Allowing an app to access our photographs on our mobile devices is a dangerous permission. For all we know, we might be unwittingly giving away facial recognition data which is actually stronger than a password that is vital and essential to mobile banking in order for us to do online transactions. We might become victims of identity theft and suffer financial loss because some apps may apparently mine and harvest our data particularly biometrics for purposes we are not aware of. In a similar way, we should not rely on the fact that, just because others do it, it is already safe. Hence, it is best to consult information privacy professionals or IT experts on the matter.
Do we value privacy on our mobile devices?
By: Atty. Jeremy O. Panganiban
Most of the time, we unknowingly grant permission for many applications (apps, for brevity) to access our data and to perform functions that are unnecessary for the purpose of the app’s functionality (vide: 99 Privacy Breaches to be Aware of by Kevin Shepherdson, Atty. Lyn Boxall, et al., at page 281).
Many apps require us to give permission for our personal data to be revealed to third parties. A few apps may even sell our data with our permission already given! (ibid.)
My suggestion is that we must carefully read the terms of use, meticulously acquaint ourselves with the permissions, and scrutinize the app’s privacy notice before we give our consent. Please take note that, under the law, a blanket consent is void. Neither is failure to opt out from a pre-ticked box deemed valid when it comes to data privacy.
The Rules on Inheritance in the Philippines Simplified
Here is how inheritance rules are simplified: “Love descends, then ascends, and then spreads.”
On one hand, “descends” means that the children inherit first and, in case of predecease, the children’s children succeed. The surviving spouse inherits like a child; hence, he/she gets a share equal to a child’s share.
“Ascends” in turn pertains to the deceased person’s parents who inherit in the absence of descendants and spouse.
On the other hand, “spreads” refers to collateral relatives, who are the deceased person’s brothers and sisters, or nephews and nieces who inherit in the event the other heirs in the order of succession are no longer alive.
Please note that this principle applies only when there is no last will and testament because, should there be one, half of the estate, termed as “legitime”, of the would-be deceased person is reserved by law to his/her children and surviving spouse while the remaining half or the “free portion” can be bequeathed even to a complete stranger to the family.
Kindly bear in mind further that the same simplified rule finds relevance only to legitimate relationships since illegitimate children only gets one-half of the share of a legitimate child. There is also an “iron curtain rule” in that illegitimate children are not entitled to succeed to and inherit from the legitimate relatives of the deceased person.
HOW TO ENFORCE FOREIGN JUDGMENTS IN THE PHILIPPINES
Preliminary Statement
I am writing a treatise about a seemingly simple topic but is actually a complicated and highly technical legal subject which is useful for Filipino spouses whose respective foreign spouses obtained a decree of divorce abroad which is valid in the country where the case for divorce was filed in order for the Filipino spouse concerned to remarry under Philippine law. Moreover, money judgments and court decisions on commercial matters obtained abroad may be enforced in the Philippines under certain conditions. Hereunder are the things you must know about the topic. Pardon my legalese since I cannot avoid using legal and technical terms and quoting authorities on the subject.
Requisites for Enforcement
For the foreign judgment to be recognized or enforced in the Philippines, the following requisites must be satisfied:
1. The foreign judgment was rendered by a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal which had jurisdiction over the person and the case in the proper proceedings. An arbitration body whose procedure is fair and reasonable will qualify.
2. It must be a judgment on civil or commercial matters, including questions of status. As a general rule, foreign judgments in criminal cases, tax cases, or strictly administrative proceedings may not be enforced in the Philippines.
3. The court issuing the judgment must be a court of competent jurisdiction. Some authorities maintain that the foreign court issuing the judgment must be a court of competent jurisdiction in the “international” sense, and this is usually taken to mean that the court should be competent not according to its own law, but also according to the law of the second State where the judgment is sought to be enforced or recognized.
4. The judgment must emanate from an impartial court.
5. The judgment must be valid under the laws of the court that rendered it.
6. The judgment must be final and executory and must amount to res judicata in the country where it was delivered. The test is whether the judgment conclusively establishes the fact upon which the plaintiff rests his claim and sets the issue between the parties at rest forever.
7. A judgment for the payment of money must be for a fixed sum. It is at least necessary that the court should be able to find an absolute minimum which the defendant undoubtedly owes before it can order the defendant to pay it.
8. Corollary to the preceding requirements, the foreign judgment must have disposed of the controversy on its merits. As to whether a judgment disposes of the case on the merits is determined by the law of the forum in which the judgment was rendered.
9. The foreign judgment must not be barred by prescription under the law of the State in which it was promulgated or under the law of the State in which its recognition or enforcement is being sought. Where the statute of limitations of the forum is shorter than that of the state of rendition, the foreign judgment may be denied enforcement in the forum provided the law of the forum applies equally to domestic and foreign judgments. Under Article 1144 of the Civil Code, an action upon a judgment must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues.
10. The judgment must not be contrary to the public policy or good morals of the country where it is to be enforced.
11. In a number of English cases, it is required that the foreign judgment must not be contrary to natural or substantial justice. The obvious meaning seems to be that natural and substantial justice is violated if (a) the defendant is not afforded a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case, or was entirely ignorant of the proceedings; and (b) the litigant, though present at the proceedings, was unfairly prejudiced in the presentation of his case to the court. But the defense will not succeed if the alleged unfairness consisted of something that might have been attacked and removed in the foreign action.
