COL MIDTERMS ANSWERS

1. Yes, the stipulation is VALID according to the Principle of Autonomy of Contracts which provides
that the contract is the law between parties unless it contravenes law, morals or public policy. The
exception provided in Pakistan Airlines vs. Ople is not applicable in this case because unlike in
that case, this is a Contract of Services, not a Contract of Employment imbued with public
interest.
2. Clause 21.5 of the Global Agreement is VALID. Absent any words of exclusivity, the stipulation
merely provides an additional forum for the parties which is allowed. The waiver of objection to
venue, as well defense of FNC, is also allowed since it is not contrary to public policy. Alhough
the title caption is incorrect (it should have been Consent to Venue, not Consent to Jurisdiction),
the contents of the clause is valid.
3. DENY MOTION. (1) PJM was the proper party to file being one of the parties involved (2)
Presumption of validity of judgement of foreign tribunals. Also, judgment of foreign tribunals
against a person are presumptive evidence as right between parties and successors in interest by
subsequent title.
4. GRANT MOTION. XYZ Corporation, being a Non-Resident Foreign Corporation, does not have a
COA against EFM since it was not a party to the contract. Isolated Transaction Rule is applicable
only if the FC entered into local contract, in its own capacity, not through its affiliate. Jurisdiction
over SM is determined by the law whereas Jurisdiction over the Person is determined by the
ROC. In this case, Jurisdiction over the Person of NRFC is acquired when it filed the Petition but
nevertheless, the case has no COA.
5. Procedural rules are governed by the rules of the forum (PH). Substantive Law, however, is
governed primarily by the stipulation of the parties in the contract absent showing them be
contrary to law, morals or public policy. While Rule 132, Sec 24 provides the method for proving
Written Law, this does not preclude the presentation of an expert witness like a member of a bar
(CIR vs Fisher) OR giving an open testimony in court (Williamette vs Muzzal).
6. There was an IMPROPER SERVICE OF SUMMONS. According to Rule 14, Sec 11, Summons to
Domestic Private Juridicial Entities must be only and exclusively to the President, MP, GM,
Corporate Secretary, Treasurer or the In-House Counsel. Ms. Ricolo was a mere executive
assistant of Ms Cruz and could not have received the summons properly.
7. According to Rule 14, Sec 12 Service of Summons to Foreign Private Juridical Entities must be to
through its resident agent, or through the government official designated by the law for this
purpose or to any of its agents in the PH. Jurisdiction over the Person, however, is WAIVABLE. It
was validly waived when it was manifested in open court but was not opposed by the other party.
8. DENY MOTION. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and not by the parties. Unlike Venue which may
be waived and stipulated between parties, jurisdiction is NOT WAIVABLE. Since stipulation to
jurisdiction was invalid, PJM can file a case here in the PH where the contract was performed and
executed.
9. According to the principle of Forum Non Conveniens (FNC), a court may refuse to entertain a
conflict case if it believes to be a seriously inconvenient forum. FNC is best tried during the TRIAL
proceeding and is left at the sound discretion of the court to decide. Since it is a defense, FNC
can be validly WAIVED by the parties. Therefore. EFM was incorrect in stating the clause 21.5 is
void.
10. For the defense of FNC be valid, EFM should validly allege that:
A. The court is not the court which the parties may conveniently result to
B. The court is not in the position to make an intelligent decision
C. The court is not likely to have the power to enforce judgement