SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 114323. September 28, 1999.]

OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION , petitioner, vs . COURT OF

APPEALS and PACIFIC CEMENT COMPANY, INC. , respondents.

Quasha Ancheta Peña & Nolasco for petitioner.

Hernandez Velicaria Vibar & Santiago for private respondent.

SYNOPSIS

The dispute between petitioner ONGC, an Indian corporation, and PCCI, a private
Philippine corporation, originated from the non-delivery of 4,300 metric tons of oil well
cement by the latter to the former. Although PCCI replaced the same with Class G cement
ONGC claimed that it did not conform to their speci cations and thus, referred the
problem to an arbitrator pursuant to clause 16 of their contract. An award was issued in
favor of ONGC and a court in India issued an Order to execute the same. As PCCI refused
to pay ONGC, the latter led a complaint with the RTC of Surigao where it held that the
arbitration proceeding was void and thus, ONGC acquired no enforceable right. The Court
of Appeals a rmed the same and ruled that the foreign court's judgment did not contain
any ndings of facts and law in violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however,
held otherwise and ordered PCCI to pay ONGC the amount adjudged.
The Court reiterated its prior Decision voiding the arbitration proceeding on the
ground that it is not the applicable remedy. On the foreign court's ruling, the same may be
categorized in the nature of a memorandum decision which did not transgress the
constitutional requirement. Further, the constitutional guideline cannot prevail over the
fundamental elements of due process. Here, petitioner simply prayed for the remand of
the case to the lower court; and, in the interest of due process, the case was thus
remanded.

SYLLABUS

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT; REQUIREMENT THAT

DECISION SHALL CLEARLY AND DISTINCTLY STATE THE FACTS AND LAW ON WHICH IT
IS BASED; EXCEPTION; MEMORANDUM DECISIONS. — Private respondent alleges that the
foreign court's judgment is not enforceable in this jurisdiction because it failed to contain a
statement of the facts and the law upon which the award in favor of petitioner was based.
The foreign court explicitly declared in its Order that "Award Paper No. 3/B-1 shall be part
of the decree." This court ruling of the foreign court may be categorized in the nature of
memorandum decisions or those which adopt by reference the ndings of facts and
conclusions of law of inferior tribunals. In this jurisdiction, it has been held that
memorandum decisions do not transgress the constitutional requirement in Article VIII,
Section 14, on clearly and distinctly stating the facts and the law on which the decision is
based. Nonetheless, it would be more prudent for a memorandum decision not to be
simply limited to the dispositive portion but to state the nature of the case, summarize the
facts with references to the record, and contain a statement of the applicable laws and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 jurisprudence and the tribunal's assessments and conclusions on the case. This practice
would better enable a court to make an appropriate consideration of whether the
dispositive portion of the judgment sought to be enforced is consistent with the ndings
of facts and conclusions of law made by the tribunal that rendered the decision. This is
particularly true where the decisions, orders, or resolutions came from a court in another
jurisdiction. Otherwise, the enforcement of the decisions would be based on presumptions
that laws in other jurisdictions are similar to our laws, at the expense of justice based on
the merits. HDATSI

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CANNOT PREVAIL OVER THE FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS OF DUE
PROCESS. — The constitutional guideline set forth in Article VIII, Section 14 cannot prevail
over the fundamental elements of due process. Matters of procedure even if laid down in
the Constitution must be tempered by substantial justice provided it has factual and legal
basis. Considering that the case involves signi cant properties, the overriding
consideration of a judgment based on the merits should prevail over the primordial
interests of strict enforcement on matters of technicalities. Procedural lapses, absent any
collusion or intent to defraud the parties or mislead the tribunals, should not be allowed to
defeat the claim of a party who is not well-informed in the technical aspects of the case
but whose interest is merely to enforce what he believes to be his rightful claim.
3. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEALS; CASE REMANDED TO LOWER COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS. — The adjudication of this case demands a full ventilation of the facts and
issues and the presentation of their respective arguments in support and in rebuttal of the
claims of the contending parties. This is all the more applicable herein since the Court is
not a trier of facts, but oftentimes simply relies on the cold pages of the silent records of
the case. ACCORDINGLY, in the interest of due process, the case is REMANDED to the
Regional Trial Court of Surigao City for further proceedings.

