Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Eighth (8th) Judicial Region
Regional Trial Court, Branch__
Bulwagan ng Katarungan, Tacloban City

BALTHAZAR SEMBLAT, CIVIL CASE NO.: ____________

Plaintiff,

FOR: ENFORCEMENT OF
-versus-
FOREIGN JUDGMENT
PURSUANT TO RULE 39 OF THE
ANTONIO PRIMO ARELLANO, RULES OF COURT
Defendant.
x-------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, the plaintiff thru the undersigned counsel unto this
Honorable Court, hereby files the foregoing complaint and in support
thereof most respectfully allege that:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is an American citizen, of legal age, single, and a resident

of 3937 Kenwood Place, Orlando City, State of Florida 32801,
United States of America, where he may be served with
summonses, orders, notices, and other processes of the Honorable
Court or at the address of the undersigned counsel at:

Ipaglaban Mo&Partners Law Office

ABC Building, Burgos St.
Tacloban City 6500

2. Defendant is a Filipino citizen, of legal age, single and a

resident of Brgy. 71 San Gerardo Heights, Tacloban City where
he may be served with summonses, orders, notices, and other
processes of the Honorable Court;

3. Parties have the capacity to sue and be sued;

1
 FACTS OF THE CASE AND CAUSE OF ACTION

4. Plaintiff is an independent Architect based in Orlando City,

Florida;

5. Defendant is a businessman and an owner of a chain of resort

hotels all over the Philippines;

6. On April 2015, the defendant planned to build a 7-storey resort

hotel in San Jose, Tacloban City. He thus went to Orlando City,
Florida to engage the services of the plaintiff, a world
renowned Architect based in the United States;

7. On July 21, 2015, the plaintiff and the defendant executed a

Service Agreement duly notarized by Notary Public Atty.
Archie Burnand. A copy of the said contract is hereto attached
as ANNEX – “A” for reference;

8. It was stipulated on the said service agreement that herein

Plaintiff will receive ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY THOUSAND
(180, 000 USD) US Dollars, as compensation inclusive of the
value-added and other taxes that may be imposed in
connection with for the said project. The parties agreed that the
defendant shall pay the plaintiff a down payment equivalent to
Eighty Percent (80%) of the Contract Price and the 20% Final
billing shall be subject to ten (10%) percent retention to be
released 1 year after acceptance of the project;

9. Upon execution of the contract, the plaintiff received ONE

HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR THOUSAND (144,000.00 USD) US
DOLLARS or 80% of the agreed compensation as down
payment and evidenced by the Acknowledgement Receipt
hereto attached as ANNEX – “B” for reference;

10. The parties agreed that the construction, validity and

performance thereof shall be governed by the laws
of Florida. They further agreed to submit any suit arising from
their agreement to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Florida
Courts;

11. The project was completed on March 3, 2016. Consequently,

the plaintiff sent a written notice to the defendant informing
him that the architectural services have been finished and the
same are ready for inspection within three (3) days from
receipt of the notice. The Written notice is hereto attached as
ANNEX – “C” for reference;

2
 12. On March 6, 2016, the defendant authorized a certain Hunter
James Pitt to inspect the technical documents submitted by the
plaintiff which was approved by the latter. The defendant did
not express any objection nor sent a notice of rejection to the
plaintiff. The Certificate of Acceptance is hereto attached
as ANNEX – “D”;

13. On March 7, 2016, upon the approval of the documents

submitted, the plaintiff sent the final billing to the defendant.
The Final billing statement is hereto attached as ANNEX –
“E”;

14. The plaintiff did not receive any reply from the defendant. On
April 3, 2016, the plaintiff sent a Letter of demand to the
defendant to collect the remaining balance for his services
hereto attached as ANNEX – “F”;

15. The said letter of demand was received by the defendant on

April 10, 2016 as evidenced by a Proof of Delivery from the
United States Postal Service, a copy of which is hereto attached
as ANNEX – “G”;

