This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
The three branches of conflict of laws are Jurisdiction – whether the forum court has the power to resolve the dispute at hand Choice of law – the law which is being applied to resolve the dispute Foreign judgments – the ability to recognize and enforce a judgment from an external forum within the jurisdiction of the adjudicating forum
Hasegawa vs. Kitamura The pivotal question that this Court is called upon to resolve is whether the subject matter jurisdiction of Philippine courts in civil cases for specific performance and damages involving contracts executed outside the country by foreign nationals may be assailed on the principles of lex loci celebrationis, lex contractus, the “state of the most significant relationship rule,” or forum non conveniens. *** Lex loci celebrationis relates to the “law of the place of the ceremony” or the law of the place where a contract is made. The doctrine of lex contractus or lex loci contractus means the “law of the place where a contract is executed or to be performed.” It controls the nature, construction, and validity of the contract and it may pertain to the law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties or the law intended by them either expressly or implicitly.Under the “state of the most significant relationship rule,” to ascertain what state law to apply to a dispute, the court should determine which state has the most substantial connection to the occurrence and the parties. In a case involving a contract, the court should consider where the contract was made, was negotiated, was to be performed, and the domicile, place of business, or place of incorporation of the parties. This rule takes into account several contacts and evaluates them according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue to be resolved. Since these three principles in conflict of laws make reference to the law applicable to a dispute, they are rules proper for the second phase, the choice of law. They determine which state's law is to be applied in resolving the substantive issues of a conflicts problem. Necessarily, as the only issue in this case is that of jurisdiction, choice-of-law rules are not only inapplicable but also not yet called for. Further, petitioners' premature invocation of choice-of-law rules is exposed by the fact that they have not yet pointed out any conflict between the laws of Japan and ours. Before determining which law should apply, first there should exist a conflict of laws situation requiring the application of the conflict of laws rules. Also, when the law of a foreign country is invoked to provide the proper rules for the solution of a case, the existence of such law must be pleaded and proved. It should be noted that when a conflicts case, one involving a foreign element, is brought before a court or administrative agency, there are three alternatives open to the latter in disposing of it: (1) dismiss the case, either because of lack of jurisdiction or refusal to assume jurisdiction over the case; (2) assume jurisdiction over the case and apply the internal law of the forum; or (3) assume jurisdiction over the case and take into account or apply the law of some other State or States. The court’s power to hear cases and controversies is derived from the Constitution and the laws. While it may choose to recognize laws of foreign nations, the court is not limited by foreign sovereign law short of treaties or other formal agreements, even in matters regarding rights provided by foreign sovereigns. Neither can the other ground raised, forum non conveniens, be used to deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction herein. First, it is not a proper basis for a motion to dismiss because Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of
enforcement of the decision Elements of Jurisdiction: 1. Rayray vs. the RTC decided to assume jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the person 2.Second. 3 aspects in conflicts of law problem: 1. Before the marriage. ISSUE: Whether or not Rayray’s marriage with Lee is null and void. Eventually they pursued their separate ways. The SC ruled that the police clearance is wanting for it lacks the signature of the person who prepared it and there is no competent document to establish the identity of the same. Third. Rayray later filed before lower court of Manila for an action to annul his marriage with Lee because Lee’s whereabouts cannot be determined and that his consent in marrying Lee would have not been for the marriage had he known prior that Lee had been living with other men. hence. the propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle requires a factual determination. jurisdiction 2. Lee Rayray married Lee in 1952 in Pusan. Rayray however later found out that Lee had previously lived with 2 Americans and a Korean.Court does not include it as a ground. Jurisdiction over the issues 3. Jurisdiction over the res Jurisdiction over the person ~summons. HELD: The lower court erred in ruling that Philippine courts do not have jurisdiction over the case. the nationality principle is controlling NOT lex loci celebracionis. The lower court is however correct in ruling that Rayray’s evidence is not sufficient to render his marriage with Lee null and void. Lee averred that it is ok in Korea for a person . In this case. His action for annulment had been duly published and summons were made known to Lee but due to her absence Rayray moved to have Lee be declared in default. Lee was able to secure a marriage license which is a requirement in Korea prior to marrying. Lee answered by saying that it is not unusual in Korea for a woman to have more than one partner and that it is legally permissive for them to do so and that there is no legal impediment to her marriage with Rayray. To repeat: Forum non conveniens is not a ground for a motion to dismiss. Korea. Rayray said that the police clearance secured by Lee is meant to allow her to marry after her subsequent cohabitation/s with the other men – which is considered bigamous in Philippine law. whether actual or substituted service (via consul) ~appearance Jurisdiction over the issues – determined by law. this conflicts principle is more properly considered a matter of defense. although it may be a matter of defense. The lower court denied Rayray’s action stating that since the marriage was celebrated in Korea the court cannot take cognizance of the case and that the facts presented by Rayray is not sufficient to debunk his marriage with Lee. They lived together until 1955. As far as marriage status is concerned. choice of law 3. Also. through Rayray himself. whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of the said doctrine depends largely upon the facts of the particular case and is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.