RESOLUTION

YNARES-SANTIAGO , J : p

This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration led by private respondent against the
Decision rendered by this Court's Second Division on July 23, 1998.
The facts as set forth in the Decision sought to be reconsidered are restated thus: cdrep

"The petitioner is a foreign corporation owned and controlled by the

Government of India while the private respondent is a private corporation duly
organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. The present con ict
between the petitioner and the private respondent has its roots in a contract
entered into by and between both parties on February 26, 1983 whereby the
private respondent undertook to supply the petitioner FOUR THOUSAND THREE
HUNDRED (4,300) metric tons of oil well cement. In consideration therefor, the
petitioner bound itself to pay the private respondent the amount of FOUR
HUNDRED SEVENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED U.S. DOLLARS
($477,300.00) by opening an irrevocable, divisible, and con rmed letter of credit
in favor of the latter. The oil well cement was loaded on board the ship MV
SURUTANA NAVA at the port of Surigao City, Philippines for delivery at Bombay
and Calcutta, India. However, due to a dispute between the shipowner and the
private respondent, the cargo was held up in Bangkok and did not reach its point
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 of destination. Notwithstanding the fact that the private respondent had already
received payment and despite several demands made by the petitioner, the private
respondent failed to deliver the oil well cement. Thereafter, negotiations ensued
between the parties and they agreed that the private respondent will replace the
entire 4,300 metric tons of oil well cement with Class "G" cement cost free at the
petitioner's designated port. However, upon inspection, the Class "G" cement did
not conform to the petitioner's speci cations. The petitioner then informed the
private respondent that it was referring its claim to an arbitrator pursuant to
Clause 16 of their contract which stipulates: cdphil

"Except where otherwise provided in the supply order/contract all

questions and disputes, relating to the meaning of the speci cation
designs, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned and as to
quality of workmanship of the items ordered or as to any other question,
claim, right or thing whatsoever, in any way arising out of or relating to the
supply order/contract design, drawing, speci cation, instruction or these
conditions or otherwise concerning the materials or the execution or failure
to execute the same during stipulated/extended period or after the
completion/abandonment thereof shall be referred to the sole arbitration
of the persons appointed by Member of the Commission at the time of
dispute. It will be no objection to any such appointment that the arbitrator
so appointed is a Commission employer (sic) that he had to deal with the
matter to which the supply or contract relates and that in the course of his
duties as Commission's employee he had expressed views on all or any of
the matter in dispute or difference.

"The arbitrator to whom the matter is originally referred being

transferred or vacating his o ce or being unable to act for any reason the
Member of the Commission shall appoint another person to act as
arbitrator in accordance with the terms of the contract/supply order. Such
person shall be entitled to proceed with reference from the stage at which it
was left by his predecessor. Subject as aforesaid the provisions of the
Arbitration Act, 1940, or any statutory modification or re-enactment there of
and the rules made there under and for the time being in force shall apply
to the arbitration proceedings under this clause.

"The arbitrator may with the consent of parties enlarge the time,
from time to time, to make and publish the award. cdrep

"The venue for arbitration shall be at Dehra dun." 1

On July 23, 1988, the chosen arbitrator, one Shri N.N. Malhotra, resolved
the dispute in petitioner's favor setting forth the arbitral award as follows:
"NOW THEREFORE after considering all facts of the case, the
evidence, oral and documentary, adduced by the claimant and carefully
examining the various written statements, submissions, letters, telexes, etc.
sent by the respondent, and the oral arguments addressed by the counsel
for the claimants, I, N.N. Malhotra, Sole Arbitrator, appointed under clause
16 of the supply order dated 26.2.1983, according to which the parties, i.e.
M/S Oil and Natural Gas Commission and the Paci c Cement Co., Inc. can
refer the dispute to the sole arbitration under the provision of the
Arbitration Act 1940, do hereby award and direct as follows:
"The Respondent will pay the following to the claimant:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 1. Amount received by the Respondent
against the letter of credit No. 11/19
dated 28.2.1983 US $ 477,300.00
2. Re-imbursement of expenditure incurred
by the claimant on the inspection team's
visit to Philippines in August 1985 US $ 3,881.00
3. L.C. Establishment charges incurred
by the claimant US $ 1,252.82
4. Loss of interest suffered by claimant
from 21.6.83 to 23.7.88 US $ 417,169.95
Total amount of award US $ 899,603.77

