G.R. No.

114323 July 23, 1998

OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PACIFIC CEMENT COMPANY, INC.,

FACTS: ONGC, a foreign GOCC of India and Pacific Cement, a Philippine corporation, entered into a contract
whereby the Pacific Cement will supply to ONGC oil well cement. The oil well cement was boarded at the port of
Surigao for delivery at Bombay and Calcutta, India but was held up in Bangkok due to a dispute. Pacific Cement
failed to deliver the oil well cement. Parties agreed with replacement of Class "G" cement cost free at the ONGC's
designated port. But the Class "G" cement did not conform to the ONGC’s specifications upon inspection. ONGC
referred its claim to an arbitrator pursuant to Clause 16 of their contract. ONGC filed a complaint with Branch 30 of
the RTC Surigao for the enforcement of the judgment of the foreign court but was dismissed. CA affirmed the
dismissal.

ISSUES
1. WON the arbitrator had jurisdiction over the dispute between the ONGC and Pacific Cement under
Clause 16 of the contract
2. WON the arbitration is enforceable in the Philippines

RULING:

1. YES, arbitrator had jurisdiction over the dispute under Clause 16 of the contract.

A perusal of Clause 16 shows that the parties did not intend arbitration to be the sole means of settling disputes,
as it was prefixed 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. The correct interpretation is for Clause 16 to be confined to all
claims or disputes arising from or relating to the design, drawing, instructions, specifications or quality of the
materials of the supply order/contract, and for Clause 15 to cover all other claims or disputes.

What was referred to arbitration was no longer the mere non-delivery of the cargo at the first instance but also the
failure of the replacement cargo to conform to the specifications of the contract, a matter clearly within the
coverage of Clause 16.

2. YES, the recognition to be accorded a foreign judgment is not necessarily affected by the fact that the procedure
in the courts of the country in which such judgment was rendered differs from that of the courts of the country in
which the judgment is relied on. Matters of remedy and procedure are governed by the lex fori or the internal law
of the forum. Thus, if under the procedural rules of the Civil Court of Dehra Dun, India, a valid judgment may be
rendered by adopting the arbitrator's findings, then the same must be accorded respect.

Pacific Cement was notified by the foreign court to file its objections to the petition, and to pay legal fees, but
failed to. The foreign court did not violate Pacific Cement right to due process as it was afforded sufficient
opportunity to be heard.

The foreign judgment being valid, there is nothing else left to be done than to order its enforcement. Petition is
GRANTED.