12. The foreign judgment should not have been obtained by fraud. The fraud available against a foreign judgment is generally fraud that has deprived the party of the opportunity to make a full and complete defense, or fraud in obtaining jurisdiction over the defendant.
13. The foreign judgment must not constitute a clear mistake of fact or law.
Reference: Private International Law, Jovito Salonga, 1995 Edition, pp. 544-560.
Presumption of Validity
Under Section 3 of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, a court, whether of the Philippines or elsewhere, enjoys the presumption that it was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction and has regularly performed its official duty. Consequently, the party attacking the foreign judgment has the burden of overcoming the presumption of its validity (Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110263, July 20, 2001, 361 SCRA 489).
Defenses Against a Foreign Judgment
The judgment may be assailed by want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact (last sentence of Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court). This enumeration is restrictive, which limitation is in consonance with a strong and pervasive policy in all legal systems to limit repetitive litigation on claims and issues (Mijares v. Ranada, G.R. No. 139325, April 12, 2005 455 SCRA 397).
In this connection, matters of remedy and procedure such as those relating to the service of process upon a defendant are governed by lex fori or the internal law of the forum. As to what that foreign law is a question of fact not of law. It cannot be taken judicial notice of and must be pleaded and proved like any other fact. It is incumbent upon the party attacking the foreign judgment to present evidence as to what that foreign law is. In the absence of evidence, the presumption of validity and regularity of the decision must stand. Alternatively, the presumption of identity or the so-called processual presumption may be invoked (Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112573, February 9, 1995, 241 SCRA 192).
There is no merit to the argument that the foreign judgment is not enforceable in view of the absence of any statement of facts and law upon which the award in favor of the petitioner was based. The lex fori or the internal law of the forum governs matters of remedy and procedure (Asiavest Merchant Bankers vs. Court of Appeals, supra).
Next, fraud must be extrinsic, i.e., fraud based on facts not controverted or resolved in the case where the judgment is rendered, or that which would go to the jurisdiction of the court or would deprive the party against whom judgment is rendered a chance to defend the action to which he has a meritorious defense (ibid.).
Procedure For Enforcement
The Rules of Court are silent as to what initiatory procedure must be undertaken in order to enforce a foreign judgment in the Philippines. But there is no question that the filing of a civil complaint is an appropriate measure for such purpose. A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement 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.” (Mijares v. Ranada, supra).
An authenticated copy of the foreign judgment to be enforced must be attached (Conflict of Laws, Jorge R. Coquia and Elizabeth Pangalangan, 2000 Edition, p. 561).
In correlation, under Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Evidence, the record of public documents of a sovereign authority, tribunal, official body, or public officer may be proved by (1) an official publication thereof or (2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody thereof, which must be accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. The certificate may be issued by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent, or 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. 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 must be under the official seal of the attesting officer. (Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128803, September 25, 1998, 296 SCRA 489).
Which Court has jurisdiction?
A foreign judgment case is cognizable by the Regional Trial Court. The basis is Section 19(6) of B.P. 129: “in all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, xxx” (Mijares v. Ranada, supra).
Filing Fees
The subject matter of an action for the enforcement of a foreign judgment is the foreign judgment itself and not the right-duty correlatives that resulted in the foreign judgment. Accordingly, the High Tribunal held: “In this case, given that the complaint is lodged against an estate and is based on the US District Court’s Final Judgment, this foreign judgment may, for purposes of classification under the governing procedural rule, be deemed as subsumed under Section 7(b)(3) of Rule 141, within the class of “all other actions not involving property. Thus, only the blanket filing fee of minimal amount is required” (ibid.).
Effect of a Foreign Judgment
The effect of a foreign judgment is as follows:
1. In case of a judgment upon a specific thing, the judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing.
2. In case of a judgment against a person, the judgment is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title.
In either case, the foreign judgment may be repelled by evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact (Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.)
Under the above rule, for an action in rem, the foreign judgment is deemed conclusive upon the title to the thing, while in an action in personam, the foreign judgment is presumptive, not conclusive, of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title (Mijares v. Ranada, supra).
However, in both cases, the foreign judgment is susceptible to impeachment in Philippine courts upon the grounds mentioned in the rule (ibid.).
Closing Statement
By this time, I am sure that you will be interested in knowing more about the law especially Philippine law and your rights under the law.
What does consent mean under the Data Privacy Act of 2012?
Consent is a freely given, specified and informed indication of will that the data subject gives to the collection or processing of his/her personal data.
Construing the foregoing, the National Privacy Commission opined that, if it is not clear, it is not consent. Moreover, the law explicitly requires that consent must be in writing, recorded or in electronic form. Apart from these modes, there can be no valid consent. Implied consent is not permissible. Neither is a blanket consent allowed.
Parenthetically, as an added information, consent may be given not only by the data subject (an individual whose personal information is or will be processed) but also by his duly authorized representative or agent.
Given these, one may ask: Must covered entities require a documented consent every time a closed circuit television (cctv, for short) captures the data subject? What about a recorded telephone conversation where the data subject is informed that it will be recorded and yet he/she still proceeds with the call without expressly uttering the word “yes”, does it amount to an implied consent? The answer to these questions is in the negative. In these situations, consent in a way is substituted by operational practicability. For, it is impracticable nay impossible to document consent in every single moment that a cctv records information. And, proceeding with the call in a recorded phone conversation where the caller is informed of the recording is also acceptable.