"In addition to the above, the respondent would also be liable to pay
to the claimant the interest at the rate of 6% on the above amount, with
effect from 24.7.1988 up to the actual date of payment by the Respondent
in full settlement of the claim as awarded or the date of the decree,
whichever is earlier. Cdpr

"I determine the cost at Rs. 70,000/- equivalent to US $5,000

towards the expenses on Arbitration, legal expenses, stamps duly incurred
by the claimant. The cost will be shared by the parties in equal proportion.
"Pronounced at Dehra Dun to-day, the 23rd of July 1988." 2
To enable the petitioner to execute the above award in its favor, it led a
Petition before the Court of the Civil Judge in Dehra Dun, India (hereinafter
referred to as the foreign court for brevity), praying that the decision of the
arbitrator be made "the Rule of Court" in India. The foreign court issued notices to
the private respondent for ling objections to the petition. The private respondent
complied and sent its objections dated January 16, 1989. Subsequently, the said
court directed the private respondent to pay the ling fees in order that the latter's
objections could be given consideration. Instead of paying the required ling fees,
the private respondent sent the following communication addressed to the Civil
Judge of Dehra Dun:

"The Civil Judge

Dehra Dun (U.P.) India
Re: Misc. Case No. 5 of 1989
M/S Pacific Cement Co.,
Inc. vs. ONGC Case
Sir:

1. We received your letter dated 28 April 1989 only last 18 May 1989.
2. Please inform us how much is the court fee to be paid. Your letter did
not mention the amount to be paid.

3. Kindly give us 15 days from receipt of your letter advising us how much
to pay to comply with the same. LexLib

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Pacific Cement Co., Inc.

By:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Jose Cortes, Jr.
President" 3
Without responding to the above communication, the foreign court refused
to admit the private respondent's objections for failure to pay the required ling
fees, and thereafter issued an Order on February 7, 1990, to wit:

"ORDER
Since objections led by defendant have been rejected through
Misc. Suit No. 5 on 7.2.90, therefore, award should be made "Rule of the
Court.
"ORDER

Award dated 23.7.88, Paper No. 3/B-1 is made Rule of the Court. On
the basis of conditions of award decree is passed. Award Paper No. 3/B-I
shall be a part of the decree. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to get from
defendant (US$ 899,603.77 (US$ Eight Lakhs ninety nine thousand six
hundred and three point seventy seven only) along with 9% interest per
annum till the last date of realisation." 4

Despite notice sent to the private respondent of the foregoing order and
several demands by the petitioner for compliance therewith, the private
respondent refused to pay the amount adjudged by the foreign court as owing to
the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner led a complaint with Branch 30 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Surigao City for the enforcement of the
aforementioned judgment of the foreign court. The private respondent moved to
dismiss the complaint on the following grounds: (1) plaintiff's lack of legal
capacity to sue; (2) lack of cause of action; and (3) plaintiff's claim or demand
has been waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished. The petitioner led its
opposition to the said motion to dismiss, and the private respondent, its rejoinder
thereto. On January 3, 1992, the RTC issued an order upholding the petitioner's
legal capacity to sue, albeit dismissing the complaint for lack of a valid cause of
action. The RTC held that the rule prohibiting foreign corporations transacting
business in the Philippines without a license from maintaining a suit in Philippine
courts admits of an exception, that is, when the foreign corporation is suing on an
isolated transaction as in this case. 5 Anent the issue of the su ciency of the
petitioner's cause of action, however, the RTC found the referral of the dispute
between the parties to the arbitrator under Clause 16 of their contract erroneous.
According to the RTC,

