You are on page 1of 8

11/6/2016

BankofAmericaNT&SAvsCA:120135:March31,2003:J.AustriaMartinez:SecondDivision

SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.120135.March31,2003]

BANK OF AMERICA NT&SA, BANK OF AMERICA INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,


petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MANUEL PADOLINA,
EDUARDOLITONJUA,SR.,andAURELIOK.LITONJUA,JR.,respondents.
DECISION
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the
November 29, 1994 decision of the Court of Appeals[1] and the April 28, 1995 resolution denying
petitionersmotionforreconsideration.
Thefactualbackgroundofthecaseisasfollows:
OnMay10,1993,EduardoK.Litonjua,Sr.andAurelioJ.Litonjua(Litonjuas,forbrevity)fileda
Complaint[2]beforetheRegionalTrialCourtofPasigagainsttheBankofAmericaNT&SAandBankof
America International, Ltd. (defendant banks for brevity) alleging that: they were engaged in the
shipping business they owned two vessels: Don Aurelio and El Champion, through their wholly
ownedcorporationstheydepositedtheirrevenuesfromsaidbusinesstogetherwithotherfundswith
the branches of said banks in the United Kingdom and Hongkong up to 1979 with their business
doing well, the defendant banks induced them to increase the number of their ships in operation,
offeringthemeasyloanstoacquiresaidvessels[3]thereafter,thedefendantbanksacquired,through
their(Litonjuas)corporationsastheborrowers:(a)ElCarrier[4](b)ElGeneral[5] (c) El Challenger[6]
and(d)ElConqueror[7]thevesselswereregisteredinthenamesoftheircorporationstheoperation
and the funds derived therefrom were placed under the complete and exclusive control and
dispositionofthepetitioners[8]andthepossessionthevesselswasalsoplacedbydefendantbanksin
thehandsofpersonsselectedanddesignatedbythem(defendantbanks).[9]
TheLitonjuasclaimedthatdefendantbanksastrusteesdidnotfullyrenderanaccountofallthe
income derived from the operation of the vessels as well as of the proceeds of the subsequent
foreclosuresale[10]becauseofthebreachoftheirfiduciarydutiesand/ornegligenceofthepetitioners
and/or the persons designated by them in the operation of private respondents six vessels, the
revenuesderivedfromtheoperationofallthevesselsdeclineddrasticallytheloansacquiredforthe
purchase of the four additional vessels then matured and remained unpaid, prompting defendant
banks to have all the six vessels, including the two vessels originally owned by the private
respondents, foreclosed and sold at public auction to answer for the obligations incurred for and in
behalf of the operation of the vessels they (Litonjuas) lost sizeable amounts of their own personal
fundsequivalenttotenpercent(10%)oftheacquisitioncostofthefourvesselsandwereleftwiththe
unpaidbalanceoftheirloanswithdefendantbanks.[11]TheLitonjuasprayedfortheaccountingofthe
revenues derived in the operation of the six vessels and of the proceeds of the sale thereof at the
foreclosure proceedings instituted by petitioners damages for breach of trust exemplary damages
andattorneysfees.[12]
DefendantbanksfiledaMotiontoDismissongroundsofforumnonconveniensandlackofcause
ofactionagainstthem.[13]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/120135.htm

