G.R. No. 180245; July 4, 2012
PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. TAKENAKA CORPORATION and ASAHIKOSAN CORPORATION, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO) was awarded a concession to build and operate NAIA Terminal 3. It contracted respondents Takenaka Corporation and Asahikosan Corporation, both Japanese corporations, for the terminal’s construction. Claiming unpaid sums, respondents filed and won two collection suits before the High Court of Justice in London, obtaining monetary judgments against PIATCO. To enforce these foreign judgments in the Philippines, respondents filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati.
PIATCO moved to dismiss the enforcement complaint on multiple grounds, including: (1) a defective verification and certification against forum shopping, arguing the signatory lacked proper authority; (2) forum shopping, alleging respondents had previously asserted their claims in the expropriation case over the terminal and in a related Supreme Court case; (3) payment, novation, or extinguishment of obligation, claiming respondents had entered into a separate agreement with the Philippine government; and (4) non-compliance with a condition precedent to arbitrate before the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss. PIATCO’s petition for certiorari was subsequently denied by the Court of Appeals, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s denial of PIATCO’s Motion to Dismiss the complaint for enforcement of a foreign judgment.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s ruling. On procedural grounds, the Court found the verification and certification against forum shopping to be sufficient. The signatory, Mr. Takeshi Kurebayashi, acted under special powers of attorney executed by the presidents of the respondent corporations. The Court emphasized that a certification against forum shopping requires only that the plaintiff has not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in another court or tribunal. It does not prohibit a party from pursuing alternative remedies in the same case or from intervening in a related case to protect its interests, which is what respondents did in the expropriation proceedings.
On the substantive grounds for dismissal, the Court ruled they were improperly raised in a motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss hypothetically admits the truth of the material allegations in the complaint. The complaint sought enforcement of a final foreign judgment. Defenses such as payment, novation, extinguishment, or failure to arbitrate are matters of defense that involve factual determinations requiring a full trial on the merits. They cannot be resolved in a motion to dismiss, which is limited to the face of the complaint and the intrinsic invalidity of the claim. The Court also highlighted the transcendental importance of cases involving NAIA Terminal 3, warranting a relaxed application of procedural rules to achieve a full settlement and avoid further delay in justice. Thus, the RTC correctly denied the motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed to trial where PIATCO could fully present its substantive defenses.