Yes. The decision of the Philippine court recognising or enforcing a foreign judgment is a domestic judgment that is subject to available appeal mechanisms:
A court judgment recognizing a foreign judgment that has not become final and executory may be challenged by the following:
Motion for New Trial
An aggrieved party may move the trial court to set aside the judgment and grant a new trial for the following causes materially affecting substantial rights:
- Fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence which impaired the rights of the aggrieved party; or
- Newly discovered evidence that would probably alter the result (Rules of Court, Rule 37, Sec. 1 (a)).
Motion for Reconsideration
An aggrieved party may also move for reconsideration on the following grounds:
- Damages awarded are excessive.
- The evidence is insufficient to justify the domestic judgment; or
- The domestic judgment is contrary to law (Rules of Court, Rule 37, Sec. 1 (b)).
Appeal
An appeal is a remedy obtained from a next level higher court seeking reversal or modification of a domestic judgment rendered by an inferior court. Only judgments that completely dispose of the case or a matter therein may be the subject of an appeal (Rules of Court, Rule 41, Sec. 1).
The judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court enforcing and recognizing the foreign judgment may be appealed to the Court of Appeals by ordinary appeal. Additionally, an appeal by certiorari may be elevated to the Supreme Court only on questions of law (Rules of Court, Rule 41, Sec 2).
A court judgment recognizing a foreign judgment that has become final and executory may be challenged by the following:
Petition for Relief from Judgment, Orders, or other Proceedings
After a judgment becomes final and executory, an aggrieved party is allowed to file a petition in the same court and in the same case seeking to set aside the proceeding due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy that is allowed only in exceptional cases. The aggrieved party must file the petition within sixty days after learning the judgment, and not more than six months after such judgment was entered (Mercury Drug Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 138571, 13 July 2000).
Annulment of judgment
Judgments rendered by the Regional Trial Courts may be annulled by the Court of Appeals when the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the aggrieved party (Rules of Court, Rule 47, Sec. 1). The grounds for an annulment of judgment are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process.
Challenging the writ of execution
While a final judgment is immutable and unalterable and, as such, execution follows as a matter of right, a recognized exception that would stay or stop execution is the happening of a supervening event that alters or modifies the situation of the parties under the decision as to render the execution inequitable, impossible, or unfair. A supervening event consists of facts transpiring and circumstances developing only after the finality of judgment. The interested party may seek the stay the writ of execution or move to modify or alter the judgment to harmonize it with justice and the supervening event (Heirs of Maravilla v. Tupas, G.R. No. 192132, 14 September 2016).
Additionally, a writ of execution must substantially conform to the judgment sought to be enforced. Courts may not go beyond the terms of the judgment and a writ of execution that expands the scope of the judgment sought to be executed is invalid (Titan Dragon Properties Corporation v. Galenzoga, G.R. No. 246088, 28 April 2021).