domicile or lex loci celebrationis 2. A key element in this may be the rules on renvoi. 3. Choice of Law Doctrine of Characterization – provides for the parameters to determine which law should apply. if so. Rayray cannot be given credence in claiming that his consent could have been otherwise altered had he known all these facts prior to the marriage because he would lie to every opportunity given him by the Court so as to suit his case.who cohabited with other men before to marry another man. intent of contracting parties as to the law that will govern the controversy . 2. place an act was done 4. This is an indication that Lee herself is aware that if it were a previous marriage that is concerned then that could be a legal impediment to any subsequent marriage. The next step is the characterization of the cause of action into its component legal categories which may sometimes involve an incidental question (also note the distinction between procedural and substantive laws). Each legal category has one or more choice of law rules to determine which of the competing laws should be applied to each issue. 4. lex causae . The stages in a conflict case 1. that law must be proved before the forum court and applied to reach a judgment. whether it is the appropriate venue given the problem of forum shopping. The court must first decide whether it has jurisdiction and. the law of the state in which land is situated (lex situs) 3. nationality. 5. Once the applicable law is decided.the law identified in the choice of law stage of the conflict process as the one to be applied to determine the case There are several cases when characterisation is not made by the lex fori: choice of law clause (lex voluntatis) subsequent characterization (which is a problem of the lex causae) real estate or immovables (when lex situs applies) renvoi unknown legal institutions law of nationality (when lex patriae applies) international treaties Factors: 1. The successful party must then enforce the judgment which will first involve the task of securing crossborder recognition of the judgment.
The decree of divorce was promulgated on January 15. of a person – correlate Art. are located. where the components comprising each cause of action occurred. et al. This can include the court's own choice of law rules. The parties themselves may plead the case either to avoid invoking a foreign law or agree to the choice of law. said foreign law would still not find applicability. Each such classification has it own choice of law rules but distinguishing between procedural and substantive rules requires care. the presumption is that the law is similar to that of RP. the law of the state in which land is situated (lex situs) will be applied to determine all questions of title. Ibay-Somera Imelda M. Federal Republic of Germany. 1986 on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses. Rule 132 of the Rules of Court and the jurisprudence laid down in Yao Kee. support and separation of property before the RTC Manila on January 23.where the law of a foreign tribunal is not proven in RP court. 1983. a Filipino citizen. Thus. our courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or internal law. the said foreign law. Erich Ekkehard Geiling. A danger exists if the choice of law requires that a case be heard elsewhere due to the forum's lack of expertise in deciding an issue of foreign law. 1980 and named Isabella Pilapil Geiling. In the instant case. 15 and Art. if the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and proved. This is what we refer to as the doctrine of processual presumption. this Court adopted the well-imbedded principle in our jurisdiction that there is no judicial notice of any foreign law. a German national before the Registrar of Births. assuming that the judge will not of his or her own motion go behind the pleadings. was married with private respondent. The petitioner then filed an action for legal separation. The custody of the child was granted to the petitioner. The court may have adopted a rule of law which prevents it from applying any procedural law other than its own. the domicile or nationality of the parties.g. Pilapil. . Processual Presumption. Domicile. Marriages and Deaths at Friedensweiler. They have a child who was born on April 20. judgment or contract is contrary to a sound and established public policy of the forum. e. American Realty Corporation In a long line of decisions. the law of the place where a transaction physically takes place or of the occurrence that gave rise to the litigation (lex loci actus) Characterization. judgment or order shall not be applied. etc. assuming arguendo that the English Law on the matter were properly pleaded and proved in accordance with Section 24. The "traditional approach" looks to territorial factors. Bank of America vs. 96 NCC and Provisions of RPC on adultery Pilapil vs. where any relevant assets. Choice of Law scenarios: 1.SyGonzales. Conjugal disharmony eventuated in private respondent and he initiated a divorce proceeding against petitioner in Germany before the Schoneberg Local Court in January 1983. etc. A foreign law must be properly pleaded and proved as a fact. vs..The law of nationality (lex patriae) or domicile (lex domicilii) will define legal status and capacity. whether movable or immovable. when the foreign law. nationality. The court then allocates each aspect of the case as pleaded to its appropriate legal classification. Thus. and chooses the law or laws that have the greatest connection to the cause(s) of action.
