Oil and Natural Gas vs. CA

G.R. No.114323 July 23,1998 Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs CA Basis of Judgement Facts:  Petitioner is a foreign corporation owned and controlled by the government of Indi. While the respondent is a private corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine law.  Both parties entered into a contract obligating Pacific Company to supply Oil and Natural Gas with $,300 metric tons of oil well cement.  Pacific failed to deliver the cargo to Oil and Natural Gas Commission after he received payment and several demands  Oil and Natural Gas won in the Arbitral case him US $899,603.77  Pacific refuse to pay the amount adjudged by the foreign court  Oil and Natural Gas then filed a complaint with the RTC of Surigao City.  The private respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds: o plaintiffs lack of legal capacity to sue; o lack of cause of action; and o plaintiffs claim or demand has been waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished.  RTC ruled in favor of Pacific for jurisdiction over the case  CA affirmed the RTC/s decision saying that the foreign court could not validly adopt the arbitrator’s award Issue: Whether or not the arbitrator has jurisdiction over the dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent under Clause 16 under the contract. Held: No Ratio: The constitutional mandate that no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein dearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based does not preclude the validity of "memorandum decisions" which adopt by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the decisions of inferior tribunals. In Francisco v. Permskul, this Court held that the following memorandum decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati did not transgress the requirements of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution.