The options available in the Philippines to identify the asset position of another party include the following.

Examination of publicly available records:

• for information on the financial position of a corporation, the plaintiff may obtain the corporation’s records (including the corporation’s Articles of Incorporation, General Information Sheet, and Audited Financial Statements) from the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission;
• for information on a party’s landholdings and other real properties, the plaintiff may obtain the relevant records (including land titles and deeds of transfers) from the Registry of Deeds where the real properties are located; and
• for information on a party’s vehicle ownership, the plaintiff may obtain the relevant records (including the vehicle’s registration information) from the Land Transportation Office.

Under the Bank Secrecy Law, all deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines (including investments in bonds issued by the government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities), are considered as absolutely confidential in nature and may not be examined, inquired, or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office, except upon written permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.

Examination of a party subject to a freezing order:

• As to the availability of a “freezing order” (which the authors understand is an interim court order ancillary to an applicant’s main claim preventing or restricting a party or prospective party from dealing with its assets so that they are preserved prior to the satisfaction of a judgment), a similar remedy referred to as a “preliminary attachment” is available to litigants in the Philippines.

A “preliminary attachment” is defined as “a provisional remedy issued upon order of the court where an action is pending to be levied upon the property or properties of the defendant therein, the same to be held thereafter by the sheriff as security for the satisfaction of whatever judgment might be secured in said action by the attaching creditor against the defendant.” When a property is attached, the affected party is not necessarily prohibited from transferring it to a third party. However, such transferee is bound to acknowledge and respect the encumbrance.

A party subject of a freezing order or whose property is attached may be required to attend a court examination for the purpose of giving information respecting his or her property and may be examined under oath. This may also be done in relation to a person owing debts to the party whose property is attached or having in his or her possession or under his or her control any credit or other personal property belonging to such party.

Examination of a judgment-debtor during execution proceedings:

• The Rules of Court allow the judgment-creditor to examine, under oath, the judgment-debtor, as well as the debtors of the judgment-debtor, before the same court that rendered the judgment in cases where the judgment award has remained unsatisfied.

In this regard, the service of the order of the court requiring the debtors of the judgment-debtor to appear shall bind all the credits due to the judgment obligor and all of the money and property of the judgment-debtor in the possession or in the control of the debtor from the time of service.

The different types of domestic judgments available in the Philippines include the following.

• Final judgments or final orders, which determine the merits of the case generally after a full-blown hearing and state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which they are based, signed by the presiding judge or justices, and filed with the clerk of the court.

In the absence of a conventional full-blown hearing, a final judgment or final order may be rendered as follows.

1. Judgment on the pleadings, which is rendered upon motion of the plaintiff when the defendant’s answer fails to tender an issue or otherwise admits the material allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint.

2. Summary judgment, which is rendered when the pleadings of the parties fail to tender a genuine issue of fact. In such a case, the court may render its judgment based on the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file.

3. Judgment in default, which is rendered when a defendant fails to file an answer within the time allowed by the relevant rules of procedure, and after the defendant has been declared in default. In this case, the party declared in default is barred from actively participating in the proceedings.

• Interlocutory orders, which do not put an end to the ordinary proceeding in the nature of a judicial action. Under this category are provisional remedies which are temporary and auxiliary remedies availed of in connection with a principal action for various purposes, such as the preservation of rights in a main action (eg, preliminary injunction).

The different types of domestic judgments available in the Philippines may involve the following:

• civil action where a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong:
1. ordinary:
1. action that is incapable of pecuniary estimation (eg, specific performance);
2. action involving title or possession of real property;
3. action involving the demand of a sum of money; or
4. action involving the demand of damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and cost;
2. special:
1. interpleader;
2. declaratory relief;
3. certiorari, prohibition, and/or mandamus;
4. quo warranto;
5. expropriation;
6. foreclosure of real estate mortgage;
7. partition; or
8. contempt;
• criminal action through which the state prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by law; or
• special proceeding through which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.

Once a decision has become final and executory, it may be enforced through a motion filed with the court of origin within five years from the date of its entry of judgment. After the lapse of such time, and the judgment-creditor failed to file a motion or otherwise obtain a writ of execution within the initial five-year period, it may be enforced by first filing a separate action to revive the judgment within another five-year period counted from the end of the initial five-year period.

Following the filing of the motion, the court will issue a writ of execution directing the sheriff or other proper officer to enforce the writ according to its terms. This directive depends on the nature of the cause of action and the relief prayed for, and granted, in the case.

In an action for a sum of money, when the judgment-debtor is unable to pay the judgment award on demand, the sheriff may proceed to satisfy the judgment by levying the real and personal property of the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor generally has the option of choosing which of his or her properties should first be levied, but if he or she does not exercise the option, the sheriff shall first levy on the personal properties, if any, and then on the real properties if the personal properties are insufficient to answer for the judgment. Similarly, the sheriff may garnish the debts due the judgment obligor and other credits, including bank deposits, financial interests, royalties, commissions and other personal property not capable of manual delivery in the possession or control of third parties.