each in its own intended and appropriate sphere. It is logical that. But as above explained the laws of California have prescribed two sets of laws for its citizens. In the Matter of the Testate Estate of Edward Christensen vs. apply the internal law for residents therein. when business intercourse and the process of accumulating property take but little notice of boundary lines. one for residents therein and another for those domiciled in other jurisdictions. (Goodrich. it is not that the domiciliary has effect beyond the borders of the domiciliary state. Supra. Helen Christensen We note that Article 946 of the California Civil Code is its conflict of laws rule. ISSUE: Whether private respondent can prosecute petitioner on the ground of adultery even though they are no longer husband and wife as decree of divorce was already issued. 1986.On June 27. and it this age. It had its origin in that international comity which was one of the first fruits of civilization. is one of the universal application. Renvoi Doctrine – even until now. When a man dies leaving personal property in one or more states. then we must enforce the law of California in accordance with the express mandate thereof and as above explained. Here. is the general convenience of the doctrine. the practical wisdom and justice of the rule is more apparent than ever. and leaves a will directing the manner of distribution of the property. the principle cited In re Kaufman should apply to citizens living in the State. latter “had an affair with William Chia as early as 1982 and another man named Jesus Chua sometime in 1983”. and its conflict-of-laws rule for those domiciled abroad. its internal law. pp. since the domiciliary rules control devolution of the personal estate in case of intestate succession. Thus. and said divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines in so far as he is concerned. as so declared in Article 16 of our Civil Code. and the reason for the recognition as in the case of intestate succession. the person who can legally file the complaint should be the offended spouse and nobody else.e. valid at the domicile of the owner. 2. . The rule laid down of resorting to the law of the domicile in the determination of matters with foreign element involved is in accord with the general principle of American law that the domiciliary law should govern in most matters or rights which follow the person of the owner. 442-443. while the rule applied in In re Kaufman. almost as completely as the law of situs is consulted in questions about the devise of land. i. also. Reason demands that We should enforce the California internal law prescribed for its citizens residing therein. the law of the state where he was domiciled at the time of his death will be looked to in deciding legal questions about the will. Conflict of Laws. the same rules should determine the validity of an attempted testamentary dispostion of the property.) Appellees argue that what Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines pointed out as the national law is the internal law of California. under the same consideration and rationale. is valid anywhere. The New York court has said on the point: 'The general principle that a dispostiton of a personal property. private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner and has no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit. HELD: The law specifically provided that in prosecution for adultery and concubinage. the latter obtained a valid divorce in his country. the Federal Republic of Germany. 164. it appeared that private respondent is the offended spouse. but Article 946 should apply to such of its citizens as are not domiciled in California but in other jurisdictions. and enforce the conflict of laws rules for the citizens domiciled abroad. The rules of the domicile are recognized as controlling by the Conflict of Laws rules at the situs property. it is not clear as to application internationally. If the law on succession and the conflict of laws rules of California are to be enforced jointly. Sec. private respondent filed 2 complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that while still married to Imelda. Though in this case. If we must enforce the law of California as in comity we are bound to go..
Palmaroli. As explained in the various authorities cited above. Melencio-Herrera. 156. rents.) cited by appellees to support the decision can not possibly apply in the case at bar. or dealings in property. 39 Phil.It is argued on appellees' behalf that the clause "if there is no law to the contrary in the place where the property is situated" in Sec. The Philippine cases (In re Estate of Johnson. This Court. 50 Phil. 40 Phil. a citizen of California. 130. Seat of the juridical person – main office 4. "The words "income from any source whatever" disclose a legislative policy to include all income not expressly exempted within the class of taxable income under our laws. 293. and income derived from any source whatever. Riera vs. 946 of the Civil Code of California. tossed back and forth between the two states. also from interests. such action would leave the issue incapable of determination because the case will then be like a football. a law similar to or identical with Art. and it does not appear in each case that there exists in the state of which the subject is a citizen. . the subject in each case does not appear to be a citizen of a state in the United States but with domicile in the Philippines. it is the amount of money coming to a person . makes natural children legally acknowledged forced heirs of the parent recognizing them.business. This contention can not be sustained.. 52 Phil. if the question has to be decided. dividends. Article 946. 59 Phil. 946 of the California Civil Code refers to Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and that the law to the contrary in the Philippines is the provision in said Article 16 that the national law of the deceased should govern. the national law mentioned in Article 16 of our Civil Code is the law on conflict of laws in the California Civil Code. 3. is the Philippines. The definition is broad and comprehensive to include proceeds from sales of transport documents. to the law of his domicile. the appellant. British Overseas Airways Corporation. Miciano vs.e. sales. Rider Babcock. trades. The Philippine court must apply its own law as directed in the conflict of laws rule of the state of the decedent.e. 867. growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property.. Government. speaking. vocations. when a decedent is not domiciled in California. We therefore find that as the domicile of the deceased Christensen. Air India Can the Philippines sue Air India for taxes based on its gross receipts? This issue has been settled in the affirmative in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. the domicile. between the country of which the decedent was a citizen and the country of his domicile. through Mme. for two important reasons. Civil Code. profits. pursuant to Art. The pertinent portions of the said Decision are as for followsThe Tax Code defines gross income thus: "Gross Income" includes gains. Article 946. not by the internal law of California. Arts. precisely refers back the case.. or from profession. and income derived from salaries. securities or thetransactions of any business carried on for gain or profit. i. 887(4) and 894.. The court of the domicile can not and should not refer the case back to California. Situs of the thing CIR vs. Brimo. Babcock Templeton vs. profits. commerce. Justice Ameurfina A. Civil Code of the Philippines. and Gibbs vs. or gains. held that such revenue constitutes taxable income." Income means "cash received or its equivalent". the Philippines in the case at bar. wages or compensation for personal service of whatever kind and in whatever form paid. 946 of the California Civil Code. especially as the application of the internal law of California provides no legitime for children while the Philippine law. 105. should be governed by the Philippine Law. the validity of the provisions of his will depriving his acknowledged natural child. i. which authorizes the reference or return of the question to the law of the testator's domicile. whether real or personal. The conflict of laws rule in California.