"[a] perusal of the above-quoted clause (Clause 16) readily shows

that the matter covered by its terms is limited to "ALL QUESTIONS AND
DISPUTES, RELATING TO THE MEANING OF THE SPECIFICATION,
DESIGNS, DRAWINGS AND INSTRUCTIONS HEREIN BEFORE MENTIONED
and as to the QUALITY OF WORKMANSHIP OF THE ITEMS ORDERED or as
to any other questions, claim, right or thing whatsoever, but quali ed to 'IN
ANY WAY ARISING OR RELATING TO THE SUPPLY ORDER/CONTRACT,
DESIGN, DRAWING, SPECIFICATION, etc.,' repeating the enumeration in the
opening sentence of the clause. LLphil

"The court is inclined to go along with the observation of the

defendant that the breach, consisting of the non-delivery of the purchased
materials, should have been properly litigated before a court of law,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 pursuant to Clause No. 15 of the Contract/Supply Order, herein quoted, to
wit:
'JURISDICTION
All questions, disputes and differences, arising under out of
or in connection with this supply order, shall be subject to the
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction and the place from which this supply order is
situated.'" 6

The RTC ruled that the arbitration proceedings was null and void because the
submission of the dispute to the arbitrator was a "mistake of law or fact amounting to
want of jurisdiction". It then concluded that petitioner acquired no enforceable right under
the foreign court's judgment because of the invalid adoption of the arbitrator's award. 7 On
appeal, the Court of Appeals a rmed the trial court's ruling that the arbitrator did not have
jurisdiction over the dispute and that the full text of the foreign court's judgment did not
contain any ndings of facts and law but merely a "simplistic decision containing literally,
only the dispositive portion" 8 in contravention of the Constitution. 9 The appellate court
ruled further that the dismissal of the private respondent's objections for non-payment of
the required legal fees, without the foreign court rst replying to the private respondent's
query as to the amount of legal fees to be paid, constituted want of notice or violation of
due process. Finally, the Court of Appeals held that the arbitration proceeding was
defective because the arbitrator was appointed solely by the petitioner, and the fact that
the arbitrator was a former employee of the latter gives rise to a presumed bias on his part
in favor of the petitioner. 10
After petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, it brought a petition for
review on certiorari to this Court, 1 1 wherein the threshold issue raised was the
enforceability of the foreign judgment rendered by the Civil Judge of Dehra Dun, India in
favor of petitioner and against private respondent — the resolution of which hinges on
whether or not the arbitrator had jurisdiction over the dispute between the said two parties
under Clause 16 of the contract. On July 23, 1998, this Court, as stated, rendered the
assailed Decision in favor of petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED, and the assailed decision
of the Court of Appeals sustaining the trial court's dismissal of the OIL AND
NATURAL GAS COMMISSION's complaint in Civil Case No. 4006 before Branch
30 of the RTC of Surigao City is REVERSED, and another in its stead is hereby
rendered ORDERING private respondent PACIFIC CEMENT COMPANY, INC. to pay
to petitioner the amounts adjudged in the foreign judgment subject of said case.
"SO ORDERED."

The dispute is within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator pursuant to Clause 16 of the
contract which provides: LibLex

"Except where otherwise provided in the supply order/contract all questions

and disputes, relating to the meaning of the speci cation designs, drawings and
instructions herein before mentioned and as to quality of workmanship of the
items ordered or as to any other question, claim, right or thing whatsoever, in any
way arising out of or relating to the supply order/contract design, drawing,
speci cation, instruction or these conditions or otherwise concerning the
materials or the execution or failure to execute the same during
stipulated/extended period or after the completion/abandonment thereof shall be
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 referred to the sole arbitration of the persons appointed by Member of the
Commission at the time of dispute. It will be no objection to any such
appointment that the arbitrator so appointed is a Commission employer (sic) that
he had to deal with the matter to which the supply or contract relates and that in
the course of his duties as Commission's employee he had expressed views on all
or any of the matter in dispute or difference." 12