1/8

11/6/2016

BankofAmericaNT&SAvsCA:120135:March31,2003:J.AustriaMartinez:SecondDivision

OnDecember3,1993,thetrialcourtissuedanOrderdenyingtheMotiontoDismiss,thus:
WHEREFORE,andinviewoftheforegoingconsideration,theMotiontoDismissisherebyDENIED.The
defendantistherefore,givenaperiodoften(10)daystofileitsAnswertothecomplaint.
SOORDERED.[14]
Instead of filing an answer the defendant banks went to the Court of Appeals on a Petition for
ReviewonCertiorari[15]whichwasaptlytreatedbytheappellatecourtasapetitionforcertiorari.They
assailedtheabovequotedorderaswellasthesubsequentdenialoftheirMotionforReconsideration.
[16]
TheappellatecourtdismissedthepetitionanddeniedpetitionersMotionforReconsideration.[17]
Hence,hereinpetitionanchoredonthefollowinggrounds:
1.RESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSFAILEDTOCONSIDERTHEFACTTHATTHESEPARATE
PERSONALITIESOFTHEPRIVATERESPONDENTS(MERESTOCKHOLDERS)ANDTHEFOREIGN
CORPORATIONS(THEREALBORROWERS)CLEARLYSUPPORT,BEYONDANYDOUBT,THE
PROPOSITIONTHATTHEPRIVATERESPONDENTSHAVENOPERSONALITIESTOSUE.
2.THERESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSFAILEDTOREALIZETHATWHILETHEPRINCIPLEOF
FORUMNONCONVENIENSISNOTMANDATORY,THEREARE,HOWEVER,SOMEGUIDELINESTO
FOLLOWINDETERMININGWHETHERTHECHOICEOFFORUMSHOULDBEDISTURBED.UNDER
THECIRCUMSTANCESSURROUNDINGTHEINSTANTCASE,DISMISSALOFTHECOMPLAINTON
THEGROUNDOFFORUMNONCONVENIENSISMOREAPPROPRIATEANDPROPER.
3.THEPRINCIPLEOFRESJUDICATAISNOTLIMITEDTOFINALJUDGMENTINTHEPHILIPPINES.
INFACT,THEPENDENCYOFFOREIGNACTIONMAYBETHELEGALBASISFORTHEDISMISSAL
OFTHECOMPLAINTFILEDBYTHEPRIVATERESPONDENT.COROLLARYTOTHIS,THE
RESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSFAILEDTOCONSIDERTHEFACTTHATPRIVATE
RESPONDENTSAREGUILTYOFFORUMSHOPPING.[18]
Astothefirstassignederror:Petitionersarguethattheborrowersandtheregisteredownersof
the vessels are the foreign corporations and not private respondents Litonjuas who are mere
stockholdersandthattherevenuesderivedfromtheoperationsofallthevesselsaredepositedinthe
accountsofthecorporations.Hence,petitionersmaintainthattheseforeigncorporationsarethelegal
entities that have the personalities to sue and not herein private respondents that private
respondents, being mere shareholders, have no claim on the vessels as owners since they merely
haveaninchoaterighttowhatevermayremainuponthedissolutionofthesaidforeigncorporations
and after all creditors have been fully paid and satisfied[19] and that while private respondents may
haveallegedlyspentamountsequalto10%oftheacquisitioncostsofthevesselsinquestion,their
10%howeverrepresentstheirinvestmentsasstockholdersintheforeigncorporations.[20]
Anent the second assigned error, petitioners posit that while the application of the principle of
forum non conveniens is discretionary on the part of the Court, said discretion is limited by the
guidelinespertainingtotheprivateaswellaspublicinterestfactorsindeterminingwhetherplaintiffs
choiceofforumshouldbedisturbed,aselucidatedinGulfOilCorp.vs.Gilbert[21]and Piper Aircraft
Co.vs.Reyno,[22]towit:
Privateinterestfactorsinclude:(a)therelativeeaseofaccesstosourcesofproof(b)theavailabilityof
compulsoryprocessfortheattendanceofunwillingwitnesses(c)thecostofobtainingattendanceofwilling
witnessesor(d)allotherpracticalproblemsthatmaketrialofacaseeasy,expeditiousandinexpensive.Public
interestfactorsinclude:(a)theadministrativedifficultiesflowingfromcourtcongestion(b)thelocalinterestin
havinglocalizedcontroversiesdecidedathome(c)theavoidanceofunnecessaryproblemsinconflictoflawsor
intheapplicationofforeignlawor(d)theunfairnessofburdeningcitizensinanunrelatedforumwithjuryduty.
[23]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/120135.htm