. Inc. On the basis of the doctrine announced in British Overseas Airways Corporation... As used in our income tax law. international carriers such as respondent BOAC. activity or service that produced the income. promulgated on November 24. .. Unquestionably. the sale of tickets in the Philippines is the activity that produces the income. 69. no longer any source of substantial conflict between the two opinions as to the present 2-1/2% tax on their gross Philippine billings charged against such international carriers as herein respondent foreign corporation. The word source conveys one essential Idea. and occurred within. The absence of flight operations to and from the Philippines is not determinative of the source of income or the situs of income taxation. income is a flow. xxx xxx xxx The source of an income is the property. therefore. amending Section 24 (b) (2) of the tax code. 1972. would impress upon this Court that income derived from transportation is income for services.D.. For the source of income to be considered as coming from the Philippines. In BOAC's case." it cannot alter the fact that income from the sale of tickets was derived from the Philippines. the taxable income involved in this case is for the fiscal year ending March 31. xxx xxx xxx BOAC. the income derived is from sources without the Philippines and.. 1355. of section 24(b) (2) of the Tax Code providing for the rate of income tax on foreign corporations.5% tax pursuant to Presidential Decree No. In the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Teehankee in aforesaid case he made the following observations: I just wish to point out that the conflict between the majority opinion penned by Mme. the flow of wealth should share the burden of supporting the government. have since then been taxed at a reduced rate of 2-1/2% on their gross Philippine billings. enjoying the protection accorded by the Philippine government. And even if the BOAC tickets sold covered the "transport of passengers and cargo to and from foreign cities. with the result that the place where the services are rendered determines the source. such income is subject to a 2. The tickets exchanged hands here and payments for fares were also made here in Philippine currency. The test of taxability is the "source". "income" refers to the flow of wealth.. the passage documentations in these cases were sold in the Philippines and the revenue therefrom was derived from a business activity regularly pursued within the Philippines. and since BOAC's service of transportation is performed outside the Philippines. Philippine territory. and the source of an income is that activity .within a specific time . In consideration of such protection. BOAC was an off-line international airline at the time pertinent to this case. 1972. As correctly assessed by the petitioner. No. and the origin of the income herein is the Philippines. 1976. Moreover. The flow of wealth proceeded from. here in the Philippines. There is. For. therefore. Admittedly. The . however. The situs of the source of payments is the Philippines. Both opinions state that by amendment through P. while capital is a fund. Justice Feliciano as to the proper characterization of the taxable income derived by respondent BOAC from the sales in the Philippines of tickets for BOAC flights as sold and issued by its general sales agent in the Philippines has become moot after November 24. it means something distinct from principal or capital.. which produced the income. Justice Melencio-Herrera and the dissenting opinion penned by Mr. not taxable under income tax laws. that of origin. it is sufficient that the income is derived from activity within the Philippines. must be considered taxable income. the revenue derived by the private respondent Air India from the sales of airplane tickets through its agent Philippine Air Lines.
reputation. given the factual context of this case. And as correctly held by the respondent appellate court. we find here an occasion to apply the “State of the most significant relationship” rule.968. according to the plaintiff below (herein private respondent). with the widespread criticism of the traditional rule of lex loci delicti commissi. the “connecting factor” or “point of contact” could be the place or places where the tortious conduct or lex loci actus occurred. 2. social standing and human rights of complainant. by way of recapitulation. Prescinding from this premise that the Philippines is the situs of the tort complaint of and the place “having the most interest in the problem”.90 constitutes the income tax due from the private respondent. 5.” Instead. there is basis for the claim that over-all injury occurred and lodged in the Philippines. In her Amended Complaint and subsequent pleadings she never alleged that Saudi law should govern this case. we find. Further. This is because it is in the Philippines where petitioner allegedly deceived private respondent.5% of this amount or P74. had lodged. CA Considering that the complaint in the court a quo is one involving torts. Lex Loci Actus – place where the tortious act was committed Saudi Arabia Airlines vs.total Philippine billings of the private respondent for the taxable year in question amounts to P2. we find that the Philippines could be said as a situs of the tort (the place where the alleged tortious conduct took place). Lex loci celebrationis – place where the act was done.” As aptly said by private respondent. she had honestly believed that petitioner would. There is likewise no question that private respondent is a resident Filipina national. it is not without basis to identify the Philippines as the situs of the alleged tort. All told. For in our view what is important here is the place where the over-all harm or the fatality of the alleged injury to the person. which could properly apply Philippine law. that the Philippine law on tort liability should have paramount application to and control in the resolution of the legal issues arising out of this case. Moreover. 6. And applying the torts principle in a conflicts case. . (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred. and (d) the place where the relationship. Moreover. between the parties is centered (Note: State of Mosr Significant Relationship Rule). the claim that the Philippines has the most significant contact with the matter in this dispute. As already discussed. the “relationship” between the parties was centered here. although it should be stressed that this suit is not based on mere labor law violations. working with petitioner. modern theories and rules on tort liability have been advanced to offer fresh judicial approaches to arrive at just results. petitioner failed to protect her. That certain acts or parts of the injury allegedly occurred in another country is of no moment. if any. she has “no obligation to plead and prove the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia since her cause of action is based on Articles 19 and 21” of the Civil Code of the Philippines. give her her due and observe honesty and good faith. From the record. the following contacts are to be taken into account and evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue: (a) the place where the injury occurred. the appropriate venue is in Quezon City. raised by private respondent as plaintiff below against defendant (herein petitioner).203. “act with justice. Thus. a Filipina residing and working here. place of incorporation and place of business of the parties. (c) the domicile. in our view. has been properly established. in the exercise of its rights and in the performance of its duties.00. According to her. nationality. In keeping abreast with the modern theories on tort liability. residence. In applying said principle to determine the State which has the most significant relationship. we find untenable petitioner’s insistence that “[s]ince private respondent instituted this suit. which in our view should be appropriate to apply now. we hold that the respondent Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the complaint. she has the burden of pleading and proving the applicable Saudi law on the matter. a resident foreign corporation engaged here in the business of international air carriage. she claimed.156.
