Conflicts 3-23-17

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-13141 May 22, 1959
VICENTA PANTALEON, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
HONORATO ASUNCION, defendant-appellant.
Feliciano R. Bautista for appellee.

Servando Cleto for appellant.
CONCEPCION, J.:
This is an appeal, taken by defendant Honorato Asuncion from an order denying a petition for relief
from an order declaring him in default and a judgment by default.
On June 12, 1953, plaintiff, Vicenta Pantaleon, instituted this action, in the Court of First Instance of
Nueva Ecija, to recover from said Asuncion, the sum of P2,000.00, with interest thereon, in addition
to attorney's fees. The summons originally issued was returned by the sheriff of Nueva Ecija
unserved, with the statement that, according to reliable information, Asuncion was residing in B-24
Tala Estate, Caloocan, Rizal. An alias summons was issued, therefore, for service in the place last
mentioned. However, the provincial sheriff of Rizal returned it unserved, with information that
Asuncion had left the Tala Estate since February 18, 1952, and that diligent efforts to locate him
proved to no avail. On plaintiff's motion, the court ordered, on March 9, 1955, that defendant be
summoned by publication, and the summons was published on March 21 and 28, and April 4, 1955,
in the "Examiner", said to be a newspaper of general circulation in Nueva Ecija. Having failed to
appear or answer the complaint within the period stated in the summons, defendant was, by an
order dated July 12, 1955, declared in default. Subsequently, or on September 8, 1955, after a
hearing held in the absence of the defendant and without notice to him, the court rendered judgment
for the plaintiff and against said defendant, for the sum of P2,300.00, with interest thereon at the
legal rate, from October 28, 1948, and costs.
About forty-six (46) days later, or on October 24, 1955, the defendant filed a petition for relief from
said order of July 12, 1955, and from said judgment, dated September 8, 1955, and upon the ground
of mistake and excusable negligence. Annexed to said petition were defendant's affidavit and his
verified answer. In the affidavit, Asuncion stated that, on September 26, 1955, at 34 Pitimine Street,
San Francisco del Monte Quezon City, which is his residence, he received notice of a registered
letter at the Post Office in San Jose, Nueva Ecija, his old family residence; that he proceeded
immediately to the latter municipality to claim said letter, which he received on September 28, 1955;
that the letter contained copy of said order of July 12, 1955, and of the judgment of September 8,
1955, much to his surprise, for he had not been summoned or notified of the hearing of this case;
that had copy of the summons and of the order for its publication been sent to him by mail, as
provided in Rule 7, section 21, of the Rules of Court said summons and order would have reached
him, "as the judgment herein had"; and that his failure to appear before the court is excusable it
being due to the mistake of the authorities concerned in not complying with the provisions of said
section. Upon denial of said petition for relief, defendant perfected his present appeal, which is
predicated upon the theory that the aforementioned summons by publication had not been made in
conformity with the Rules of Court.
More specifically, defendant maintains that copy of the summons and of the order for the publication
thereof were not deposited "in the post office, postage prepaid, directed to the defendant by ordinary
mail to his last known address", in violation of Rule 7, section 21, of the Rules of Court, and that, had
this provision been complied with, said summons and order of publication would have reached him,
as had the decision appealed from. Said section 21 reads:
If the service has been made by publication, service may be proved by the affidavit of the
printer, his foreman or principal clerk, or of the editor, business or advertising manager, to
which affidavit a copy of the publication shall be attached, and by an affidavit showing the
deposit of a copy of the summons and order for publication in the post office, postage
prepaid, directed to the defendant by ordinary mail to his last known address. (Emphasis
supplied.).
Plaintiff alleges, however, that the provision applicable to the case at bar is not this section 21, but
section 16, of Rule 7, of the Rules of Court, which provides:
Whenever the defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or whenever the
address of a defendant is unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service
may, by leave of court, be effect upon him by publication in such places and for such times
as the court may order.
It is, moreover, urged by the plaintiff that the requirement, in said section 21, of an affidavit showing
that copy of the summons and of the order for its publication had been sent by mail to defendant's
last known address, refers to the extraterritorial service of summons, provided for in section 17 of
said Rule 7, pursuant to which:
When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines and the action affects
the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the
Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in
which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any
interest therein, or the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines,
service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal service as
under section 7; or by registered mail; or by publication in such places and for such time as
the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be
sent by ordinary mail to the last known address of the defendant; or in any other manner the
court may deem sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time,
which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice, within which the defendant must
answer.
Said section 21, however, is unqualified. It prescribes the "proof of service by publication",
regardless of whether the defendant is a resident of the Philippines or not. Section 16 must be read
in relation to section 21, which complements it. Then, too, we conceive of no reason, and plaintiff
has suggested none, why copy of the summons and of the order for its publication should be mailed
to non-resident defendants, but not to resident defendants. We can not even say that defendant
herein, who, according to the return of the Sheriff of Nueva Ecija, was reportedly residing in Rizal —
where he, in fact (San Francisco del Monte and Quezon City used to be part of Rizal), was residing
— could reasonably be expected to read the summons published in a newspaper said to be a
general circulation in Nueva Ecija.
Considering that strict compliance with the terms of the statute is necessary to confer jurisdiction
through service by publication (Bachrach Garage and Taxi Co. vs. Hotchkiss and Co., 34 Phil., 506;
Banco Español-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil., 921; Mills vs. Smiley, 9 Idaho 317, 325, 76 Pac. 785;
Charles vs. Marrow, 99 Mo. 638; Sunderland, Cases on Procedure, Annotated, Trial Practice, p. 51),
the conclusion is inescapable that the lower court had no authority whatsoever to issue the order of
July 12, 1955, declaring the defendant in default and to render the decision of September 8, 1955,
and that both are null and void ad initio.
Apart from the foregoing, it is a well-settled principle of Constitutional Law that, in an action strictly in
personam, like the one at bar, personal service of summons, within the forum, is essential to the
acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, who does not voluntarily submit himself
to the authority of the court. In other words, summons by publication cannot — consistently with the
due process clause in the Bill of Rights — confer upon the court jurisdiction over said defendant.
Due process of law requires personal service to support a personal judgment, and, when the
proceeding is strictly in personam brought to determine the personal rights and obligations of
the parties, personal service within the state or a voluntary appearance in the case
is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction so as to constitute compliance with the
constitutional requirement of due process. . . .
Although a state legislature has more control over the form of service on its own residents
than nonresidents, it has been held that in action in personam . . . service by publication on
resident defendants, who are personally within the state and can be found therein is not "due
process of law", and a statute allowing it is unconstitutional. (16A C.J.S., pp. 786, 789;
Emphasis ours.)
Lastly, from the viewpoint of substantial justice and equity, we are of the opinion that defendant's
petition for relief should have been granted. To begin with, it was filed well within the periods
provided in the Rules of Court. Secondly, and, this is more important, defendant's verified answer,
which was attached to said petition, contains allegations which, if true, constitute a good defense.
Thus, for instance, in paragraph (2) of the "special denials" therein, he alleged:
That it is not true that he failed to pay the said indebtedness of his said wife, as alleged in
paragraph 3 of the complaint, for as a matter of fact, plaintiff and defendant agreed upon a
settlement of the said indebtedness of the latter's deceased wife on December 5, 1948,
whereby defendant was allowed to pay it out of his monthly salary by instalment of P10.00
monthly beginning January, 1949, and in accordance therewith, defendant paid unto plaintiff
the following sums:
Instalment for January-February, 1948
March 1949— P30.00 paid personally