This Court reiterates its ruling in the Decision of July 23, 1998, to wit:
"The dispute between the parties had its origin in the non-delivery of the
4,300 metric tons of oil well cement to the petitioner. The primary question that
may be posed, therefore, is whether or not the non-delivery of the said cargo is a
proper subject for arbitration under the above-quoted Clause 16. The petitioner
contends that the same was a matter within the purview of Clause 16, particularly
the phrase, ". . . or as to any other questions, claim, right or thing whatsoever, in
any way arising or relating to the supply order/contract, design, drawing,
speci cation, instruction . . . ." 1 3 It is argued that the foregoing phrase allows
considerable latitude so as to include non-delivery of the cargo which was a
"claim, right or thing relating to the supply order/contract". The contention is
bereft of merit. First of all, the petitioner has misquoted the said phrase, shrewdly
inserting a comma between the words "supply order/contract" and "design" where
none actually exists. An accurate reproduction of the phrase reads, ". . . or as to
any other question, claim, right or thing whatsoever, in any way arising out of or
relating to the supply order/contract design, drawing, speci cation, instruction or
these conditions . . .". The absence of a comma between the words "supply
order/contract" and "design" indicates that the former cannot be taken separately
but should be viewed in conjunction with the words "design, drawing,
speci cation, instruction or these conditions". It is thus clear that to fall within the
purview of this phrase, the "claim, right or thing whatsoever" must arise out of or
relate to the design, drawing, speci cation, or instruction of the supply
order/contract. The petitioner also insists that the non-delivery of the cargo is not
only covered by the foregoing phrase but also by the phrase, ". . . or otherwise
concerning the materials or the execution or failure to execute the same during
the stipulated/extended period or after completion/abandonment thereof . . . .
". . . . The non-delivery of the oil well cement is de nitely not in the nature
of a dispute arising from the failure to execute the supply order/contract design,
drawing, instructions, speci cations or quality of the materials. That Clause 16
should pertain only to matters involving the technical aspects of the contract is
but a logical inference considering that the underlying purpose of a referral to
arbitration is for such technical matters to be deliberated upon by a person
possessed with the required skill and expertise which may be otherwise absent in
the regular courts.
"This Court agrees with the appellate court in its ruling that the non-delivery
of the oil well cement is a matter properly cognizable by the regular courts as
stipulated by the parties in Clause 15 of their contract: LLpr

"All questions, disputes and differences, arising under out of or in

connection with this supply order, shall be subject to the exclusive
jurisdiction of the court, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction and the
place from which this supply order is situated." 1 4

If Clause 16 would be interpreted to include even the non-delivery of the oil well
cement, it would render Clause 15 a surplusage. Manifestly clear from Clause 16 is that the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 arbitration is not the only means of settling disputes between the parties. Precisely, it is
pre xed with the proviso, "Except where otherwise provided in the supply order/contract . .
.", thus indicating that the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is not all encompassing, and admits
of exceptions as may be provided elsewhere in the supply order/contract. So as not to
negate one provision against the other, Clause 16 should be con ned to all claims or
disputes arising from or relating to the design, drawing, instructions, speci cations or
quality of the materials of the supply order/contract, and Clause 15 to cover all other
claims or disputes.
However, private respondent alleges that the foreign court's judgment is not
enforceable in this jurisdiction because it failed to contain a statement of the facts and the
law upon which the award in favor of petitioner was based. The foreign judgment sought
to be enforced reads: LexLib

"ORDER
Since objections led by defendant have been rejected through Misc. Suit
No. 5 on 7.2.90, therefore, award should be made "Rule of the Court."
"ORDER

Award dated 23.7.88. Paper No. 3/B-1 is made Rule of the Court. On the
basis of conditions of award decree is passed. Award Paper No. 3/B-1 shall be a
part of the decree. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to get from defendant (US$
899,603.77 (US$ Eight Lakhs ninety nine thousand six hundred and three point
seventy seven only) along with 9% interest per annum till the last date of
realisation." (Emphasis supplied). 1 5