with due consideration of the foreign element or elements involved. (Emphasis supplied. in J.) The J. Lastly. In a catena of cases. should be construed as prejudging the results of the case in any manner whatsoever. but appeal after trial was obviously available. Indubitably. In Estrada v.D. NLRC. Magpayo ruling was reiterated in Carnation Philippines Employees Labor Union-FFW v. Thus. an excusable neglect. However. the trial court must proceed to try and adjudge the case in the light of relevant Philippine law. it is only deemed complete when the addressee or his agent received the mail or after five (5) days from the date of first notice of the postmaster. and hence. Rule XIII of its Implementing Rules and Regulations. the order of dismissal of an appeal to the NLRC based on the ground that “there is no showing whatsoever that a copy of the appeal was served by the appellant on the appellee”was annulled. if the service is done through registered mail. the NLRC Rules do not state what would constitute proper proof of service. provides for proofs of service: .D. not a jurisdictional defect. in such a situation. Sec. *** Hence. We act on the petitions and simply require the petitioners to comply with the rule. Inc. Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. Pagdonsalan v. it was ruled that failure of appellant to furnish a copy of the appeal to the adverse party is not fatal to the appeal. Magpayo. The Court ratiocinated as follows: The failure to give a copy of the appeal to the adverse party was a mere formal lapse. This position is devoid of merit. EDI-Staff Builders vs. of course. National Labor Relations Commission. NLRC 2007 Petitioner EDI claims that Gran’s failure to furnish it a copy of the Appeal Memorandum constitutes a jurisdictional defect and a deprivation of due process that would warrant a rejection of the appeal. but also for the vindication of the country’s system of law and justice in a transnational setting. the duty that is imposed on the NLRC. v. the doctrine that evolved from these cases is that failure to furnish the adverse party with a copy of the appeal is treated only as a formal lapse. in such a case. no error could be imputed to the respondent appellate court in upholding the trial court’s denial of defendant’s (herein petitioner’s) motion to dismiss the case. an excusable neglect. Accordingly. Not only was jurisdiction in order and venue properly laid. thus the burden was on it [petitioner] to plead and to establish what the law of Saudi Arabia is”. this Court set aside the order of the NLRC which dismissed an appeal on the sole ground that the appellant did not furnish the appellee a memorandum of appeal contrary to the requirements of Article 223 of the New Labor Code and Section 9. however. the appeal should not be dismissed. the Philippines is the state intimately concerned with the ultimate outcome of the case below not just for the benefit of all the litigants. Time and again We have acted on petitions to review decisions of the Court of Appeals even in the absence of proof of service of a copy thereof to the Court of Appeals as required by Section 1 of Rule 45. NLRC. National Labor Relations Commission. and in Sunrise Manning Agency. Also. As enunciated in J. Nothing said herein.D. is to require the appellant to comply with the rule that the opposing party should be provided with a copy of the appeal memorandum. Rules of Court. With these guidelines in mind. NLRC. 13. it should not be given due course either.“considering that it was the petitioner who was invoking the applicability of the law of Saudi Arabia. v. and the expeditious trial itself indicated by the nature of the case at hand. Magpayo Customs Brokerage Corp.
Unfortunately for petitioner. where the alleged tortious conduct occurred. the employment contract signed by Gran specifically states that Saudi Labor Laws will govern matters not provided for in the contract (e. and the foreign employer/principal are governed by the employment contract. He is presumed to know only domestic or forum law. place and manner of service. the presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours. Warsaw Convention – disregards the intent of contracting parties Lhuillier vs. containing a full statement of the date. is not proved. The foreign law is treated as a question of fact to be properly pleaded and proved as the judge or labor arbiter cannot take judicial notice of a foreign law. The NLRC should not have proceeded with the adjudication of the case. the rights and obligations among and between the OFW. A contract freely entered into is considered law between the parties. we apply Philippine labor laws in determining the issues presented before us. He should have submitted an affidavit proving that he mailed the Appeal Memorandum together with the registry receipt issued by the post office. the International Law doctrine of presumed-identity approach or processual presumption comes into play. etc. Magpayo and the other cases. In international law. but it should have required Gran to properly furnish the opposing parties with copies of his Appeal Memorandum as prescribed in J. was between the United Kingdom and Italy. British Airways The Warsaw Convention applies because the air travel. Thus. morals. as this constitutes grave abuse of discretion. good customs. after seeing that Gran failed to attach the proof of service. proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with section 7 of this Rule. the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign law. proof shall be made by such affidavit and registry receipt issued by the mailing office. terms and conditions as they may deem convenient. nor is it conclusive proof that EDI received its copy of the Appeal Memorandum. In the present case. the local recruiter/agent. provided they are not contrary to law. Article 1 of the Warsaw Convention provides: . it did not prove the pertinent Saudi laws on the matter. Based on the foregoing provision. specific causes for termination. and hence. Proof of service. Gran should have immediately filed the registry return card. thus. or public policy. should be respected.). Saudi Labor Laws should govern all matters relating to the termination of the employment of Gran. even if pleaded. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender. or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee(emphasis supplied). Where a foreign law is not pleaded or. Hence. or the affidavit of the party serving. the NLRC should not have simply accepted the post office's list of mail and parcels sent. termination procedures. *** In cases involving OFWs. the parties may establish such stipulations. clauses.—Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party served or the official return of the server. afterwards. Being the law intended by the parties (lex loci intentiones) to apply to the contract.D. public order. If service is made by registered mail.g. which are both signatories to the Warsaw Convention.Section 13. it is obvious that the list submitted by Gran is not conclusive proof that he had served a copy of his appeal memorandum to EDI. In formulating the contract. If the service is by ordinary mail.