April 2, 1949— 10.00 by money order 7488
May 11, 1949— 10.00 by money order 7921
June 10, 1949— 10.00 by money order 8230
July 11, 1949— 10.00 by money order 8595
August 10, 1949— 10.00 by money order 8943
September 1949— 10.00 paid personally
October 1949— 10.00 paid personally
November 14, 1949— 10.00 by money order 9776
December 13, 1949— 10.00 by money order 0076
January 10, 1950— 10.00 by money order 0445
February 9, 1950— 10.00 by money order 0731
March 10, 1950— 10.00 by money order 1149
April 10, 1950— 10.00 by money order 1387
May 11, 1950— 10.00 by money order 1990
June 12, 1950— 10.00 by money order 1055
July 11, 1950— 10.00 by money order 8850
August 11, 1950— 10.00 by money order 9293
September 6, 1950— 10.00 by money order 9618
October 10, 1950— 10.00 by money order 0008
November 8, 1950— 10.00 by money order 0369
December 1950— 10.00 paid personally
January 2, 1951— 10.00 paid personally
February 10, 1951— 10.00 paid personally
March 12, 1951— 10.00 paid personally
April 1951— 10.00 paid personally
May 1951— 10.00 paid personally
June 1951— 10.00 paid personally
July 1951— 10.00 paid personally
August 1951— 10.00 paid personally
November 1951— 10.00 paid personally
January 1953— 10.00 paid personally
February 1953— 10.00 paid personally
March 1953— 10.00 paid personally
April 1953— 10.00 paid personally
May 1953— 10.00
Total paid — P460.00
The specification of the dates of payment, of the amounts paid each time, of the manner in which
each payment was made, and of the number of the money orders in which eighteen (18) payments
had been effected, constitutes a strong indication of the probable veracity of said allegation, fully
justifying the grant of an opportunity to prove the same.
Wherefore, said order of July 12, 1955, and the aforementioned decision of September 8, 1955, are
hereby set aside and annulled, and let the record of this case be remanded to the lower court for
further proceedings with costs against plaintiff-appellee. It is so ordered.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador and Endencia,
JJ., concur.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 93262 December 29, 1991
DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO., INC., petitioner,

vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, QUEENSLAND HOTEL or MOTEL or QUEENSLAND TOURIST INN,
and TEODORICO ADARNA, respondents.
Breva & Breva Law Offices for petitioner.
Goc-Ong & Associates for private respondents.
NARVASA, J.:p
Subject of the appellate proceedings at bar is the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. Sp.
No. 1967 entitled "Queensland Hotel, Inc., etc. and Adarna v. Davao Light & Power Co., Inc.,"
promulgated on May 4, 1990. 1 That decision nullified and set aside the writ of preliminary attachment issued by the Regional
Trial Court of Davao City 2 in Civil Case No. 19513-89 on application of the plaintiff (Davao Light & Power Co.), before the service of
summons on the defendants (herein respondents Queensland Co., Inc. and Adarna).
Following is the chronology of the undisputed material facts culled from the Appellate Tribunal's
judgment of May 4, 1990.
1. On May 2, 1989 Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. (hereafter, simply Davao Light) filed a verified
complaint for recovery of a sum of money and damages against Queensland Hotel, etc. and
Teodorico Adarna (docketed as Civil Case No. 19513-89). The complaint contained an ex
parte application for a writ of preliminary attachment.
2. On May 3, 1989 Judge Nartatez, to whose branch the case was assigned by raffle, issued an
Order granting the ex parte application and fixing the attachment bond at P4,600,513.37.
3. On May 11, 1989 the attachment bond having been submitted by Davao Light, the writ of
attachment issued.
4. On May 12, 1989, the summons and a copy of the complaint, as well as the writ of attachment
and a copy of the attachment bond, were served on defendants Queensland and Adarna; and
pursuant to the writ, the sheriff seized properties belonging to the latter.
5. On September 6, 1989, defendants Queensland and Adarna filed a motion to discharge the
attachment for lack of jurisdiction to issue the same because at the time the order of attachment was
promulgated (May 3, 1989) and the attachment writ issued (May 11, 1989), the Trial Court had not
yet acquired jurisdiction over the cause and over the persons of the defendants.
6. On September 14, 1989, Davao Light filed an opposition to the motion to discharge attachment.
7. On September 19, 1989, the Trial Court issued an Order denying the motion to discharge.
This Order of September 19, 1989 was successfully challenged by Queensland and Adarna in a
special civil action of certiorari instituted by them in the Court of Appeals. The Order was, as
aforestated, annulled by the Court of Appeals in its Decision of May 4, 1990. The Appellate Court's
decision closed with the following disposition:
. . . the Orders dated May 3, 1989 granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment, dated September 19, 1989 denying the motion to discharge attachment;
dated November 7, 1989 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration; as well as
all other orders emanating therefrom, specially the Writ of Attachment dated May 11,
1989 and Notice of Levy on Preliminary Attachment dated May 11, 1989, are hereby
declared null and void and the attachment hereby ordered DISCHARGED.
The Appellate Tribunal declared that —
. . . While it is true that a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment
may be included m the complaint, as is usually done, it is likewise true that the Court
does not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant until he is duly
summoned or voluntarily appears, and adding the phrase that it be issued "ex parte"
does not confer said jurisdiction before actual summons had been made, nor retroact
jurisdiction upon summons being made. . . .
It went on to say, citing Sievert v. Court of Appeals, 3 that "in a proceedings in attachment," the "critical time
which must be identified is . . . when the trial court acquires authority under law to act coercively against the defendant or his
property . . .;" and that "the critical time is the of the vesting of jurisdiction in the court over the person of the defendant in the main
case."
Reversal of this Decision of the Court of Appeals of May 4, 1990 is what Davao Light seeks in the
present appellate proceedings.
The question is whether or not a writ of preliminary attachment may issue ex parte against a
defendant before acquisition of jurisdiction of the latter's person by service of summons or his
voluntary submission to the Court's authority.
The Court rules that the question must be answered in the affirmative and that consequently, the
petition for review will have to be granted.
It is incorrect to theorize that after an action or proceeding has been commenced and jurisdiction
over the person of the plaintiff has been vested in the court, but before the acquisition of jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant (either by service of summons or his voluntary submission to the
court's authority), nothing can be validly done by the plaintiff or the court. It is wrong to assume that
the validity of acts done during this period should be defendant on, or held in suspension until, the
actual obtention of jurisdiction over the defendant's person. The obtention by the court of jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant is one thing; quite another is the acquisition of jurisdiction over the
person of the plaintiff or over the subject-matter or nature of the action, or the res or object hereof.
An action or proceeding is commenced by the filing of the complaint or other initiatory pleading. 4 By
that act, the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter or nature of the action or proceeding is invoked or called into activity; 5 and it is
thus that the court acquires jurisdiction over said subject matter or nature of the action. 6 And it is by that self-same act of the plaintiff (or
petitioner) of filing the complaint (or other appropriate pleading) — by which he signifies his submission to the court's power and authority —
that jurisdiction is acquired by the court over his person. 7 On the other hand, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is obtained, as
above stated, by the service of summons or other coercive process upon him or by his voluntary submission to the authority of the court. 8
The events that follow the filing of the complaint as a matter of routine are well known. After the
complaint is filed, summons issues to the defendant, the summons is then transmitted to the sheriff,
and finally, service of the summons is effected on the defendant in any of the ways authorized by the
Rules of Court. There is thus ordinarily some appreciable interval of time between the day of the
filing of the complaint and the day of service of summons of the defendant. During this period,
different acts may be done by the plaintiff or by the Court, which are unquestionable validity and
propriety. Among these, for example, are the appointment of a guardian ad litem, 9 the grant of authority to
the plaintiff to prosecute the suit as a pauper litigant, 10 the amendment of the complaint by the plaintiff as a matter of right without leave of
court, 11 authorization by the Court of service of summons by publication, 12 the dismissal of the action by the plaintiff on mere notice. 13
This, too, is true with regard to the provisional remedies of preliminary attachment, preliminary
injunction, receivership or replevin. 14 They may be validly and properly applied for and granted even before the defendant is
summoned or is heard from.
A preliminary attachment may be defined, paraphrasing the Rules of Court, as the provisional
remedy in virtue of which a plaintiff or other party may, at the commencement of the action or at any
time thereafter, have the property of the adverse party taken into the custody of the court as security
for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered. 15 It is a remedy which is purely statutory in respect of
which the law requires a strict construction of the provisions granting it. 16 Withal no principle, statutory or jurisprudential, prohibits its
issuance by any court before acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
Rule 57 in fact speaks of the grant of the remedy "at the commencement of the action or at any time
thereafter." 17 The phase, "at the commencement of the action," obviously refers to the date of the filing of the complaint — which, as
above pointed out, is the date that marks "the commencement of the action;" 18 and the reference plainly is to a time before summons is
served on the defendant, or even before summons issues. What the rule is saying quite clearly is that after an action is properly commenced
— by the filing of the complaint and the payment of all requisite docket and other fees — the plaintiff may apply for and obtain a writ of
preliminary attachment upon fulfillment of the pertinent requisites laid down by law, and that he may do so at any time, either before or after
service of summons on the defendant. And this indeed, has been the immemorial practice sanctioned by the courts: for the plaintiff or other
proper party to incorporate the application for attachment in the complaint or other appropriate pleading (counter-claim, cross-claim, third-
party claim) and for the Trial Court to issue the writ ex-parte at the commencement of the action if it finds the application otherwise sufficient
in form and substance.
In Toledo v. Burgos, 19 this Court ruled that a hearing on a motion or application for preliminary attachment is not generally
necessary unless otherwise directed by the Trial Court in its discretion. 20 And in Filinvest Credit Corporation v. Relova, 21 the Court
declared that "(n)othing in the Rules of Court makes notice and hearing indispensable and mandatory requisites for the issuance of a writ of
attachment." The only pre-requisite is that the Court be satisfied, upon consideration of "the affidavit of the applicant or of some other person
who personally knows the facts, that a sufficient cause of action exists, that the case is one of those mentioned in Section 1 . . . (Rule 57),
that there is no other sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced by the action, and that the amount due to the applicant, or the
value of the property the possession of which he is entitled to recover, is as much as the sum for which the order (of attachment) is granted
above all legal counterclaims." 22 If the court be so satisfied, the "order of attachment shall be granted," 23 and the writ shall issue upon the
applicant's posting of "a bond executed to the adverse party in an amount to be fixed by the judge, not exceeding the plaintiffs claim,
conditioned that the latter will pay all the costs which may be adjudged to the adverse party and all damages which he may sustain by reason
of the attachment, if the court shall finally adjudge that the applicant was not entitled thereto." 24
In Mindanao Savings & Loan Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, decided on April 18, 1989, 25 this
Court had occasion to emphasize the postulate that no hearing is required on an application for preliminary attachment, with notice to the
defendant, for the reason that this "would defeat the objective of the remedy . . . (since the) time which such a hearing would take, could be
enough to enable the defendant to abscond or dispose of his property before a writ of attachment issues." As observed by a former member
of this Court, 26 such a procedure would warn absconding debtors-defendants of the commencement of the suit against them and the
probable seizure of their properties, and thus give them the advantage of time to hide their assets, leaving the creditor-plaintiff holding the
proverbial empty bag; it would place the creditor-applicant in danger of losing any security for a favorable judgment and thus give him only an
illusory victory.
Withal, ample modes of recourse against a preliminary attachment are secured by law to the
defendant. The relative ease with which a preliminary attachment may be obtained is matched and
paralleled by the relative facility with which the attachment may legitimately be prevented or
frustrated. These modes of recourse against preliminary attachments granted by Rule 57 were
discussed at some length by the separate opinion in Mindanao Savings & Loans
Asso. Inc. v. CA., supra.
That separate opinion stressed that there are two (2) ways of discharging an attachment: first, by the
posting of a counterbond; and second, by a showing of its improper or irregular issuance.
1.0. The submission of a counterbond is an efficacious mode of lifting an attachment already
enforced against property, or even of preventing its enforcement altogether.
1.1. When property has already been seized under attachment, the attachment may be discharged
upon counterbond in accordance with Section 12 of Rule 57.
Sec. 12. Discharge of attachment upon giving counterbond. — At any time after an
order of attachment has been granted, the party whose property has been attached
or the person appearing in his behalf, may, upon reasonable notice to the applicant,
apply to the judge who granted the order, or to the judge of the court in which the
action is pending, for an order discharging the attachment wholly or in part on the
security given . . . in an amount equal to the value of the property attached as
determined by the judge to secure the payment of any judgment that the attaching
creditor may recover in the action. . . .
1.2. But even before actual levy on property, seizure under attachment may be prevented also upon
counterbond. The defendant need not wait until his property is seized before seeking the discharge
of the attachment by a counterbond. This is made possible by Section 5 of Rule 57.
Sec. 5. Manner of attaching property. — The officer executing the order shall without
delay attach, to await judgment and execution in the action, all the properties of the
party against whom the order is issued in the province, not exempt from execution, or
so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the applicant's demand, unless the
former makes a deposit with the clerk or judge of the court from which the order
issued, or gives a counter-bond executed to the applicant, in an amount sufficient to
satisfy such demand besides costs, or in an amount equal to the value of the
property which is about to be attached, to secure payment to the applicant of any
judgment which he may recover in the action. . . . (Emphasis supplied)
2.0. Aside from the filing of a counterbond, a preliminary attachment may also be lifted or discharged
on the ground that it has been irregularly or improperly issued, in accordance with Section 13 of Rule
57. Like the first, this second mode of lifting an attachment may be resorted to even before any
property has been levied on. Indeed, it may be availed of after property has been released from a
levy on attachment, as is made clear by said Section 13, viz.:
Sec. 13. Discharge of attachment for improper or irregular issuance. — The party
whose property has been attached may also, at any time either BEFORE or AFTER
the release of the attached property, or before any attachment shall have been
actually levied, upon reasonable notice to the attaching creditor, apply to the judge
who granted the order, or to the judge of the court in which the action is pending, for
an order to discharge the attachment on the ground that the same was improperly or
irregularly issued. If the motion be made on affidavits on the part of the party whose
property has been attached, but not otherwise, the attaching creditor may oppose the
same by counter-affidavits or other evidence in addition to that on which the
attachment was made. . . . (Emphasis supplied)
This is so because "(a)s pointed out in Calderon v. I.A.C., 155 SCRA 531 (1987), The attachment
debtor cannot be deemed to have waived any defect in the issuance of the attachment writ by simply
availing himself of one way of discharging the attachment writ, instead of the other. Moreover, the
filing of a counterbond is a speedier way of discharging the attachment writ maliciously sought out by
the attaching creditor instead of the other way, which, in most instances . . . would require
presentation of evidence in a fullblown trial on the merits, and cannot easily be settled in a pending
incident of the case." 27
It may not be amiss to here reiterate other related principles dealt with in Mindanao Savings & Loans
Asso. Inc. v. C.A., supra., 28 to wit:
(a) When an attachment may not be dissolved by a showing of its irregular or