The foreign court explicitly declared in its Order that "Award Paper No. 3/B-1 shall
be part of the decree." This curt ruling of the foreign court may be categorized in the nature
of memorandum decisions or those which adopt by reference the ndings of facts and
conclusions of law of inferior tribunals. In this jurisdiction, it has been held that
memorandum decisions do not transgress the constitutional requirement in Article VIII,
Section 14, on clearly and distinctly stating the facts and the law on which the decision is
based. 16 Nonetheless, it would be more prudent for a memorandum decision not to be
simply limited to the dispositive portion but to state the nature of the case, summarize the
facts with references to the record, and contain a statement of the applicable laws and
jurisprudence and the tribunal's assessments and conclusions on the case. This practice
would better enable a court to make an appropriate consideration of whether the
dispositive portion of the judgment sought to be enforced is consistent with the ndings
of facts and conclusions of law made by the tribunal that rendered the decision. This is
particularly true where the decisions, orders, or resolutions came from a court in another
jurisdiction. Otherwise, the enforcement of the decisions would be based on presumptions
that laws in other jurisdictions are similar to our laws, at the expense of justice based on
the merits. cda

Moreover, the constitutional guideline set forth in Article VIII, Section 14 cannot
prevail over the fundamental elements of due process. Matters of procedure even if laid
down in the Constitution must be tempered by substantial justice provided it has factual
and legal basis. Considering that the case involves signi cant properties, the overriding
consideration of a judgment based on the merits should prevail over the primordial
interests of strict enforcement on matters of technicalities. Procedural lapses, absent any
collusion or intent to defraud the parties or mislead the tribunals, should not be allowed to
defeat the claim of a party who is not well-informed in the technical aspects of the case
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 but whose interest is merely to enforce what he believes to be his rightful claim.
In this case, considering that petitioner simply prayed for the remand of the case to
the lower court, the outright ruling and adherence to the foreign courts' order adopting by
reference another entity's ndings and conclusion was misplaced. The adjudication of this
case demands a full ventilation of the facts and issues and the presentation of their
respective arguments in support and in rebuttal of the claims of the contending parties.
This is all the more applicable herein since the Court is not a trier of facts, 1 7 but
oftentimes simply relies on the cold pages of the silent records of the case.
ACCORDINGLY, in the interest of due process, the case is REMANDED to the
Regional Trial Court of Surigao City for further proceedings. cdtai

SO ORDERED.
Melo and Puno, JJ., concur.
Mendoza, J., took no part.

Footnotes
1. Supply Order Contract, ANNEX "C" to PETITION in G.R. No. 114323, p. 5; Rollo, p. 114.
2. Arbitral Award dated July 23, 1988, ANNEX "D" of the Petition, p. 17; Rollo, p. 143-144.
3. DECISION in CA-G.R. CV NO. 37080 promulgated on October 29, 1993, p. 10; Rollo, p. 103;
RTC Records, pp. 143-144.
4. ANNEX "F" of the Petition; Rollo, p. 157.

5. ORDER in Civil Case No. 4006, ANNEX "G" of the Petition, p. 1; Rollo, p. 158.
6. Ibid., p. 4; Rollo, p. 161.
7. Ibid., p. 5; Rollo, p. 162.
8. CA Decision.
9. Constitution, Article VIII, Section 14.

10. CA Decision, Supra, pp. 8-12; Rollo, pp. 101-105.

11. Petitioner assigned the following arguments:
A. THE NON-DELIVERY OF THE CARGO WAS A MATTER PROPERLY COGNIZABLE BY THE
PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE 16 OF THE CONTRACT;
B. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL COURT OF DEHRADUN, INDIA WAS AN AFFIRMATION OF
THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL FINDINGS OF THE ARBITRATOR AND THEREFORE
ENFORCEABLE IN THIS JURISDICTION;

C. EVIDENCE MUST BE RECEIVED TO REPEL THE EFFECT OF A PRESUMPTIVE RIGHT UNDER

A FOREIGN JUDGMENT." (Petition, Supra, p. 9; Rollo, p. 73.).

12. See Supply Order Contract.

13. Petition, Supra; pp. 11-12; Rollo, pp. 75-76.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 14. Terms and Conditions of Supply Order, "ANNEX C-1" of the Petition, p. 8; Rollo, p. 125-126;
RTC Records, pp. 17-26.

15. Court of Dehra Dun, Suit No. 677 of 1988, ONGC vs. Pacific Cement, 7-2-90; Rollo, p. 157.
16. Francisco v. Permskul, 173 SCRA 324 [1989]; Romero v. Court of Appeals, 147 SCRA 183
(1987).
17. David-Chan v. CA, 268 SCRA 677 (1997).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com