In the event that the judgment-debtor is already insolvent and the subject of an on-going insolvency proceeding, the judgment-creditor may satisfy the judgment by filing his or her notice of claim with the insolvency court.

If a judgment award will be enforced through a motion, there is no additional cost associated with the enforcement other than for logistical expenses of the enforcement activity. A motion of this nature is non-litigious and the court’s issuance of a writ of execution to enforce a final and executory judgment is generally considered ministerial and a matter of right on the part of the judgment-creditor.

If the judgment award will be enforced through an independent action because the initial five-year period has already lapsed, the court will assess filing fees based on the judgment award.

The Rules of Court allow the judgment-creditor to examine, under oath, the judgment-debtor, as well as the debtors of the judgment-debtor, before the same court that rendered the judgment in cases where the judgment award has remained unsatisfied.

In this regard, the service of the order of the court requiring the debtors of the judgment-debtor to appear shall bind all the credits due to the judgment obligor and all of the money and property of the judgment-debtor in the possession or in the control of the debtor from the time of service.

The defendant can assail the writ of execution issued by a court on the following grounds:

• facts and circumstances have transpired after the judgment that would make the execution impossible or unjust; or
• the writ of execution alters or varies the judgment, or was issued without authority or against the wrong party.

In addition, the defendant can ask for the ancillary remedy of injunction from a higher court to enjoin the enforcement of the judgment upon a showing that:

• the defendant has a clear and unmistakable right to be protected;
• there is a material and substantial invasion of such right;
• there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the injunction to prevent serious and irreparable damage; and
• no other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists to prevent the infliction of irreparable injury.

A judgment cannot be enforced if an appellate court has ruled that the judgment is void for having been rendered in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction of the court. The term “grave abuse of discretion”, as defined in Philippine case law, is the capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment that amounts to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by the law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.

A judgment also cannot be enforced when the five-year period to revive the judgment has lapsed.

Except for the reported decisions or resolutions of the Supreme Court, there is no central register or record of all judgments in the Philippines. The record of the proceedings of a case is generally kept by the court that heard the case. However, courts generally do not allow third persons who are not parties to the action to access the records of the case.

The Philippines is not a party to any treaties or international conventions governing the enforcement of foreign judgments. Foreign judgments are enforced in accordance with the Rules of Court. Since a foreign judgment is based upon foreign law, the foreign law must generally be proved before local courts in accordance with the Rules of Court.

The conclusiveness of the foreign judgment depends on its nature. A foreign judgment or final order upon a specific thing is generally conclusive upon title to the thing, while a foreign judgment or final order against a person is generally only presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors-in-interest by subsequent title.

The Philippines does not have a federal system and accordingly there is uniformity in the law and procedure within the jurisdiction in respect of the enforcement of foreign judgments. The Constitution requires the uniform application of the Rules of Court for all courts of the same grade, which is the primary source of law for the enforcement of foreign judgments. The Rules of Court apply in all courts, except as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court.

A foreign judgment may be impeached and not enforced if the party proves in the action for recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment the want of jurisdiction of the court rendering the judgment, the want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. In addition, a foreign judgment may also not be enforced if it is against public policy or the Constitution.

The litigant may file an action for the recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment with the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the action. In case the trial court renders a judgment recognising the foreign judgment, the litigant may file a motion for execution of the foreign judgment pursuant to the trial court’s recognition of such judgment.

Since a petition for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment involves an action that is incapable of pecuniary estimation, it requires the payment of only a minimal filing fee.

It usually takes six to 18 months for the trial court to render its decision on a case. Afterwards, the aggrieved party may still appeal the decision of the trial court with the Court of Appeals, which can take one to two years to render a decision. Finally, the decision of the Court of Appeals, can still be appealed to the Supreme Court, which can take another one to two years to render a decision.

A foreign judgment may be impeached and not enforced if the party proves in the action for recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment the want of jurisdiction of the court rendering the judgment, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. In addition, a foreign judgment may also not be enforced if it is against the Constitution or public policy.

The rules governing the enforcement of an arbitral award will vary depending on the type of arbitration proceedings leading to the issuance of the arbitral award. Under the Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution (Special ADR Rules), there are three types of arbitration proceedings the awards of which can be recognised and enforced before Philippine courts, namely Domestic Arbitration, International Commercial Arbitration, and Foreign Arbitration.

Domestic Arbitration is an arbitration proceeding held in the Philippines that is not “international” as contemplated under Article 1 (3) of the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on 21 June 1985 (Model Law).

International Commercial Arbitration is an arbitration proceeding held in the Philippines that is both “international” and “commercial”.

As defined by the Model Law, which the Philippines has adopted by reference, an arbitration is “international” if:

• the parties to an arbitration agreement have, at the time of the conclusion of that agreement, their places of business in different states; or
• one of the following places is outside the state in which the parties have their places of business:
1. the place of arbitration if determined in, or pursuant to, the arbitration agreement;
2. any place where a substantial part of the obligations of the commercial relationship is to be performed or the place where the subject-matter of the dispute is most closely connected; or
3. the parties have expressly agreed that the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement relates to more than one country.