16. Three (3) months passed and the defendant had still failed to
make good with his obligation to pay herein plaintiff. After the
unheeded demands, this prompted herein plaintiff to file a
lawsuit for the BREACH OF CONTRACT against herein
defendant before the Orange County Courthouse, Florida;

17. The Orange County Courthouse then tried the case and
subsequently rendered the Decision1 on August 25, 2016 in
favor of herein plaintiff with the corresponding notice of
hearing to the defendant, the dispositive portion provides,
to wit:

“Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Contract and Business

Cases 416.4 provides for the essential factual elements of
breach of contract

The claimant must prove all of the following:

1. Claimant and defendant entered into a contract;

2. Claimant did all, or substantially all, of the essential things

which the contract required him or that he was excused
from doing those things;

1 A copy of which is hereto attached as Annex-“I and series”;

3
 3. All conditions required by the contract for defendant’s
performance had occurred;

4. Defendant failed to do something essential which the

contract required him to do or the Defendant did
something which the contract prohibited him from doing
and that prohibition was essential to the contract; and

5. Claimant was harmed by that failure.”

“Thus, premises considered, the contract is hereby

RESCINDED. The defendant is hereby ordered to:

a. The sum of THIRTY-SIX THOUSAND (32,400.00 USD) US

DOLLARS with interest from date of demand;
b. To pay TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (2,500 USD)
US DOLLARS, representing exemplary damages;
c. To pay the plaintiff the amount of FIVE THOUSAND
(5,000.00 USD) US DOLLARS, representing the
undersigned counsel’s retainer’s fees;
d. To pay the plaintiff the amount of THREE THOUSAND
(3,000.00 USD) US DOLLARS, representing litigation
expenses;
e. Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises.”

18. A copy of the Florida Civil Jury Instructions pertaining to portions

relevant to a breach of contract to support the judgment rendered
by the Orange County Courthouse is hereto attached as ANNEX-
“H” for reference;

19. It must be noted that a party seeking the enforcement of a foreign

judgment in the Philippines must file a civil action with the regular
courts. In Mijares v. Ranada2, the Supreme Court explained
that “a civil action is one by which a party sues another for the
enforcement or protection of a right, and clearly an action to
enforce a foreign judgment is in essence a vindication of a right
prescinding either from a ‘conclusive judgment upon title’ or the
‘presumptive evidence of a right’”. The Supreme Court likewise
stated in Mijares that it is the Philippine Regional Trial Courts
which have jurisdiction over actions seeking the enforcement of
foreign judgments;

20.In Perkins., v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., et.al. 3,

the Philippine Supreme Court held that, “The judgment of a
foreign tribunal cannot be enforced by execution in the
Philippines. Such judgment only creates a right of action and its
2 G.R. No. 139325, 12 April 2005.
3 93 Phil. 1035

4
 non-satisfaction, a cause of action and it is necessary that a suit
be brought upon said foreign judgment in our local courts.”;

21. The Philippines is not a party to any treaty or convention dealing

with the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments,
Philippine law nevertheless provides a framework which allows
domestic courts to recognize and enforce the final judgments or
orders of foreign courts in the Philippines. 4 Sec. 49, Rule 39 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the rule on the effect of
foreign judgments. It states that:

“Sec. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final

orders. – The effect of a judgment or final order of a
tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to
render the judgment or final order is as follows:

a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a

specific thing, the judgment or final order is
conclusive upon the title to the thing; and
b) In case of a judgment or final order against a
person, the judgment or final order is
presumptive evidence of a right as between the
parties and their successors-in-interest by a
subsequent title.

In either case, the judgment or final order may be

repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of
notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake
of law or fact.”

22. The substantive requirements which a foreign judgment must

satisfy in order that it may be recognized and enforced in the
Philippines are as follows:

(a)It must be a final judgment or order, and not an

interlocutory one;

(b) It must have been rendered by a court with jurisdiction

over the subject matter of the dispute, and over the
parties. In relation to this, Philippine law presumes, in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, that a court or
judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or
elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of its
jurisdiction. Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that
matters of procedure, such as those relating to the
service of summons or court process upon the defendant,
are governed by the law of the forum;
4https://iclg.com/practice-areas/enforcement-of-foreign-judgments/enforcement-of-foreign-judgments-
2017/philippines.