whether or not there be a break in the carriage or a transhipment. In the case at bench. petitioner’s place of departure was London. whether or not the court could not take cognizance of the case (jurisdiction) 2. It applies equally to gratuitous carriage by aircraft performed by an air transport undertaking. mandate or authority of another Power. 2. luggage or goods performed by aircraft for reward. United Kingdom with London as its principal place of business. United Kingdom while her place of destination was Rome. the court of the place of destination. it appears that the ticket was issued in Rome. the transport of the petitioner is deemed to be an “international carriage” within the contemplation of the Warsaw Convention. whether or not the court is empowered to implement its decision (capacity to execute) . both the petitioner and respondent aver that the place of destination is Rome. said carriage is deemed an “international carriage”. Italy. Place where judicial or administrative acts had been executed Forum non conveniens – not a ground for motion to dismiss. under the third jurisdictional rule. when the place of departure and the place of destination in a contract of carriage are situated within the territories of two High Contracting Parties. which is properly designated given the routing presented in the said passenger ticket and baggage check. Hence. then the jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action is governed by the provisions of the Warsaw Convention. Finally. Italy. the petitioner has the option to bring her case before the courts of Rome in Italy. Italy. even though that Power is not a party to this Convention. Both the United Kingdom and Italy signed and ratified the Warsaw Convention. Since the Warsaw Convention applies in the instant case. the court where the carrier is domiciled. The High Contracting Parties referred to herein were the signatories to the Warsaw Convention and those which subsequently adhered to it. if there is an agreed stopping place within a territory subject to the sovereignty. are situated either within the territories of two High Contracting Parties. or within the territory of a single High Contracting Party. under the first and second jurisdictional rules. (Emphasis supplied) Thus. 7. This Convention applies to all international carriage of persons. the place of departure and the place of destination. A carriage without such an agreed stopping place between territories subject to the sovereignty. the petitioner may bring her case before the courts of London in the United Kingdom. 3. Accordingly. As such. mandate or authority of the same High Contracting Party is not deemed to be international for the purposes of this Convention. it is not disputed that respondent is a British corporation domiciled in London. suzerainty. petitioner may bring her action before the courts of Rome. the court where the carrier has an establishment by which the contract has been made. Italy. or 4. Under Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention. the plaintiff may bring the action for damages before – 1. Consequently. We thus find that the RTC of Makati correctly ruled that it does not have jurisdiction over the case filed by the petitioner. suzerainty. 2. In the passenger ticket and baggage check presented by both the petitioner and respondent. In this case. the court where the carrier has its principal place of business. according to the contract made by the parties. 3 points to determine forum non conveniens: 1. whether of not the cout is capable or rendering an intelligent decision (capacity to decide) 3.1. For the purposes of this Convention the expression "international carriage" means any carriage in which.
Undoubtedly. Kitamura. in conflicts-of-laws cases. choice of law asks the further question whether the application of a substantive law which will determine the merits of the case is fair to both parties. Rouzie Recently in Hasegawa v. irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein. the Court outlined three consecutive phases involved in judicial resolution of conflicts-of-laws problems. While it is within the discretion of the trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground. or any other foreign tribunal for that matter. it is more properly considered as a matter of defense. Petitioner’s averments of the foreign elements in the instant case are not sufficient to oust the trial court of its jurisdiction over Civil Case No. and (3) that the Philippine Court has or is likely to have the power to enforce its decision. As regards jurisdiction over the parties. No. to determine whether special circumstances require the court’s desistance. 1192-BG and the parties involved. the Court defers to the sound discretion of the lower courts because their findings are binding on this Court. a court. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. On the other hand. it should do so only after vital facts are established. after hearing on the merits proceeds before the trial court. Civil Case No. it may or can proceed to try the case even if the rules of conflict-of-laws or the convenience of the parties point to a foreign forum. in the instances where the Court held that the local judicial machinery was adequate to resolve controversies with a foreign element. hence. 1192-BG is an action for damages arising from an alleged breach of contract. the following requisites had to be proved: (1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort. Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state. Jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct concepts. Moreover. (2) that the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts. On the matter of jurisdiction over a conflicts-of-laws problem where the case is filed in a Philippine court and where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter. the propriety of dismissing a case based on the principle of forum non conveniens requires a factual determination. The choice of law stipulation will become relevant only when the substantive issues of the instant case develop. are precluded from hearing the civil action. the parties and the res. That the subject contract included a stipulation that the same shall be governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut does not suggest that the Philippine courts. . that is. namely: jurisdiction. jurisdiction over the person of petitioner (as party defendant) was acquired by its voluntary appearance in court.Raytheon vs. may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most “convenient” or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. choice of law. the Court of Appeals respected its conclusion that it can assume jurisdiction over the dispute notwithstanding its foreign elements. In the same manner. Finding no grave abuse of discretion on the trial court. Jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of an action is conferred by the Constitution and the law and by the material allegations in the complaint. the nature of the action and the amount of damages prayed are within the jurisdiction of the RTC. and recognition and enforcement of judgments. Thus. This is an exercise of sovereign prerogative of the country where the case is filed. the trial court acquired jurisdiction over herein respondent (as party plaintiff) upon the filing of the complaint.