Arbitration is “commercial” if it covers matter arising from all relationships of a commercial nature, whether contractual or not.

Foreign Arbitration is arbitration that is conducted in any country other than the Philippines.

Domestic arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards made in a state that is not a member of the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards approved in 1958 and ratified by the Philippine Senate under Senate Resolution No 71 (New York Convention) shall be governed and enforced in accordance with the Special ADR Rules. Foreign arbitral awards made in a state that is a member of the New York Convention shall be governed and enforced in accordance with the New York Convention and the Special ADR Rules. International commercial arbitration awards shall be governed and enforced in accordance with the Model Law and the Special ADR Rules.

For domestic arbitral awards, any party to the domestic arbitration must file a verified petition for recognition and enforcement within 30 days from receipt of the arbitral award with the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the place (i) where one of the parties is doing business; (ii) where any of the parties resides; or (iii) where arbitration proceedings were conducted.

For international commercial arbitral awards, any party to an international commercial arbitration in the Philippines may file a verified petition for recognition and enforcement within three months from the time of receipt of the arbitral award with the Regional Trial Court:

• where arbitration proceedings were conducted;
• where any of the assets to be attached or levied upon is located;
• where the act to be enjoined will be or is being performed;
• where any of the parties to the arbitration resides or has its place of business; or
• in the National Judicial Capital Region.

For foreign arbitral awards, any party to a foreign arbitration may file a verified petition for recognition and enforcement at any time after receipt of the arbitral award with the Regional Trial Court:

• where the assets to be attached or levied upon is located;
• where the act to be enjoyed is being performed;
• in the principal place of business in the Philippines of any of the parties;
• if any of the parties is an individual, where any of those individuals resides; or
• in the National Capital Judicial Region.

Arbitral awards may not be enforced when grounds under the Special ADR Rules exist to vacate an arbitral award or set it aside or refuse its recognition.

For domestic arbitral awards, the grounds to vacate include the following:

• the award was procured through corruption, fraud, or other undue means;
• there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitral tribunal or any of its members;
• the arbitral tribunal was guilty of misconduct or any form of misbehaviour that has materially prejudiced the rights of any party such as refusing to postpone a hearing upon sufficient cause shown or to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy;
• one or more of the arbitrators was disqualified to act as such under the law and wilfully refrained from disclosing such disqualification;
• the arbitral tribunal exceeded its powers or so imperfectly executed them, such that a complete, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted to them was not made;
• the arbitration agreement did not exist, or is invalid for any ground for the revocation of a contract or is otherwise unenforceable; or
• a party to arbitration is a minor or a person judicially declared to be incompetent.

For international commercial arbitral awards, the grounds to set aside or resist enforcement include the following:

• a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity, or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereof, under Philippine law;
• the party making the application to set aside or resist enforcement was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his or her case;
• the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or contains decisions or matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration – provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only the part of the award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside;
• the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the law of the country where arbitration took place;
• the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement or resolution by arbitration under Philippine law; or
• the recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to public policy.

For foreign arbitral awards, the grounds to refuse recognition and enforcement include the following:

• a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity, or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereof, under Philippine law;
• the party making the application to set aside or resist enforcement was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his or her case;
• the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or contains decisions or matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration – provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only the part of the award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside;
• the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the law of the country where arbitration took place;
• the award has not yet become binding on the parties or has been set aside or suspended by a court of the country in which the award was made;
• the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement or resolution by arbitration under Philippine law; or
• the recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to public policy.

Generally, the party to the arbitral award should file the appropriate petition with the Regional Trial Court that is the proper venue for the petition under the Special ADR Rules.

If the court finds the petition to be sufficient in form and in substance, the court will cause notice to the respondent to file a comment or opposition to the petition.

If there are issues of fact, the court may require the parties to submit the affidavits of their witnesses. In case the issue is one of law, the court may require the parties to submit briefs of their legal arguments.

Based on the parties’ submissions, the court may hold a hearing before deciding the case.

The judgment of the court confirming the domestic arbitral award or recognising the international commercial arbitration award must then be enforced in accordance with the Rules of Court. In contrast, the judgment of the court recognising and enforcing a foreign arbitral award is immediately executory.

The filing fees depend on the nature of the arbitration proceedings and the amount of the arbitral award and may range from PHP10,000 (approximately USD170) to PHP50,000 (approximately USD850). It generally takes six months to one year to enforce an arbitral award in the Philippines.

The enforcement of arbitral awards may be challenged based on the grounds enumerated under 4.3 Categories of Arbitral Awards Not Enforced. In addition, the party may file a motion for reconsideration with the Regional Trial Court on its ruling on the enforcement of the arbitral award.

The resolution of the Regional Trial Court on the motion for reconsideration may be appealed to the Court of Appeals. Finally, the decision or resolution of the Court of Appeals may be appealed to the Supreme Court.