5
 (c)The basic requirements of due process (i.e., notice and
an opportunity to be heard by an impartial tribunal)
must have been observed by the foreign court;

(d) The judgment must not be contrary to morals or

Philippine public policy.

23. Due to the defendant’s failure to make good his obligation to

herein plaintiff despite the foreign judgment rendered by the
Orange County Courthouse in Florida, USA, the plaintiff was
forced to file this case of enforcement of foreign judgment and
engage the services of the foreign counsel for the filing of the
instant case for an acceptance fee of PHP 60,000.00 and PHP
5,000.00 per appearance;

24. By reason of the filing of the instant case, plaintiff would be

compelled to pay for the docket fees for thereof and would likely
spend another PHP 10,000.00 as litigation expenses;

25. As a consequence of the defendant’s unlawful acts, plaintiff

suffered sleepless nights and anxiety which if quantified would
amount to PHP 70,000.00;

26. Thus, plaintiff prays that upon due hearing and consideration that
the instant case be given due course and order the defendant to
pay the plaintiff the amount of US$ 32,400.00, or its
corresponding value in Philippine Peso.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, FOREGOING PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is

most respectfully prayed for that the instant complaint be GIVEN
DUE COURSE and upon due notice and hearing of the parties,
that a Decision be rendered in favor of the plaintiff ordering
defendant:

1. To pay the plaintiff the amount of US$ 32, 400 for the
services that were rendered by the plaintiff in favor of
the defendant;

2. To pay the Plaintiff the amount of PHP 60,000.00,

representing the undersigned counsel’s retainer’s fees
and PHP 5,000.00 per appearance;

3. To pay the Plaintiff the cost of the suit plus PHP

10,000.00 as litigation expenses;

6
 4. Moral damages in the amount of PHP 70,000.00.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

Tacloban City, February 20, 2019.

ATTY. OLIVIA MANZANO REYES

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Ipaglaban Mo&Partners Law Office
ABC Building, Burgos St., Tacloban City 6500
Attys. Roll No. 456234/June 28, 2014
IBP O.R. No. 4562789/01-03-19, Leyte Chapter
PTR No.: PL 3425892/01-03-19, Palo, Leyte
MCLE Compliance No.: V-0000667, 11-12-2018
Valid Until January 1, 2023
Phone No.: 0905-987-6543
Email: attyolireyes@yahoo.com

7
 VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM
SHOPPING

I, BALTHAZAR SEMBLAT, of legal age, American Citizen,

single and a resident of 3937 Kenwood Place, Orlando City, State of
Florida 32801, United States of America, after being sworn in
accordance with law, hereby state that:

1. I am the plaintiff in the above-titled case and I have caused

the preparation of the foregoing complaint;

2. I have read the contents and the allegations contained

therein and the facts stated therein are true and correct of
my personal knowledge and/or based on copies of
documents and records in my possession;

3. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or

proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; and

4. Should I thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding

has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I
undertake to report that fact and the status of the same
within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my

signature this 20th day of February2019 in Tacloban City, Philippines.

BALTHAZAR SEMBLAT

Affiant

PASSPORT ID NO.: 31195855

SUBSCRIBED & SWORN to before me this 20 th day of February

2019, in Tacloban City, Philippines, affiant exhibiting the above
document before me and swore that she understood the contents
thereof and that the same is her free and voluntary act and deed.
Witness my hand and seal.

8
 ATTY. SCARLET SNOW BELO
Commission No. 282930, until December 31, 2019
Doc. No. 13; Roll No. 23456/November 29, 2014
PTR No. 6677443/1-03-19 Tacloban City, Leyte
IBP O.R. NO. 5627898/01-03-17, Leyte Chapter
Page No. 32; MCLE Compliance No. V-0004455, 11-12-2018

Book No. 6;

Series of: 2019