improper issuance:
. . . (W)hen the preliminary attachment is issued upon a ground which is at the same
time the applicant's cause of action; e.g., "an action for money or property embezzled
or fraudulently misapplied or converted to his own use by a public officer, or an
officer of a corporation, or an attorney, factor, broker, agent, or clerk, in the course of
his employment as such, or by any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful
violation of duty." (Sec. 1 [b], Rule 57), or "an action against a party who has been
guilty of fraud m contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which the action
is brought" (Sec. 1 [d], Rule 57), the defendant is not allowed to file a motion to
dissolve the attachment under Section 13 of Rule 57 by offering to show the falsity of
the factual averments in the plaintiff's application and affidavits on which the writ was
based — and consequently that the writ based thereon had been improperly or
irregularly issued (SEE Benitez v. I.A.C., 154 SCRA 41) — the reason being that the
hearing on such a motion for dissolution of the writ would be tantamount to a trial of
the merits of the action. In other words, the merits of the action would be ventilated at
a mere hearing of a motion, instead of at the regular trial. Therefore, when the writ of
attachment is of this nature, the only way it can be dissolved is by a counterbond
(G.B. Inc. v. Sanchez, 98 Phil. 886).
(b) Effect of the dissolution of a preliminary attachment on the plaintiffs attachment bond:
. . . The dissolution of the preliminary attachment upon security given, or a showing

of its irregular or improper issuance, does not of course operate to discharge the
sureties on plaintiff's own attachment bond. The reason is simple. That bond is
"executed to the adverse party, . . . conditioned that the . . . (applicant) will pay all the
costs which may be adjudged to the adverse party and all damages which he may
sustain by reason of the attachment, if the court shall finally adjudge that the
applicant was not entitled thereto" (SEC. 4, Rule 57). Hence, until that determination
is made, as to the applicant's entitlement to the attachment, his bond must stand and
cannot be with-drawn.
With respect to the other provisional remedies, i.e., preliminary injunction (Rule 58), receivership
(Rule 59), replevin or delivery of personal property (Rule 60), the rule is the same: they may also
issue ex parte. 29
It goes without saying that whatever be the acts done by the Court prior to the acquisition of
jurisdiction over the person of defendant, as above indicated — issuance of summons, order of
attachment and writ of attachment (and/or appointments of guardian ad litem, or grant of authority to
the plaintiff to prosecute the suit as a pauper litigant, or amendment of the complaint by the plaintiff
as a matter of right without leave of court 30 — and however valid and proper they might otherwise be, these do not and
cannot bind and affect the defendant until and unless jurisdiction over his person is eventually obtained by the court, either by service on him
of summons or other coercive process or his voluntary submission to the court's authority. Hence, when the sheriff or other proper officer
commences implementation of the writ of attachment, it is essential that he serve on the defendant not only a copy of the applicant's affidavit
and attachment bond, and of the order of attachment, as explicity required by Section 5 of Rule 57, but also the summons addressed to said
defendant as well as a copy of the complaint and order for appointment of guardian ad litem, if any, as also explicity directed by Section 3,
Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. Service of all such documents is indispensable not only for the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant, but also upon considerations of fairness, to apprise the defendant of the complaint against him, of the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment and the grounds therefor and thus accord him the opportunity to prevent attachment of his property by the posting of
a counterbond in an amount equal to the plaintiff's claim in the complaint pursuant to Section 5 (or Section 12), Rule 57, or dissolving it by
causing dismissal of the complaint itself on any of the grounds set forth in Rule 16, or demonstrating the insufficiency of the applicant's
affidavit or bond in accordance with Section 13, Rule 57.
It was on account of the failure to comply with this fundamental requirement of service of summons
and the other documents above indicated that writs of attachment issued by the Trial Court ex
parte were struck down by this Court's Third Division in two (2) cases, namely: Sievert v. Court of
Appeals, 31 and BAC Manufacturing and Sales Corporation v. Court of Appeals, et al. 32 In contrast to the case at bar — where the
summons and a copy of the complaint, as well as the order and writ of attachment and the attachment bond were served on the defendant —
in Sievert, levy on attachment was attempted notwithstanding that only the petition for issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment was
served on the defendant, without any prior or accompanying summons and copy of the complaint; and in BAC Manufacturing and Sales
Corporation, neither the summons nor the order granting the preliminary attachment or the writ of attachment itself was served on the
defendant "before or at the time the levy was made."
For the guidance of all concerned, the Court reiterates and reaffirms the proposition that writs of
attachment may properly issue ex parte provided that the Court is satisfied that the relevant
requisites therefor have been fulfilled by the applicant, although it may, in its discretion, require prior
hearing on the application with notice to the defendant; but that levy on property pursuant to the writ
thus issued may not be validly effected unless preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied, by
service on the defendant of summons, a copy of the complaint (and of the appointment of
guardian ad litem, if any), the application for attachment (if not incorporated in but submitted
separately from the complaint), the order of attachment, and the plaintiff's attachment bond.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED; the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby
REVERSED, and the order and writ of attachment issued by Hon. Milagros C. Nartatez, Presiding
Judge of Branch 8, Regional Trial Court of Davao City in Civil Case No. 19513-89 against
Queensland Hotel or Motel or Queensland Tourist Inn and Teodorico Adarna are hereby
REINSTATED. Costs against private respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea,
Regalado and Romero, JJ., concur.
Fernan, C.J., is on leave.
Davide, Jr., J., took no part.
Heine v. New York Life Insurance Company

Facts
The New York Life Insurance Company and the Guardian Insurance Company ("the insurance
companies") were corporations created in New York, USA. As conditions to be allowed to conduct
business in Germany, they were made to agree to be supervised by German authorities, to invest the
proceeds of policies in German securities, and to establish a local agency to whom summons may be
served. The insurance companies were later sued before courts in both the US and Germany for the
recovery on some 240 life insurance policies issued in Germany to German nationals, payable in German
currency.
Arguments for the Plaintiff

As the US courts have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, they have no choice but to try
the case.
Issue
Whether or not the US courts may dismiss the case on the ground of forum non conveniens.
Held
Yes. Under the circumstances, the case may be more suitably tried before German courts.
Ratio Decidendi
The courts in both jurisdictions are competent to try the case and summons may be served upon the
insurance companies in both jurisdictions. Requiring the insurance companies to defend their interests in
the US would subject them to great and unnecessary inconvenience and expenses, including the
possibility of having to bring documentary evidence all the way from their office in Germany. Moreover,
trying the case in the US additionally burden the courts in that jurisdiction, to the detriment of other
litigants. The assumption of jurisdiction over a case the cause of action of which arose from another
jurisdiction and wherein both parties are non-residents is discretionary upon the court.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 115849 January 24, 1996
FIRST PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL BANK (Formerly Producers Bank of the Philippines) and
MERCURIO RIVERA, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, CARLOS EJERCITO, in substitution of DEMETRIO DEMETRIA, and
JOSE JANOLO, respondents.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
In the absence of a formal deed of sale, may commitments given by bank officers in an exchange of
letters and/or in a meeting with the buyers constitute a perfected and enforceable contract of sale
over 101 hectares of land in Sta. Rosa, Laguna? Does the doctrine of "apparent authority" apply in
this case? If so, may the Central Bank-appointed conservator of Producers Bank (now First
Philippine International Bank) repudiate such "apparent authority" after said contract has been
deemed perfected? During the pendency of a suit for specific performance, does the filing of a
"derivative suit" by the majority shareholders and directors of the distressed bank to prevent the
enforcement or implementation of the sale violate the ban against forum-shopping?
Simply stated, these are the major questions brought before this Court in the instant Petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, to set aside the Decision promulgated
January 14, 1994 of the respondent Court of Appeals1 in CA-G.R CV No. 35756 and the Resolution
promulgated June 14, 1994 denying the motion for reconsideration. The dispositive portion of the
said Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is MODIFIED by the elimination of the
damages awarded under paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 of its dispositive portion and the reduction of
the award in paragraph 5 thereof to P75,000.00, to be assessed against defendant bank. In
all other aspects, said decision is hereby AFFIRMED.
All references to the original plaintiffs in the decision and its dispositive portion are deemed,
herein and hereafter, to legally refer to the plaintiff-appellee Carlos C. Ejercito.
Costs against appellant bank.
The dispositive portion of the trial court's2 decision dated July 10, 1991, on the other hand, is as
follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs

and against the defendants as follows:
1. Declaring the existence of a perfected contract to buy and sell over the six (6) parcels of
land situated at Don Jose, Sta. Rosa, Laguna with an area of 101 hectares, more or less,
covered by and embraced in Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-106932 to T-106937,
inclusive, of the Land Records of Laguna, between the plaintiffs as buyers and the defendant
Producers Bank for an agreed price of Five and One Half Million (P5,500,000.00) Pesos;
2. Ordering defendant Producers Bank of the Philippines, upon finality of this decision and
receipt from the plaintiffs the amount of P5.5 Million, to execute in favor of said plaintiffs a
deed of absolute sale over the aforementioned six (6) parcels of land, and to immediately
deliver to the plaintiffs the owner's copies of T.C.T. Nos. T-106932 to T- 106937, inclusive,
for purposes of registration of the same deed and transfer of the six (6) titles in the names of
the plaintiffs;
3. Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiffs Jose A. Janolo and
Demetrio Demetria the sums of P200,000.00 each in moral damages;
4. Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiffs the sum of P100,000.00 as
exemplary damages ;
5. Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiffs the amount of
P400,000.00 for and by way of attorney's fees;
6. Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs, jointly and severally, actual and moderate
damages in the amount of P20,000.00;
With costs against the defendants.
After the parties filed their comment, reply, rejoinder, sur-rejoinder and reply to sur-rejoinder, the
petition was given due course in a Resolution dated January 18, 1995. Thence, the parties filed their
respective memoranda and reply memoranda. The First Division transferred this case to the Third
Division per resolution dated October 23, 1995. After carefully deliberating on the aforesaid
submissions, the Court assigned the case to the undersigned ponente for the writing of this
Decision.
The Parties
Petitioner First Philippine International Bank (formerly Producers Bank of the Philippines; petitioner
Bank, for brevity) is a banking institution organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the
Philippines. Petitioner Mercurio Rivera (petitioner Rivera, for brevity) is of legal age and was, at all
times material to this case, Head-Manager of the Property Management Department of the petitioner
Bank.
Respondent Carlos Ejercito (respondent Ejercito, for brevity) is of legal age and is the assignee of
original plaintiffs-appellees Demetrio Demetria and Jose Janolo.
Respondent Court of Appeals is the court which issued the Decision and Resolution sought to be set
aside through this petition.
The Facts
The facts of this case are summarized in the respondent Court's Decision3 as follows:
(1) In the course of its banking operations, the defendant Producer Bank of the Philippines
acquired six parcels of land with a total area of 101 hectares located at Don Jose, Sta. Rose,
Laguna, and covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-106932 to T-106937. The
property used to be owned by BYME Investment and Development Corporation which had
them mortgaged with the bank as collateral for a loan. The original plaintiffs, Demetrio
Demetria and Jose O. Janolo, wanted to purchase the property and thus initiated
negotiations for that purpose.
(2) In the early part of August 1987 said plaintiffs, upon the suggestion of BYME investment's
legal counsel, Jose Fajardo, met with defendant Mercurio Rivera, Manager of the Property
Management Department of the defendant bank. The meeting was held pursuant to plaintiffs'
plan to buy the property (TSN of Jan. 16, 1990, pp. 7-10). After the meeting, plaintiff Janolo,
following the advice of defendant Rivera, made a formal purchase offer to the bank through a
letter dated August 30, 1987 (Exh. "B"), as follows:
August 30, 1987
The Producers Bank of the Philippines

Makati, Metro Manila
Attn. Mr. Mercurio Q. Rivera

Manager, Property Management Dept.
Gentleman:
I have the honor to submit my formal offer to purchase your properties covered by titles listed
hereunder located at Sta. Rosa, Laguna, with a total area of 101 hectares, more or less.
TCT NO. AREA

T-106932 113,580 sq. m.
T-106933 70,899 sq. m.
T-106934 52,246 sq. m.
T-106935 96,768 sq. m.
T-106936 187,114 sq. m.
T-106937 481,481 sq. m.
My offer is for PESOS: THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P3,500,000.00)

PESOS, in cash.
Kindly contact me at Telephone Number 921-1344.
(3) On September 1, 1987, defendant Rivera made on behalf of the bank a formal reply by
letter which is hereunder quoted (Exh. "C"):
September 1, 1987
JP M-P GUTIERREZ ENTERPRISES

142 Charisma St., Doña Andres II
Rosario, Pasig, Metro Manila
Attention: JOSE O. JANOLO
Dear Sir:
Thank you for your letter-offer to buy our six (6) parcels of acquired lots at Sta. Rosa, Laguna
(formerly owned by Byme Industrial Corp.). Please be informed however that the bank's
counter-offer is at P5.5 million for more than 101 hectares on lot basis.
We shall be very glad to hear your position on the on the matter.
Best regards.
(4) On September 17, 1987, plaintiff Janolo, responding to Rivera's aforequoted reply, wrote
(Exh. "D"):
September 17, 1987
Producers Bank
Paseo de Roxas
Attention: Mr. Mercurio Rivera
Gentlemen:
In reply to your letter regarding my proposal to purchase your 101-hectare lot located at Sta.
Rosa, Laguna, I would like to amend my previous offer and I now propose to buy the said lot
at P4.250 million in CASH..
Hoping that this proposal meets your satisfaction.

(5) There was no reply to Janolo's foregoing letter of September 17, 1987. What took place
was a meeting on September 28, 1987 between the plaintiffs and Luis Co, the Senior Vice-
President of defendant bank. Rivera as well as Fajardo, the BYME lawyer, attended the
meeting. Two days later, or on September 30, 1987, plaintiff Janolo sent to the bank, through
Rivera, the following letter (Exh. "E"):
The Producers Bank of the Philippines

Paseo de Roxas, Makati
Metro Manila
Attention: Mr. Mercurio Rivera
Re: 101 Hectares of Land

in Sta. Rosa, Laguna
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to our discussion last 28 September 1987, we are pleased to inform you that we
are accepting your offer for us to purchase the property at Sta. Rosa, Laguna, formerly
owned by Byme Investment, for a total price of PESOS: FIVE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND (P5,500,000.00).
Thank you.
(6) On October 12, 1987, the conservator of the bank (which has been placed under
conservatorship by the Central Bank since 1984) was replaced by an Acting Conservator in
the person of defendant Leonida T. Encarnacion. On November 4, 1987, defendant Rivera
wrote plaintiff Demetria the following letter (Exh. "F"):
Attention: Atty. Demetrio Demetria
Dear Sir:
Your proposal to buy the properties the bank foreclosed from Byme investment Corp. located
at Sta. Rosa, Laguna is under study yet as of this time by the newly created committee for
submission to the newly designated Acting Conservator of the bank.
For your information.
(7) What thereafter transpired was a series of demands by the plaintiffs for compliance by
the bank with what plaintiff considered as a perfected contract of sale, which demands were
in one form or another refused by the bank. As detailed by the trial court in its decision, on
November 17, 1987, plaintiffs through a letter to defendant Rivera (Exhibit "G") tendered
payment of the amount of P5.5 million "pursuant to (our) perfected sale agreement."
Defendants refused to receive both the payment and the letter. Instead, the parcels of land
involved in the transaction were advertised by the bank for sale to any interested buyer (Exh,
"H" and "H-1"). Plaintiffs demanded the execution by the bank of the documents on what was
considered as a "perfected agreement." Thus:
Mr. Mercurio Rivera