2/8

11/6/2016

BankofAmericaNT&SAvsCA:120135:March31,2003:J.AustriaMartinez:SecondDivision

In support of their claim that the local court is not the proper forum, petitioners allege the
following:
i)TheBankofAmericaBranchesinvolved,asclearlymentionedintheComplaint,arebasedinHongkongand
England.Assuch,theevidenceandthewitnessesarenotreadilyavailableinthePhilippines
ii)Theloantransactionswereobtained,perfected,performed,consummatedandpartiallypaidoutsidethe
Philippines
iii)ThemonieswereadvancedoutsidethePhilippines.Furthermore,themortgagedvesselswerepartofan
offshorefleet,notbasedinthePhilippines
iv)AlltheloansinvolvedweregrantedtothePrivateRespondentsforeignCORPORATIONS
v)TheRestructuringAgreementswereALLgovernedbythelawsofEngland
vi)Thesubsequentsalesofthemortgagedvesselsandtheapplicationofthesalesproceedsoccurredand
transpiredoutsidethePhilippines,andthedeliveriesofthesoldmortgagedvesselswerelikewisemadeoutside
thePhilippines
vii)TherevenuesofthevesselsandtheproceedsofthesalesofthesevesselswereALLdepositedtothe
AccountsoftheforeignCORPORATIONSabroadand
viii)BankofAmericaInternationalLtd.isnotlicensednorengagedintradeorbusinessinthePhilippines.[24]
Petitioners argue further that the loan agreements, security documentation and all subsequent
restructuringagreementsuniformly,unconditionallyandexpresslyprovidedthattheywillbegoverned
by the laws of England[25]that Philippine Courts would then have to apply English law in resolving
whatever issues may be presented to it in the event it recognizes and accepts herein case that it
wouldthenbeimposingasignificantandunnecessaryexpenseandburdennotonlyupontheparties
tothetransactionbutalsotothelocalcourt.Petitionersinsistthattheinconvenienceanddifficultyof
applyingEnglishlawwithrespecttoawhollyforeigntransactioninacasependinginthePhilippines
maybeavoidedbyitsdismissalonthegroundofforumnonconveniens.[26]
Finally, petitioners claim that private respondents have already waived their alleged causes of
actioninthecaseatbarfortheirrefusaltocontesttheforeigncivilcasesearlierfiledbythepetitioners
againsttheminHongkongandEngland,towit:
1.)CivilactioninEnglandinitsHighCourtofJustice,QueensBenchDivisionCommercialCourt(1992Folio
No.2098)against(a)LIBERIANTRANSPORTNAVIGATION.SA.(b)ESHLEYCOMPANIANAVIERA
SA.,(c)ELCHALLENGERSA(d)ESPRIONASHIPPINGCO.SA(e)PACIFICNAVIGATOSCORP.SA
(f)EDDIENAVIGATIONCORP.SA(g)EDUARDOK.LITONJUA&(h)AURELIOK.LITONJUA.
2.)CivilactioninEnglandinitsHighCourtofJustice,QueensBenchDivision,CommercialCourt(1992Folio
No.2245)against(a)ELCHALLENGERS.A.,(b)ESPRIONASHIPPINGCOMPANYS.A.,(c)EDUARDO
KATIPUNANLITONJUAand(d)AURELIOKATIPUNANLITONJUA.
3.)CivilactionintheSupremeCourtofHongkongHighCourt(ActionNo.4039of1992),against(a)ESHLEY
COMPANIANAVIERAS.A.,(b)ELCHALLENGERS.A.,(c)ESPRIONASHIPPINGCOMPANYS.A.,(d)
PACIFICNAVIGATORSCORPORATION(e)EDDIENAVIGATIONCORPORATIONS.A.,(f)LITONJUA
CHARTERING(EDYSHIP)CO.,INC.,(g)AURELIOKATIPUNANLITONJUA,JR.,and(h)EDUARDO
KATIPUNANLITONJUA.
4.)AcivilactionintheSupremeCourtofHongKongHighCourt(ActionNo.4040of1992),against(a)
ESHLEYCOMPANIANAVIERAS.A.,(b)ELCHALLENGERS.A.,(c)ESPRIONASHIPPINGCOMPANY
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/120135.htm

3/8

11/6/2016

BankofAmericaNT&SAvsCA:120135:March31,2003:J.AustriaMartinez:SecondDivision

S.A.,(d)PACIFICNAVIGATORSCORPORATION(e)EDDIENAVIGATIONCORPORATIONS.A.,(f)
LITONJUACHARTERING(EDYSHIP)CO.,INC.,(g)AURELIOKATIPUNANLITONJUA,RJ.,and(h)
EDUARDOKATIPUNANLITONJUA.
and that private respondents alleged cause of action is already barred by the pendency of another
actionorbylitispendentiaasshownabove.[27]
On the other hand, private respondents contend that certain material facts and pleadings are
omittedand/ormisrepresentedinthepresentpetitionforcertiorarithattheprefatorystatementfailed
to state that part of the security of the foreign loans were mortgages on a 39hectare piece of real
estatelocatedinthePhilippines[28]thatwhilethecomplaintwasfiledonlybythestockholdersofthe
corporate borrowers, the latter are whollyowned by the private respondents who are Filipinos and
therefore under Philippine laws, aside from the said corporate borrowers being but their alteregos,
theyhaveinterestsoftheirowninthevessels.[29]Privaterespondentsalsoarguethatthedismissalby
theCourtofAppealsofthepetitionforcertiorariwasjustifiedbecausetherewasneitherallegationnor
any showing whatsoever by the petitioners that they had no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and
adequateremedyintheordinarycourseoflawfromtheOrderofthetrialjudgedenyingtheirMotionto
DismissthattheremedyavailabletothepetitionersaftertheirMotiontoDismisswasdeniedwasto
file anAnswer to the complaint[30] that as upheld by the Court of Appeals, the decision of the trial
courtinnotapplyingtheprincipleofforumnonconveniensisinthelawfulexerciseofitsdiscretion.[31]
Finally,privaterespondentsaverthatthestatementofpetitionersthatthedoctrineofresjudicataalso
appliestoforeignjudgmentismerelyanopinionadvancedbythemandnotbasedonacategorical
ruling of this Court[32] and that herein private respondents did not actually participate in the
proceedingsintheforeigncourts.[33]
Wedenythepetitionforlackofmerit.
It is a wellsettled rule that the order denying the motion to dismiss cannot be the subject of
petition for certiorari. Petitioners should have filed an answer to the complaint, proceed to trial and
awaitjudgmentbeforemakinganappeal.AsrepeatedlyheldbythisCourt:
Anorderdenyingamotiontodismissisinterlocutoryandcannotbethesubjectoftheextraordinarypetitionfor
certiorariormandamus.Theremedyoftheaggrievedpartyistofileananswerandtointerposeasdefensesthe
objectionsraisedinhismotiontodismiss,proceedtotrial,andincaseofanadversedecision,toelevatethe
entirecasebyappealinduecourse.xxxUndercertainsituations,recoursetocertiorariormandamusis
consideredappropriate,i.e.,(a)whenthetrialcourtissuedtheorderwithoutorinexcessofjurisdiction(b)
wherethereispatentgraveabuseofdiscretionbythetrialcourtor(c)appealwouldnotprovetobeaspeedy
andadequateremedyaswhenanappealwouldnotpromptlyrelieveadefendantfromtheinjuriouseffectsofthe
patentlymistakenordermaintainingtheplaintiffsbaselessactionandcompellingthedefendantneedlesslytogo
throughaprotractedtrialandcloggingthecourtdocketsbyanotherfutilecase.[34]
Records show that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction when it issued the assailed Order
denying petitioners motion to dismiss. Does the denial of the motion to dismiss constitute a patent
grave abuse of discretion? Would appeal, under the circumstances, not prove to be a speedy and
adequateremedy?Wewillresolvesaidquestionsinconjunctionwiththeissuesraisedbytheparties.
First issue. Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss the
complaintonthegroundthatplaintiffshavenocauseofactionagainstdefendantssinceplaintiffsare
merely stockholders of the corporations which are the registered owners of the vessels and the
borrowersofpetitioners?
No. Petitioners argument that private respondents, being mere stockholders of the foreign
corporations, have no personalities to sue, and therefore, the complaint should be dismissed, is
untenable.A case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the
real partyininterest. Lack of personality to sue can be used as a ground for a Motion to Dismiss
basedonthefactthatthecomplaint,onthefacethereof,evidentlystatesnocauseofaction.[35]InSan
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/120135.htm

4/8

11/6/2016

BankofAmericaNT&SAvsCA:120135:March31,2003:J.AustriaMartinez:SecondDivision

LorenzoVillageAssociation,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals,[36]thisCourtclarifiedthatacomplaintstatesa
causeofactionwhereitcontainsthreeessentialelementsofacauseofaction,namely:(1)thelegal
rightoftheplaintiff,(2)thecorrelativeobligationofthedefendant,and(3)theactoromissionofthe
defendant in violation of said legal right. If these elements are absent, the complaint becomes
vulnerabletoamotiontodismissonthegroundoffailuretostateacauseofaction.[37]Toemphasize,
itisnotthelackorabsenceofcauseofactionthatisagroundfordismissalofthecomplaintbutrather
thefactthatthecomplaintstatesnocauseofaction.[38]Failuretostateacauseofactionreferstothe
insufficiency of allegation in the pleading, unlike lack of cause of action which refers to the
insufficiency of factual basis for the action. Failure to state a cause of action may be raised at the
earlieststagesofanactionthroughamotiontodismissthecomplaint,whilelackofcauseofaction
may be raised any time after the questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of stipulations,
admissionsorevidencepresented.[39]
Inthecaseatbar,thecomplaintcontainsthethreeelementsofacauseofaction.Itallegesthat:
(1)plaintiffs,hereinprivaterespondents,havetherighttodemandforanaccountingfromdefendants
(hereinpetitioners),astrusteesbyreasonofthefiduciaryrelationshipthatwascreatedbetweenthe
parties involving the vessels in question (2) petitioners have the obligation, as trustees, to render
suchanaccountingand(3)petitionersfailedtodothesame.
Petitionersinsistthattheydonothaveanyobligationtotheprivaterespondentsastheyaremere
stockholders of the corporation that the corporate entities have juridical personalities separate and
distinctfromthoseoftheprivaterespondents.Privaterespondentsmaintainthatthecorporationsare
whollyownedbythemandpriortotheincorporationofsuchentities,theywereclientsofpetitioners
whichinducedthemtoacquireloansfromsaidpetitionerstoinvestontheadditionalships.
Weagreewithprivaterespondents.AsheldintheSanLorenzocase,[40]
xxxassumingthattheallegationoffactsconstitutingplaintiffscauseofactionisnotasclearandcategoricalas
wouldotherwisebedesired,anyuncertaintytherebyarisingshouldbesoresolvedastoenableafullinquiryinto
themeritsoftheaction.
As this Court has explained in the San Lorenzo case, such a course, would preclude multiplicity of
suitswhichthelawabhors,andconducetothedefinitivedeterminationandterminationofthedispute.
To do otherwise, that is, to abort the action on account of the alleged fatal flaws of the complaint
would obviously be indecisive and would not end the controversy, since the institution of another
actionuponarevisedcomplaintwouldnotbeforeclosed.[41]
SecondIssue.Shouldthecomplaintbedismissedonthegroundofforumnonconveniens?
No.Thedoctrineofforumnonconveniens,literallymeaningtheforumisinconvenient,emerged
in private international law to deter the practice of global forum shopping,[42] that is to prevent non
resident litigants from choosing the forum or place wherein to bring their suit for malicious reasons,
suchastosecureproceduraladvantages,toannoyandharassthedefendant,toavoidovercrowded
dockets,ortoselectamorefriendlyvenue.Underthisdoctrine,acourt,inconflictsoflawcases,may
refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most convenient or available forum and the
partiesarenotprecludedfromseekingremedieselsewhere.[43]
Whetherasuitshouldbeentertainedordismissedonthebasisofsaiddoctrinedependslargely
uponthefactsoftheparticularcaseandisaddressedtothesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt.[44]In
thecaseofCommunicationMaterialsandDesign,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals,[45]thisCourtheldthatxxx
[a] Philippine Court may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so provided, that the
followingrequisitesaremet:(1)thatthePhilippineCourtisonetowhichthepartiesmayconveniently
resortto(2)thatthePhilippineCourtisinapositiontomakeanintelligentdecisionastothelawand
the facts and, (3) that the Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision.[46]
Evidently,alltheserequisitesarepresentintheinstantcase.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/120135.htm

5/8

11/6/2016

BankofAmericaNT&SAvsCA:120135:March31,2003:J.AustriaMartinez:SecondDivision

Moreover,thisCourtenunciatedinPhilsec.InvestmentCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals,[47] that
thedoctrineofforumnonconveniensshouldnotbeusedasagroundforamotiontodismissbecause
Sec.1,Rule16oftheRulesofCourtdoesnotincludesaiddoctrineasaground.ThisCourtfurther
ruledthatwhileitiswithinthediscretionofthetrialcourttoabstainfromassumingjurisdictiononthis
ground, it should do so only after vital facts are established, to determine whether special
circumstancesrequirethecourtsdesistanceandthattheproprietyofdismissingacasebasedonthis
principle of forum non conveniens requires a factual determination, hence it is more properly
consideredamatterofdefense.[48]
Thirdissue.Areprivaterespondentsguiltyofforumshoppingbecauseofthependencyofforeign
action?
No.Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present and where a final
judgmentinonecasewillamounttoresjudicataintheother.[49]Parenthetically,forlitispendentia to
beagroundforthedismissalofanactiontheremustbe:(a)identityofthepartiesoratleastsuchas
torepresentthesameinterestinbothactions(b)identityofrightsassertedandreliefprayedfor,the
reliefbeingfoundedonthesameactsand(c)theidentityinthetwocasesshouldbesuchthatthe
judgmentwhichmayberenderedinonewould,regardlessofwhichpartyissuccessful,amounttores
judicataintheother.[50]
Incaseatbar,notalltherequirementsforlitispendentiaarepresent.Whiletheremaybeidentity
ofparties,notwithstandingthepresenceofotherrespondents,[51]aswellasthereversalinpositionsof
plaintiffsanddefendants[52],stilltheotherrequirementsnecessaryforlitispendentiawerenotshown
by petitioner. It merely mentioned that civil cases were filed in Hongkong and England without
howevershowingtheidentityofrightsassertedandthereliefssoughtforaswellasthepresenceof
theelementsofresjudicatashouldoneofthecasesbeadjudged.
AstheCourtofAppealsaptlyobserved:
xxx[T]hepetitioners,bysimplyenumeratingthecivilactionsinstitutedabroadinvolvingthepartieshereinxxx,
failedtoprovidethisCourtwithrelevantandclearspecificationsthatwouldshowthepresenceoftheabove
quotedelementsorrequisitesforresjudicata.Whileitistruethatthepetitionersintheirmotionfor
reconsideration(CARollo,p.72),afterenumeratingthevariouscivilactionsinstitutedabroad,didaverthat
CopiesoftheforeignjudgmentsareheretoattachedandmadeintegralpartshereofasAnnexesB,C,DandE,
theyfailed,wittinglyorinadvertently,toincludeasingleforeignjudgmentintheirpleadingssubmittedtothis
Courtasannexestotheirpetition.HowthencouldWehavebeenexpectedtoruleonthisissueevenifWewere
toholdthatforeignjudgmentscouldbethebasisfortheapplicationoftheaforementionedprincipleofres
judicata?[53]
Consequently,bothcourtscorrectlydeniedthedismissalofhereinsubjectcomplaint.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIEDforlackofmerit.
Costsagainstpetitioners.
SOORDERED.
Bellosillo,(Chairman),Mendoza,QuisumbingandCallejo,Sr.,JJ.,concur.
[1]InCAG.R.SPNo.34382,entitled,BankofAmericaNT&SA,BankofAmericaInternationalLtd.,Plaintiffs/Petitioners,

versus,Hon.ManuelS.Padolina,asJudgeRegionalTrialCourtofPasig,M.M.,Branch162andEduardoLitonjua,
Sr.,etal.,Defendants/Respondents.
[2]DocketedasCivilCaseNo.63181andentitled,EduardoK.Lintonjua,Sr.andAurelioK.Litonjua,Jr.,Plaintiffs,versus,

BankofAmerica,NationalTrust&SavingsCorporationandBankofAmerica,InternaitonalLtd.,Defendants.p.54,
SCRollo.
[3]Id.,atpp.5456.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/120135.htm

6/8

11/6/2016

BankofAmericaNT&SAvsCA:120135:March31,2003:J.AustriaMartinez:SecondDivision

[4]Panamanianflag,registeredownersEsprionaShippingCo.,S.A.
[5]Liberianflag,registeredownersLiberiaTransportNavigationS.A.
[6]Panamanianflag,registeredownersElChallengerS.A.
[7]Panamanianflag,registeredownersEshleyCompaniaNavieraS.A.
[8]Rollo,p.57.
[9]Id.,at58.
[10]Id.,atp.59.
[11]Id.,atp.60.
[12]Rollo,pp.6263.
[13]Id.,atp.38.
[14]Id.,atpp.2425.
[15]Rollo,pp.7198
[16]Rollo,atp.7198.
[17]Id.,atpp.4850.
[18]Rollo,p.18.
[19]Id.,atp.20.
[20]Id.,atp.21.
[21]330US501,508(1947),citedonpage14,PetitionforReview.
[22]454US235,241(1981),citedonpage14,PetitionforReview.
[23]PetitionforReview,p.14Rollo,p.24.
[24]Rollo,pp.2425.
[25]Rollo,p.26,PetitionforReview,16.
[26]Rollo,pp.2526.
[27]Id.,p.248
[28]Rollo,pp.103104.
[29]Id.,atpp.104105.
[30]Id.,atpp.108109.
[31]Id.,atp.117.
[32]Id.,atp.120.
[33]Id.,atp.121.
[34]FarEastBankandTrustCompanyvs.CourtofAppealsandSMP,Inc.,341SCRA485,492(2000).
[35]ColumbiaPicturesInc.vs.CourtofAppeals,261SCRA144,162(1996).
[36]SanLorenzoVillageAssociation,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals,288SCRA115(1998).
[37]Id.atp.128.
[38]Ibid.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/120135.htm

7/8

11/6/2016

BankofAmericaNT&SAvsCA:120135:March31,2003:J.AustriaMartinez:SecondDivision

[39]Dabucoetal.,vs.CourtofAppeals,(January20,2002).
[40]Supra,atp.128.
[41]Ibid,atp.128(1998).
[42]JorgeR.CoquiaandElizabethAguilingPangalangan,CONFLICTSOFLAWS,pp.4041,2000Ed.
[43]FirstPhilippineInternationalBankvs.CourtofAppeals,252SCRA259,281(1996).
[44]HongkongandShanghaiBankingCorp.vs.Sherman,176SCRA331,339(1989).
[45]260SCRA673(1996).
[46]Id.atp.695.
[47]Philsec. Investment Corp. vs. Court ofAppeals, 274 SCRA 102, 113 (1997), citing Hongkong and Shanghai Banking

Corp.vs.Sherman,176SCRA331at339(1989).
[48]Id.atp.113.
[49]R & M General Merchandise, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and La Perla Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 144189 (October 5,

2001).
[50]Ibid.
[51]DasmarinasVill.Assn.Inc.,etal.,vs.CA,299SCRA598,605(1998).
[52]CokaliongShippingLines,Inc.vs.Amin,260SCRA122,125(1996).
[53]Rollo,p.47CADecision,p.14.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/120135.htm

8/8