brought within 10 years from the accrual of the right, and not six years.In the present case, the employment contract signed by Gran specifically states that Saudi Labor Laws will govern matters not provided for in the contract (e.g. specific causes for termination, termination procedures, etc.). Being the law intended by the parties (lex loci intentiones) to apply to the contract, Saudi Labor Laws should govern all matters relating to the termination of the employment of Gran.The Philippines does not take judicial notice of foreign laws, hence, they must not only be alleged; they must be proven. To prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must present a copy thereof and comply with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court[.]124 (Emphasis supplied)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign law. The foreign law is treated as a question of fact to be properly pleaded and proved as the judge or labor arbiter cannot take judicial notice of a foreign law. He is presumed to know only domestic or forum law.
Unfortunately for petitioner, it did not prove the pertinent Saudi laws on the matter; thus, the International Law doctrine of presumed-identity approach or processual presumption comes into play. Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours. Thus, we apply Philippine labor laws in determining the issues presented before us.ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Endnotes:
* Designated additional member per S.O. No. 2146 dated August 10, 2015.
1Rollo, pp. 38-77. The Petition was filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2 Id. at 81-88. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz and concurred in by Presiding Justice Romeo A. Brawner and Associate Justice Jose C. Mendoza of the First Division.
3 Id. at 90-91. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Noel G. Tijam of the Special Former First Division.
4 Id. at 41-42, Petition.
5 Id. at 107-108, Regional Trial Court Decision.
6 Id. at 93-108. The Decision was penned by Judge Armie E. Elma of the Regional Trial Court of Branch 153, Pasig.
7 Id. at 74, Petition.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 81-82, Court of Appeals Decision, and 127, Complaint.
10 Id. at 82, Court of Appeals Decision.
11 Id. at 102, Regional Trial Court Decision.
12 Id. at 47, Petition, and 82, Court of Appeals Decision.
13 Id. at 48, Petition, and 82, Court of Appeals Decision.
14 Id. at 82, Court of Appeals Decision.
15 Id. at 48, Petition, and 82, Court of Appeals Decision.
16 Id. at 126-132.
17 Id. at 126.
18 Id. at 104-105, Regional Trial Court Decision; Malaysian Contracts Act of 1950, sec. 98 provides: In every contract of guarantee there is an implied promise by the principal debtor to indemnity the surety; and the surety is entitled to recover from the principal debtor whatever sum he has rightfully paid under the guarantee, but not sums which he has paid wrongfully.
19 Id. at 105, Regional Trial Court Decision; Malaysian Civil Law Act of 1956, sec. 11 provides: In any proceedings tried in any Court for the recovery of debt or damages, the Court may, if it thinks fit, order that there shall be included in the sum for which judgment is given interest at such as it thinks fit on the whole or any part of the period between the date when the cause of action arose and the date of judgment.
20 Id. at 104-105, Regional Trial Court Decision, and 128-130, Complaint.
21 Id. at 82, Court of Appeals Decision.
22 Id.
23 Id. at 107-108, Regional Trial Court Decision.
24 Id. at 106.
25 Id. at 106-107.
26 Id. at 133-140.
27 Id. at 83, Court of Appeals Decision.
28 Id. at 141-151.
29 Id. at 83, Court of Appeals Decision.
30 Id. at 83, Court of Appeals Decision, and 152-153, Notice of Appeal.
31 Id. at 86-87, Court of Appeals Decision.
32 Id. at 91, Court of Appeals Resolution.
33 Id. at 56, Petition.
34 Id. at 57.
35 Id. at 57 and 62-63.
36 Id. at 127.
37 Id. at 58-59, Petition.
38 Id. at 59.
39 Id. at 64.
40 Id. at 66.
41 Id.
42 Id.
43 Id. at 70.
44 Id. at 71.
45 Id.
46 Id.
47 Id. at 223.
48 Id. at 72, Petition.
49 Id. at 73.
50 Id.
51 Id. at 154-168.
52 Id. at 233-234, Asiavest Merchant's Comment, and 162, PNCC's Brief.
53 Id. at 236, Asiavest Merchant's Comment.
54 Id. at 237.
55 Id.
56 Id. at 238.
57 Id.
58 Id.
59 Id. at 53.
60 Id. at 53-54.
61 Id. at 56.
62Cheesman v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 271 Phil. 89, 97 (1991) [Per J. Narvasa, First Division], citing, among others, Ramos, et al. v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of the P.I., et al., 125 Phil. 701, 705 (1967) [Per J. J. P. Bengzon, En Banc].
63 Id.
64Heirs of Jose Martial K. Ochoa, et al. v. G&S Transport Corp., 660 Phil. 387, 407 (2011) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
65Rollo, p. 56, Petition.
66 Id. at 57 and 62-63.
67 Id. at 56.
68 Id.
69 Id. at 135.
70 Id. at 139-140.
71 Id. at 145-146.
72 Id. at 166.
73 Id. at 180.
74 Id. at 233-234.
75 Id. at 162.
76 Id. at 134-135.
77 Id. at 83, Court of Appeals Decision.
78 Id. at 147.
79 Id. at 83, Court of Appeals Decision.
80Circle Financial Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 273 Phil. 379, 387 (1991) [Per J. Narvasa, First Division], citing Carandang v. Hon. Cabatuando, 153 Phil. 138, 146-147 (1973) [Per J. Zaldivar, First Division].