Manager, Producers Bank
Paseo de Roxas, Makati
Metro Manila
Dear Mr. Rivera:
This is in connection with the offer of our client, Mr. Jose O. Janolo, to purchase your 101-
hectare lot located in Sta. Rosa, Laguna, and which are covered by TCT No. T-106932 to
106937.
From the documents at hand, it appears that your counter-offer dated September 1, 1987 of
this same lot in the amount of P5.5 million was accepted by our client thru a letter dated
September 30, 1987 and was received by you on October 5, 1987.
In view of the above circumstances, we believe that an agreement has been perfected. We
were also informed that despite repeated follow-up to consummate the purchase, you now
refuse to honor your commitment. Instead, you have advertised for sale the same lot to
others.
In behalf of our client, therefore, we are making this formal demand upon you to
consummate and execute the necessary actions/documentation within three (3) days from
your receipt hereof. We are ready to remit the agreed amount of P5.5 million at your advice.
Otherwise, we shall be constrained to file the necessary court action to protect the interest of
our client.
We trust that you will be guided accordingly.
(8) Defendant bank, through defendant Rivera, acknowledged receipt of the foregoing letter
and stated, in its communication of December 2, 1987 (Exh. "I"), that said letter has been
"referred . . . to the office of our Conservator for proper disposition" However, no response
came from the Acting Conservator. On December 14, 1987, the plaintiffs made a second
tender of payment (Exh. "L" and "L-1"), this time through the Acting Conservator, defendant
Encarnacion. Plaintiffs' letter reads:
PRODUCERS BANK OF
THE PHILIPPINES
Paseo de Roxas,
Attn.: Atty. NIDA ENCARNACION

Central Bank Conservator
We are sending you herewith, in - behalf of our client, Mr. JOSE O. JANOLO, MBTC Check
No. 258387 in the amount of P5.5 million as our agreed purchase price of the 101-hectare lot
covered by TCT Nos. 106932, 106933, 106934, 106935, 106936 and 106937 and registered
under Producers Bank.
This is in connection with the perfected agreement consequent from your offer of P5.5 Million
as the purchase price of the said lots. Please inform us of the date of documentation of the
sale immediately.
Kindly acknowledge receipt of our payment.

(9) The foregoing letter drew no response for more than four months. Then, on May 3, 1988,
plaintiff, through counsel, made a final demand for compliance by the bank with its
obligations under the considered perfected contract of sale (Exhibit "N"). As recounted by the
trial court (Original Record, p. 656), in a reply letter dated May 12, 1988 (Annex "4" of
defendant's answer to amended complaint), the defendants through Acting Conservator
Encarnacion repudiated the authority of defendant Rivera and claimed that his dealings with
the plaintiffs, particularly his counter-offer of P5.5 Million are unauthorized or illegal. On that
basis, the defendants justified the refusal of the tenders of payment and the non-compliance
with the obligations under what the plaintiffs considered to be a perfected contract of sale.
(10) On May 16, 1988, plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance with damages against
the bank, its Manager Rivers and Acting Conservator Encarnacion. The basis of the suit was
that the transaction had with the bank resulted in a perfected contract of sale, The
defendants took the position that there was no such perfected sale because the defendant
Rivera is not authorized to sell the property, and that there was no meeting of the minds as
to the price.
On March 14, 1991, Henry L. Co (the brother of Luis Co), through counsel Sycip Salazar
Hernandez and Gatmaitan, filed a motion to intervene in the trial court, alleging that as owner
of 80% of the Bank's outstanding shares of stock, he had a substantial interest in resisting
the complaint. On July 8, 1991, the trial court issued an order denying the motion to
intervene on the ground that it was filed after trial had already been concluded. It also denied
a motion for reconsideration filed thereafter. From the trial court's decision, the Bank,
petitioner Rivera and conservator Encarnacion appealed to the Court of Appeals which
subsequently affirmed with modification the said judgment. Henry Co did not appeal the
denial of his motion for intervention.
In the course of the proceedings in the respondent Court, Carlos Ejercito was substituted in place of
Demetria and Janolo, in view of the assignment of the latters' rights in the matter in litigation to said
private respondent.
On July 11, 1992, during the pendency of the proceedings in the Court of Appeals, Henry Co and
several other stockholders of the Bank, through counsel Angara Abello Concepcion Regala and
Cruz, filed an action (hereafter, the "Second Case") — purportedly a "derivative suit" — with the
Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 134, docketed as Civil Case No. 92-1606, against
Encarnacion, Demetria and Janolo "to declare any perfected sale of the property as unenforceable
and to stop Ejercito from enforcing or implementing the sale"4 In his answer, Janolo argued that the
Second Case was barred by litis pendentia by virtue of the case then pending in the Court of
Appeals. During the pre-trial conference in the Second Case, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave of
Court to Dismiss the Case Without Prejudice. "Private respondent opposed this motion on the
ground, among others, that plaintiff's act of forum shopping justifies the dismissal of both cases, with
prejudice."5 Private respondent, in his memorandum, averred that this motion is still pending in the
Makati RTC.
In their Petition6 and Memorandum7, petitioners summarized their position as follows:
I.
The Court of Appeals erred in declaring that a contract of sale was perfected between
Ejercito (in substitution of Demetria and Janolo) and the bank.
II.
The Court of Appeals erred in declaring the existence of an enforceable contract of sale
between the parties.
III.
The Court of Appeals erred in declaring that the conservator does not have the power to
overrule or revoke acts of previous management.
IV.
The findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals do not conform to the evidence on
record.
On the other hand, petitioners prayed for dismissal of the instant suit on the ground8 that:
I.
Petitioners have engaged in forum shopping.
II.
The factual findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals are supported by the evidence
on record and may no longer be questioned in this case.
III.
The Court of Appeals correctly held that there was a perfected contract between Demetria
and Janolo (substituted by; respondent Ejercito) and the bank.
IV.
The Court of Appeals has correctly held that the conservator, apart from being estopped
from repudiating the agency and the contract, has no authority to revoke the contract of sale.
The Issues
From the foregoing positions of the parties, the issues in this case may be summed up as follows:
1) Was there forum-shopping on the part of petitioner Bank?
2) Was there a perfected contract of sale between the parties?
3) Assuming there was, was the said contract enforceable under the statute of frauds?
4) Did the bank conservator have the unilateral power to repudiate the authority of the bank
officers and/or to revoke the said contract?
5) Did the respondent Court commit any reversible error in its findings of facts?
The First Issue: Was There Forum-Shopping?

In order to prevent the vexations of multiple petitions and actions, the Supreme Court promulgated
Revised Circular No. 28-91 requiring that a party "must certify under oath . . . [that] (a) he has not
(t)heretofore commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; (b) to the best of his knowledge, no
such action or proceeding is pending" in said courts or agencies. A violation of the said circular
entails sanctions that include the summary dismissal of the multiple petitions or complaints. To be
sure, petitioners have included a VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION in their Petition stating "for the
record(,) the pendency of Civil Case No. 92-1606 before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch
134, involving a derivative suit filed by stockholders of petitioner Bank against the conservator and
other defendants but which is the subject of a pending Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice.9
Private respondent Ejercito vigorously argues that in spite of this verification, petitioners are guilty of
actual forum shopping because the instant petition pending before this Court involves "identical
parties or interests represented, rights asserted and reliefs sought (as that) currently pending before
the Regional Trial Court, Makati Branch 134 in the Second Case. In fact, the issues in the two cases
are so interwined that a judgement or resolution in either case will constitute res judicata in the
other." 10
On the other hand, petitioners explain 11 that there is no forum-shopping because:
1) In the earlier or "First Case" from which this proceeding arose, the Bank was impleaded
as a defendant, whereas in the "Second Case" (assuming the Bank is the real party in
interest in a derivative suit), it was plaintiff;
2) "The derivative suit is not properly a suit for and in behalf of the corporation under the
circumstances";
3) Although the CERTIFICATION/VERIFICATION (supra) signed by the Bank president and