and the English rule. Neither are we saying that we do not have power over an employment contract executed in a foreign country. no power to execute decision.-. Principle of effectiveness. Not Convenient. according to which crimes committed aboard a foreign merchant vessels should not be prosecuted in the courts of the country within whose territorial jurisdiction they were committed. a Philippine forum. No power to determine the facts. Under the rule of forum non conveniens. (2) that the Philippine court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts. Henk are non-residents of the Philippines. The Palace Hotel is a corporation incorporated under the laws of China and was not even served with summons. and (3) that the Philippine court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision. The inconvenience is compounded by the fact that the proper defendants. He was hired without the intervention of the POEA or any authorized recruitment agency of the government.-. not the NLRC. the French rule. Mr. We note that the main aspects of the case transpired in two foreign jurisdictions and the case involves purely foreign elements.-. even on the merits.from the time of recruitment. through correspondence sent to the Sultanate of Oman. Not all cases involving our citizens can be tried here. to employment to dismissal occurred outside the Philippines. No power to determine applicable law.Neither can the NLRC determine the facts surrounding the alleged illegal dismissal as all acts complained of took place in Beijing. The employment contract was not perfected in the Philippines. the Palace Hotel and MHICL are not nationals of the Philippines. Respondent Santos signified his acceptance by writing a letter while he was in the Republic of Oman. NLRC The NLRC was a seriously inconvenient forum.We fail to see how the NLRC is a convenient forum given that all the incidents of the case . the NLRC’s decision cannot be sustained. unless their commission affects the peace and security of the territory. The conditions are unavailing in the case at bar.” Likewise. French Rule There are two fundamental rules on this particular matter in connection with International Law. a Philippine court or agency may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so provided: (1) that the Philippine court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to.Neither can an intelligent decision be made as to the law governing the employment contract as such was perfected in foreign soil. The employment contract. Neither are they “doing business in the Philippines. a foreign employer. Even assuming that the NLRC was the proper forum.Respondent Santos was hired directly by the Palace Hotel. This is not to say that Philippine courts and agencies have no power to solve controversies involving foreign employers. the Palace Hotel. He is not an “overseas contract worker” a fact which he admits with conviction. the main witnesses.Even assuming that a proper decision could be reached by the NLRC. This letter was sent to the Palace Hotel in the People’s Republic of China. would protect him. specifically the POEA. The only link that the Philippines has with the case is that respondent Santos is a Filipino citizen. This calls to fore the application of the principle of lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract was made). English Rule vs.Manila Hotel Corporation vs. People’s Republic of China. The Palace Hotel and MHICL are foreign corporations. such would not have any binding effect against the employer. where respondent Santos was then employed. The NLRC was not in a position to determine whether the Tiannamen Square incident truly adversely affected operations of the Palace Hotel as to justify respondent Santos’ retrenchment. to wit. based on the territorial principle and followed in the .-. If Santos were an “overseas contract worker”.-. Jurisdiction over its person was not acquired. Shmidt and Mr.