81Rollo, pp. 61-62, Petition.
82 Id. at 127.
83 Id. at 219.
84 Id. at 135.
85 Id. at 145-146.
86 Id. at 162, PNCC's Brief.
87 Id. at 163.
88 Id. at 165.
89 Id. at 133 and 139.
90 Id. at 144-145.
91 Id. at 163-165.
92Magno v. People, et al., 662 Phil. 726, 735 (2011) [Per J. Brion, Third Division], citing Machado, et al. v. Gatdula, et al., 626 Phil. 457, 468 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Second Division], citing in turn Spouses Vargas v. Spouses Caminas, et al., 577 Phil. 185, 197-198 (2008) [Per J. Carpio, First Division], Metromedia Times Corporation v. Pastorin, 503 Phil. 288, 303 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division], and Dy v. National Labor Relations Commission, 229 Phil. 234, 242-243 (1986) [Per J. Narvasa, First Division].
93 As amended by Rep. Act No. 7691 (1994), sec. 1.
94 Rep. Act No. 7691 (1994), sec. 5 provides:
SEC. 5. After five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act, the jurisdictional amounts mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4), and (8); and Sec. 33(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by this Act, shall be adjusted to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00). Five (5) years thereafter, such jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted further to Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00): Provided, however, That in the case of Metro Manila, the abovementioned jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted after five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00).
95Rollo, p. 43, Petition.
96 Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio, G.R. No. 198587, January 14, 2015 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/january2015/198587.pdf> 12 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division], citing Pioneer Concrete Philippines, Inc. v. Todaro, 551 Phil. 589, 599 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division].
97Pioneer Concrete Philippines, Inc. v. Todaro, 551 Phil. 589, 599-600 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division], citing Bank of America NT&SA v. Court of Appeals, 448 Phil. 181 (2003) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division].
98Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio, G.R. No. 198587, January 14, 2015 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/january2015/198587.pdf> 9 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
99 405 Phil. 413 (2001) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
100 Id. at 432, citing Jovito R. Salonga, PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 47 (1979).
101Bank of America NT&SA v. Court of Appeals, 448 Phil. 181, 196 (2003) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division], citing Communication Materials and Design, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 487, 510-511 (1996) [Per J. Torres, Jr., Second Division].
102 Id., citing Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation v. Sherman, 257 Phil. 340, 347 (1989) [Per J. Medialdea, First Division].
103 Philsec Investment Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 340 Phil. 232, 242 (1997) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division], citing K.K. Shell Sekiyu Osaka Hatsubaisho v. Court of Appeals, 266 Phil. 156, 165 (1990) [Per J. Cortes, Third Division] and Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation v. Sherman, 257 Phil. 340, 347 (1989) [Per J. Medialdea, First Division].
104 G.R. No. 198587, January 14, 2015 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/january2015/198587.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
105 Id. at 13.
106 Id.
107 Id.
108 Id. at 15.
109Rollo, p. 211, Asiavest Merchant's Brief, quoting the trial court Order dated August 11, 1995, Annex B of appellant's Brief, pp. 3-A.
110 Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio, G.R. No. 198587, January 14, 2015 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/january2015/198587.pdf> 13 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
111See Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio, G.R. No. 198587, January 14, 2015 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/january2015/198587.pdf> 15 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
112See Pasiona, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 581 Phil. 124, 135-136 (2008) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division], Spouses Dela Cruz v. Spouses Andres, 550 Phil. 679, 684 (2007) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division], and Arroyo v. Rosal Homeowners Association, Inc., G.R. No. 175155, October 22, 2012, 684 SCRA 297, 303-304 [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].
113National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms, Inc., et al. v. Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) et al., 669 Phil. 93, 105 (2011) [Per J. Sereno (now C.J.), Second Division], citing Samalio v. Court of Appeals, 494 Phil. 456,466 (2005) [Per J. Corona, En Banc].
114Rollo, p. 82, Court of Appeals Decision.
115 Id. at 133.
116Magtoto v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 175792, November 21, 2012, 686 SCRA 88, 101 [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division], citing Gold Line Transit, Inc. v. Ramos, 415 Phil. 492, 503 (2001) [Per J. Bellosillo, Second Division].
117Rollo, p. 74.
118 RULES OF COURT, Rule 16, sec. 1 (b) provides:
SECTION 1. Grounds.—...
. . . .
(b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim[.]
119Rollo, pp. 139-140, Motion to Lift Order of Default with Affidavit of Merit.
120 Id. at 70, Petition.
121 Id. at 71.
122 RULES OF COURT, Rule 16, sec. 1(f) provides:
SECTION 1. Grounds.—...
(f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations[.]
123Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. v. Valbueco, Incorporated, G.R. No. 179594, September 11, 2013, 705 SCRA 537, 558 [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
124ATC1 Overseas Corp., et al. v. Echin, 647 Phil. 43, 49-50 (2010) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Third Division], quoting EDI-Stqffbuilders International, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 563 Phil. 1, 22 (2007) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division].
125Rollo, p. 130.
126 Id. at 72, Petition, and 223, Certification issued by the Director of Insolvency and Liquidation Department for Official Receiver, Malaysia.
127 Id. at 237, Asiavest Merchant's Comment.
128 Id. at 152-153.
129See Reburiano v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 294,304 (1999) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].