"xxx.
is well settled that foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved.13 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 Court14 which read:
SEC. 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreigncountry, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice- consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.
SEC. 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of the evidence, the attestation must state,in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court.
For a copy of a foreign public document to be admissible, the following requisites are mandatory: (1) itmust be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or by his deputy; and (2) it must be accompanied by a certificate by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consular or consular agent or foreign service officer, and with the seal of his office.15 Such official publication or copy must be accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that the attesting officer has the legal custody thereof.16 The certificate may be issued by any of the authorized Philippine embassy or consular officials stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.17 The attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be, and mustbe under the official seal of the attesting officer.18
Contrary to the contention of the petitioners, the Panamanian laws, particularly Law 42 and its Implementing Order No. 7, were not duly proven in accordance with Rules of Evidence and as such, it cannot govern the rights and obligations of the parties in the case at bar. While a photocopy of the Gaceta Official of the Republica de Panama No. 17.596, the Spanish text of Law 42 which is theforeign statute relied upon by the court a quoto relieve the common carrier from liability, was presented as evidence during the trial of the case below, the same however was not accompanied by the required attestation and certification.
It is explicitly required by Section 24, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court that a copy of the statute must be accompanied by a certificate of the officer who has legal custody of the records and a certificate made by the secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consular or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country, and authenticated by the seal of his office. The latter requirement is not merely a technicality but is intended to justify the giving of full faith and credit to the genuineness of the document in a foreign country.19 Certainly, the deposition of Mr. Enrique Cajigas, a maritime law practitioner in the Republic of Panama, before the Philippine Consulate in Panama, is not the certificate contemplated by law. At best, the deposition can be considered as an opinion of an expert witness who possess the required special knowledge on the Panamanian laws but could not be recognized as proof of a foreign law, the deponent not being the custodian of the statute who can guarantee the genuineness of the document from a foreign country. To admit the deposition as proof of a foreign law is, likewise, a disavowal of the rationaleof Section 24, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court, which isto ensure authenticity of a foreign law and its existence so as to justify its import and legal consequence on the event or transaction in issue. The above rule, however, admits exceptions, and the Court in certain cases recognized that Section 25, Rule132 of the Revised Rules of Court does not exclude the presentation of other competent evidence to prove the existence of foreign law. In Willamete Iron and Steel Works v. Muzzal20 for instance, we allowed the foreign law tobe established on the basis of the testimony in open court during the trial in the Philippines of an attorney-atlaw in San Francisco, California, who quoted the particular foreign law sought to be established.21 The ruling is peculiar to the facts. Petitioners cannot invoke the Willamete ruling to secure affirmative relief since their so called expert witness never appeared during the trial below and his deposition, that was supposed to establish the existence of the foreign law, was obtained ex-parte.
It is worth reiterating at this point that under the rules of private international law, a foreign law must be properly pleaded and proved as a fact. In the absence of pleading and proof, the laws of the foreign country or state will be presumed to be the same as our local or domestic law. This is known as processual presumption.22 While the foreign law was properly pleaded in the case at bar, it was,however, proven not in the manner provided by Section 24, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court. The decision of the RTC, which proceeds from a disregard of specific rules cannot be recognized.
Xxx."
G.R. No. 156330, November 19, 2014
NEDLLOYD LIJNEN B.V. ROTTERDAM and THE EAST ASIATIC CO., LTD., Petitioners,
vs.
GLOW LAKS ENTERPRISES, LTD., Respondent.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_156330_2014.html
SEC. 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of the evidence, the attestation must state,in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court.
For a copy of a foreign public document to be admissible, the following requisites are mandatory: (1) itmust be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or by his deputy; and (2) it must be accompanied by a certificate by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consular or consular agent or foreign service officer, and with the seal of his office.15 Such official publication or copy must be accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that the attesting officer has the legal custody thereof.16 The certificate may be issued by any of the authorized Philippine embassy or consular officials stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.17 The attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be, and mustbe under the official seal of the attesting officer.18
Contrary to the contention of the petitioners, the Panamanian laws, particularly Law 42 and its Implementing Order No. 7, were not duly proven in accordance with Rules of Evidence and as such, it cannot govern the rights and obligations of the parties in the case at bar. While a photocopy of the Gaceta Official of the Republica de Panama No. 17.596, the Spanish text of Law 42 which is theforeign statute relied upon by the court a quoto relieve the common carrier from liability, was presented as evidence during the trial of the case below, the same however was not accompanied by the required attestation and certification.
It is explicitly required by Section 24, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court that a copy of the statute must be accompanied by a certificate of the officer who has legal custody of the records and a certificate made by the secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consular or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country, and authenticated by the seal of his office. The latter requirement is not merely a technicality but is intended to justify the giving of full faith and credit to the genuineness of the document in a foreign country.19 Certainly, the deposition of Mr. Enrique Cajigas, a maritime law practitioner in the Republic of Panama, before the Philippine Consulate in Panama, is not the certificate contemplated by law. At best, the deposition can be considered as an opinion of an expert witness who possess the required special knowledge on the Panamanian laws but could not be recognized as proof of a foreign law, the deponent not being the custodian of the statute who can guarantee the genuineness of the document from a foreign country. To admit the deposition as proof of a foreign law is, likewise, a disavowal of the rationaleof Section 24, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court, which isto ensure authenticity of a foreign law and its existence so as to justify its import and legal consequence on the event or transaction in issue. The above rule, however, admits exceptions, and the Court in certain cases recognized that Section 25, Rule132 of the Revised Rules of Court does not exclude the presentation of other competent evidence to prove the existence of foreign law. In Willamete Iron and Steel Works v. Muzzal20 for instance, we allowed the foreign law tobe established on the basis of the testimony in open court during the trial in the Philippines of an attorney-atlaw in San Francisco, California, who quoted the particular foreign law sought to be established.21 The ruling is peculiar to the facts. Petitioners cannot invoke the Willamete ruling to secure affirmative relief since their so called expert witness never appeared during the trial below and his deposition, that was supposed to establish the existence of the foreign law, was obtained ex-parte.
It is worth reiterating at this point that under the rules of private international law, a foreign law must be properly pleaded and proved as a fact. In the absence of pleading and proof, the laws of the foreign country or state will be presumed to be the same as our local or domestic law. This is known as processual presumption.22 While the foreign law was properly pleaded in the case at bar, it was,however, proven not in the manner provided by Section 24, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court. The decision of the RTC, which proceeds from a disregard of specific rules cannot be recognized.
Xxx."
G.R. No. 156330, November 19, 2014
NEDLLOYD LIJNEN B.V. ROTTERDAM and THE EAST ASIATIC CO., LTD., Petitioners,
vs.
GLOW LAKS ENTERPRISES, LTD., Respondent.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_156330_2014.html