utility and convenience of nations have established a usage among civilized states by which final judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious under certain conditions that may vary in different countries. testified to the effect that he is in active practice of the law profession in Malaysia. which was the governing law at the time the instant case was decided by the trial court and respondent appellate court. collusion or error of judgment/law. on the basis of a presumption of regularity of proceedings and the giving of due notice in the foreign forum. once the authenticity of the foreign judgment is proved. that the trial upon regular proceedings has been conducted. you cannot just cause the judgment of foreign origin to be executed. or clear mistake of law or fact. Vinayak Prabhakar Pradhan. Error of judgment or law Asiavest Inc. In addition. A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the country from which it comes. The judgment may. CA Generally. of a tribunal of a foreign country having jurisdiction to pronounce the same is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title. presented as petitioner’s sole witness. whether in the Philippines or elsewhere. Rule 39 RoC 1. vs. following due citation or voluntary appearance of the defendant and under a system of jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial administration of justice. and that there is nothing to indicate either a prejudice in court and in the system of laws under which it is sitting or fraud in procuring the judgment. under Section 3(n). however. according to which. that he was connected with Skrine and Company as Legal Assistant up to 1981. it is conclusive evidence. fraud. a valid judgment rendered by a foreign tribunal may be recognized insofar as the immediate parties and the underlying cause of action are concerned so long as it is convincingly shown that there has been an opportunity for a full and fair hearing before a court of competent jurisdiction. no sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country. Most popular is petition for recognition of decree of foreign divorce.United States. against a person. Once a judgment of foreign origin has been secured. Fraud – the fraud must be extrinsic in nature. If the foreign judgment is upon a specific thing. fraud. it is the last one that obtains in this jurisdiction. is tasked with the burden of overcoming its presumptive validity. In this jurisdiction. 48. it is presumptive evidence. Foreign judgments may be abandoned if you are able to prove lack of jurisdiction. Hence. Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court. If the foreign judgment is secured upon a person. there must be a petition for execution of such judgment. until a contrary showing. in the absence of a special compact. 2. enjoys the presumption that it was acting in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction. crimes perpetrated under such circumstances are in general triable in the courts of the country within territory they were committed. the party attacking a foreign judgment. Wong Cheng) Execution of foreign judgment Sec. In the instant case. Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court. Under Section 50(b). then known as Construction and . want of notice to the party. collusion. however. (People vs. a judgment. Of this two rules. petitioner sufficiently established the existence of the money judgment of the High Court of Malaya by the evidence it offered. a court. be assailed by evidence of want of jurisdiction. the rules of comity. that private respondent. because at present the theories and jurisprudence prevailing in the United States on this matter are authority in the Philippines which is now a territory of the United States.
said foreign judgment enjoys presumptive validity and the burden then fell upon the party who disputes its validity. and (l) Letter dated November 6. Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad. In addition to the said testimonial evidence.108. 1985 from petitioner’s Malaysian counsel to private respondent’s counsel in Malaysia. Advocates and Solicitors. UMBC Building. 1990 showing attorney’s fees paid by and due from petitioner.23 Malaysian Ringgit plus interests from March 1983 until fully paid.Development Corporation of the Philippines. Writ of Summons and Affidavit of Service of such writ in petitioner’s suit against private respondent before the Malaysian High Court. 1984. (i) Summons in Chambers and Affidavit of Khaw Chay Tee. As aforestated. that the writ of summons were served on March 17. a valid judgment may be rendered even without stating in the judgment every fact and law upon which the judgment is based. 1983 filed by counsel for private respondent with the Malaysian High Court. that the matter was then heard before the High Court of Kuala Lumpur in a series of dates where private respondent was represented by counsel. 1985 issued by the Malaysian High Court in Civil Suit No. then the same must be accorded respect and . (d) Letter and Statement of Account of petitioner’s counsel in Malaysia indicating the costs for prosecuting and implementing the Malaysian High Court’s Judgment. herein private respondent. 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. (b) A certified and authenticated copy of the Order dated September 13. Skrine and Co. the existence and authenticity of the foreign judgment. to prove otherwise. Messrs. Deala. 1983 on Cora S. petitioner offered the following documentary evidence: (a) A certified and authenticated copy of the Judgment promulgated by the Malaysian High Court dated September 13. and its local counsel.. submitted during the proceedings before the Malaysian High Court. counsel for private respondent. *** Lastly. Jalan Sulaiman. Considering that under the procedural rules of the High Court of Malaya. C638 of 1983. (g) Statement of Claim. that because private respondent failed to file a statement of defense within two (2) weeks. 1990 on the amount adjudged payable to petitioner by private respondent. that upon the filing of the case. 1985 directing private respondent to pay petitioner the sum of $5. (c) Computation of principal and interest due as of January 31.290. Having thus proven. was sued by his client. with address at 24th Floor. (f) Billing Memorandum of Sycip Salazar Law Offices dated January 2. petitioner filed an application for summary judgment and submitted affidavits and documentary evidence in support of its claim. 1983 at the registered office of private respondent and on March 21. through the foregoing evidence. (k) Petitioner’s verified Application for Summary Judgment dated August 14. entered their conditional appearance for private respondent questioning the regularity of the service of the writ of summons but subsequently withdrew the same when it realized that the writ was properly served. a financial planning officer of private respondent for Southeast Asia operations. C638 of 1983. Allen and Gledhill. relative to institution of the action in the Philippines. in Kuala Lumpur. and that the end result of all these proceedings is the judgment sought to be enforced. (h) Memorandum of Conditional Appearance dated March 28. (e) Letters between petitioner’s Malaysian counsel. the lex fori or the internal law of the forum governs matters of remedy and procedure. (j) Record of the Court’s Proceedings in Civil Case No. Sycip Salazar Law Offices. Kuala Lumpur.
Such is clearly erroneous and would render meaningless the presumption of validity accorded a foreign judgment were the party seeking to enforce it be required to first establish its validity. But instead of doing so. private respondent had the ultimate duty to demonstrate the alleged invalidity of such foreign judgment. private respondent merely argued.the courts in this jurisdiction cannot invalidate the judgment of the foreign court simply because our rules provide otherwise. that the burden lay upon petitioner to prove the validity of the money judgment. being the party challenging the judgment rendered by the High Court of Malaya. All in all. . to which the trial court agreed.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.