attached to the Petition identifies the action as a "derivative suit," it "does not mean that it is
one" and "(t)hat is a legal question for the courts to decide";
4) Petitioners did not hide the Second Case at they mentioned it in the said
VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION.
We rule for private respondent.
To begin with, forum-shopping originated as a concept in private international law.12, where non-
resident litigants are given the option to choose the forum or place wherein to bring their suit for
various reasons or excuses, including to secure procedural advantages, to annoy and harass the
defendant, to avoid overcrowded dockets, or to select a more friendly venue. To combat these less
than honorable excuses, the principle of forum non conveniens was developed whereby a court, in
conflicts of law cases, 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.
In this light, Black's Law Dictionary 13 says that forum shopping "occurs when a party attempts to
have his action tried in a particular court or jurisdiction where he feels he will receive the most
favorable judgment or verdict." Hence, according to Words and Phrases14, "a litigant is open to the
charge of "forum shopping" whenever he chooses a forum with slight connection to factual
circumstances surrounding his suit, and litigants should be encouraged to attempt to settle their
differences without imposing undue expenses and vexatious situations on the courts".
In the Philippines, forum shopping has acquired a connotation encompassing not only a choice of
venues, as it was originally understood in conflicts of laws, but also to a choice of remedies. As to
the first (choice of venues), the Rules of Court, for example, allow a plaintiff to commence personal
actions "where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff
or any of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff" (Rule 4, Sec, 2 [b]). As to remedies,
aggrieved parties, for example, are given a choice of pursuing civil liabilities independently of the
criminal, arising from the same set of facts. A passenger of a public utility vehicle involved in a
vehicular accident may sue on culpa contractual, culpa aquiliana or culpa criminal — each remedy
being available independently of the others — although he cannot recover more than once.
In either of these situations (choice of venue or choice of remedy), the litigant actually shops
for a forum of his action, This was the original concept of the term forum shopping.
Eventually, however, instead of actually making a choice of the forum of their actions,
litigants, through the encouragement of their lawyers, file their actions in all available courts,
or invoke all relevant remedies simultaneously. This practice had not only resulted to (sic)
conflicting adjudications among different courts and consequent confusion enimical (sic) to
an orderly administration of justice. It had created extreme inconvenience to some of the
parties to the action.
Thus, "forum shopping" had acquired a different concept — which is unethical professional
legal practice. And this necessitated or had given rise to the formulation of rules and canons
discouraging or altogether prohibiting the practice. 15
What therefore originally started both in conflicts of laws and in our domestic law as a legitimate
device for solving problems has been abused and mis-used to assure scheming litigants of dubious
reliefs.
To avoid or minimize this unethical practice of subverting justice, the Supreme Court, as already
mentioned, promulgated Circular 28-91. And even before that, the Court had prescribed it in the
Interim Rules and Guidelines issued on January 11, 1983 and had struck down in several
cases 16 the inveterate use of this insidious malpractice. Forum shopping as "the filing of repetitious
suits in different courts" has been condemned by Justice Andres R. Narvasa (now Chief Justice)
in Minister of Natural Resources, et al., vs. Heirs of Orval Hughes, et al., "as a reprehensible
manipulation of court processes and proceedings . . ." 17 when does forum shopping take place?
There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party

seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. The principle
applies not only with respect to suits filed in the courts but also in connection with litigations
commenced in the courts while an administrative proceeding is pending, as in this case, in
order to defeat administrative processes and in anticipation of an unfavorable administrative
ruling and a favorable court ruling. This is specially so, as in this case, where the court in
which the second suit was brought, has no jurisdiction.18
The test for determining whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping has been laid
dawn in the 1986 case of Buan vs. Lopez 19, also by Chief Justice Narvasa, and that is, forum
shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one
case will amount to res judicata in the other, as follows:
There thus exists between the action before this Court and RTC Case No. 86-36563 identity
of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions, as well as
identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts,
and the identity on the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the
other action, will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res adjudicata in the
action under consideration: all the requisites, in fine, of auter action pendant.
xxx xxx xxx
As already observed, there is between the action at bar and RTC Case No. 86-36563, an
identity as regards parties, or interests represented, rights asserted and relief sought, as well
as basis thereof, to a degree sufficient to give rise to the ground for dismissal known as auter
action pendant or lis pendens. That same identity puts into operation the sanction of twin
dismissals just mentioned. The application of this sanction will prevent any further delay in
the settlement of the controversy which might ensue from attempts to seek reconsideration
of or to appeal from the Order of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 86-36563
promulgated on July 15, 1986, which dismissed the petition upon grounds which appear
persuasive.
Consequently, where a litigant (or one representing the same interest or person) sues the same
party against whom another action or actions for the alleged violation of the same right and the
enforcement of the same relief is/are still pending, the defense of litis pendencia in one case is bar to
the others; and, a final judgment in one would constitute res judicata and thus would cause the
dismissal of the rest. In either case, forum shopping could be cited by the other party as a ground to
ask for summary dismissal of the two 20 (or more) complaints or petitions, and for imposition of the
other sanctions, which are direct contempt of court, criminal prosecution, and disciplinary action
against the erring lawyer.
Applying the foregoing principles in the case before us and comparing it with the Second Case, it is
obvious that there exist identity of parties or interests represented, identity of rights or causes and
identity of reliefs sought.
Very simply stated, the original complaint in the court a quo which gave rise to the instant petition
was filed by the buyer (herein private respondent and his predecessors-in-interest) against the seller
(herein petitioners) to enforce the alleged perfected sale of real estate. On the other hand, the
complaint 21 in the Second Case seeks to declare such purported sale involving the same real
property "as unenforceable as against the Bank", which is the petitioner herein. In other words, in the
Second Case, the majority stockholders, in representation of the Bank, are seeking to accomplish
what the Bank itself failed to do in the original case in the trial court. In brief, the objective or the
relief being sought, though worded differently, is the same, namely, to enable the petitioner Bank to
escape from the obligation to sell the property to respondent. In Danville Maritime, Inc. vs.
Commission on Audit. 22, this Court ruled that the filing by a party of two apparently different actions,
but with the same objective, constituted forum shopping:
In the attempt to make the two actions appear to be different, petitioner impleaded different
respondents therein — PNOC in the case before the lower court and the COA in the case
before this Court and sought what seems to be different reliefs. Petitioner asks this Court to
set aside the questioned letter-directive of the COA dated October 10, 1988 and to direct
said body to approve the Memorandum of Agreement entered into by and between the
PNOC and petitioner, while in the complaint before the lower court petitioner seeks to enjoin
the PNOC from conducting a rebidding and from selling to other parties the vessel "T/T
Andres Bonifacio", and for an extension of time for it to comply with the paragraph 1 of the
memorandum of agreement and damages. One can see that although the relief prayed for in
the two (2) actions are ostensibly different, the ultimate objective in both actions is the same,
that is, approval of the sale of vessel in favor of petitioner and to overturn the letter-directive
of the COA of October 10, 1988 disapproving the sale. (emphasis supplied).
In an earlier case 23 but with the same logic and vigor, we held:
In other words, the filing by the petitioners of the instant special civil action for certiorari and
prohibition in this Court despite the pendency of their action in the Makati Regional Trial
Court, is a species of forum-shopping. Both actions unquestionably involve the same
transactions, the same essential facts and circumstances. The petitioners' claim of absence
of identity simply because the PCGG had not been impleaded in the RTC suit, and the suit
did not involve certain acts which transpired after its commencement, is specious. In the
RTC action, as in the action before this Court, the validity of the contract to purchase and sell
of September 1, 1986, i.e., whether or not it had been efficaciously rescinded, and the
propriety of implementing the same (by paying the pledgee banks the amount of their loans,
obtaining the release of the pledged shares, etc.) were the basic issues. So, too, the relief
was the same: the prevention of such implementation and/or the restoration of the status quo
ante. When the acts sought to be restrained took place anyway despite the issuance by the
Trial Court of a temporary restraining order, the RTC suit did not become functus oficio. It
remained an effective vehicle for obtention of relief; and petitioners' remedy in the premises
was plain and patent: the filing of an amended and supplemental pleading in the RTC suit, so
as to include the PCGG as defendant and seek nullification of the acts sought to be enjoined
but nonetheless done. The remedy was certainly not the institution of another action in
another forum based on essentially the same facts, The adoption of this latter recourse
renders the petitioners amenable to disciplinary action and both their actions, in this Court as
well as in the Court a quo, dismissible.
In the instant case before us, there is also identity of parties, or at least, of interests represented.
Although the plaintiffs in the Second Case (Henry L. Co. et al.) are not name parties in the First
Case, they represent the same interest and entity, namely, petitioner Bank, because:
Firstly, they are not suing in their personal capacities, for they have no direct personal interest in the
matter in controversy. They are not principally or even subsidiarily liable; much less are they direct
parties in the assailed contract of sale; and
Secondly, the allegations of the complaint in the Second Case show that the stockholders are
bringing a "derivative suit". In the caption itself, petitioners claim to have brought suit "for and in
behalf of the Producers Bank of the Philippines" 24. Indeed, this is the very essence of a derivative
suit:
An individual stockholder is permitted to institute a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation

wherein he holdsstock in order to protect or vindicate corporate rights, whenever the officials
of the corporation refuse to sue, or are the ones to be sued or hold the control of the
corporation. In such actions, the suing stockholder is regarded as a nominal party, with the
corporation as the real party in interest. (Gamboa v. Victoriano, 90 SCRA 40, 47 [1979];
emphasis supplied).
In the face of the damaging admissions taken from the complaint in the Second Case, petitioners,
quite strangely, sought to deny that the Second Case was a derivative suit, reasoning that it was
brought, not by the minority shareholders, but by Henry Co et al., who not only own, hold or control
over 80% of the outstanding capital stock, but also constitute the majority in the Board of Directors of
petitioner Bank. That being so, then they really represent the Bank. So, whether they sued
"derivatively" or directly, there is undeniably an identity of interests/entity represented.
Petitioner also tried to seek refuge in the corporate fiction that the personality Of the Bank is
separate and distinct from its shareholders. But the rulings of this Court are consistent: "When the
fiction is urged as a means of perpetrating a fraud or an illegal act or as a vehicle for the evasion of
an existing obligation, the circumvention of statutes, the achievement or perfection of a monopoly or
generally the perpetration of knavery or crime, the veil with which the law covers and isolates the
corporation from the members or stockholders who compose it will be lifted to allow for its
consideration merely as an aggregation of individuals." 25
In addition to the many cases 26 where the corporate fiction has been disregarded, we now add the
instant case, and declare herewith that the corporate veil cannot be used to shield an otherwise
blatant violation of the prohibition against forum-shopping. Shareholders, whether suing as the
majority in direct actions or as the minority in a derivative suit, cannot be allowed to trifle with court
processes, particularly where, as in this case, the corporation itself has not been remiss in vigorously
prosecuting or defending corporate causes and in using and applying remedies available to it. To
rule otherwise would be to encourage corporate litigants to use their shareholders as fronts to
circumvent the stringent rules against forum shopping.
Finally, petitioner Bank argued that there cannot be any forum shopping, even
assuming arguendo that there is identity of parties, causes of action and reliefs sought, "because it
(the Bank) was the defendant in the (first) case while it was the plaintiff in the other (Second
Case)",citing as authority Victronics Computers, Inc., vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Makati,
etc. et al., 27 where Court held:
The rule has not been extended to a defendant who, for reasons known only to him,
commences a new action against the plaintiff — instead of filing a responsive pleading in the
other case — setting forth therein, as causes of action, specific denials, special and
affirmative defenses or even counterclaims, Thus, Velhagen's and King's motion to dismiss
Civil Case No. 91-2069 by no means negates the charge of forum-shopping as such did not
exist in the first place. (emphasis supplied)
Petitioner pointed out that since it was merely the defendant in the original case, it could not have
chosen the forum in said case.
Respondent, on the other hand, replied that there is a difference in factual setting
between Victronics and the present suit. In the former, as underscored in the above-quoted Court
ruling, the defendants did not file any responsive pleading in the first case. In other words, they did
not make any denial or raise any defense or counter-claim therein In the case before us however,
petitioners filed a responsive pleading to the complaint — as a result of which, the issues were
joined.
Indeed, by praying for affirmative reliefs and interposing counter–claims in their responsive
pleadings, the petitioners became plaintiffs themselves in the original case, giving unto themselves
the very remedies they repeated in the Second Case.
Ultimately, what is truly important to consider in determining whether forum-shopping exists or not is
the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigant by a party who asks different courts and/or
administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or
substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being
rendered by the different fora upon the same issue. In this case, this is exactly the problem: a
decision recognizing the perfection and directing the enforcement of the contract of sale will directly
conflict with a possible decision in the Second Case barring the parties front enforcing or
implementing the said sale. Indeed, a final decision in one would constitute res judicata in the
other 28.
The foregoing conclusion finding the existence of forum-shopping notwithstanding, the only sanction
possible now is the dismissal of both cases with prejudice, as the other sanctions cannot be imposed
because petitioners' present counsel entered their appearance only during the proceedings in this
Court, and the Petition's VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION contained sufficient allegations as to the
pendency of the Second Case to show good faith in observing Circular 28-91. The Lawyers who filed
the Second Case are not before us; thus the rudiments of due process prevent us from motu
propio imposing disciplinary measures against them in this Decision. However, petitioners
themselves (and particularly Henry Co, et al.) as litigants are admonished to strictly follow the rules
against forum-shopping and not to trifle with court proceedings and processes They are warned that
a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely.
Having said that, let it be emphasized that this petition should be dismissed not merely because of
forum-shopping but also because of the substantive issues raised, as will be discussed shortly.
The Second Issue: Was The Contract Perfected?
The respondent Court correctly treated the question of whether or not there was, on the basis of the
facts established, a perfected contract of sale as the ultimate issue. Holding that a valid contract has
been established, respondent Court stated:
There is no dispute that the object of the transaction is that property owned by the defendant
bank as acquired assets consisting of six (6) parcels of land specifically identified under
Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-106932 to T-106937. It is likewise beyond cavil that the
bank intended to sell the property. As testified to by the Bank's Deputy Conservator, Jose
Entereso, the bank was looking for buyers of the property. It is definite that the plaintiffs
wanted to purchase the property and it was precisely for this purpose that they met with
defendant Rivera, Manager of the Property Management Department of the defendant bank,
in early August 1987. The procedure in the sale of acquired assets as well as the nature and
scope of the authority of Rivera on the matter is clearly delineated in the testimony of Rivera
himself, which testimony was relied upon by both the bank and by Rivera in their appeal
briefs. Thus (TSN of July 30, 1990. pp. 19-20):
A: The procedure runs this way: Acquired assets was turned over to me and then I
published it in the form of an inter-office memorandum distributed to all branches that
these are acquired assets for sale. I was instructed to advertise acquired assets for
sale so on that basis, I have to entertain offer; to accept offer, formal offer and upon
having been offered, I present it to the Committee. I provide the Committee with
necessary information about the property such as original loan of the borrower, bid
price during the foreclosure, total claim of the bank, the appraised value at the time
the property is being offered for sale and then the information which are relative to
the evaluation of the bank to buy which the Committee considers and it is the
Committee that evaluate as against the exposure of the bank and it is also the
Committee that submit to the Conservator for final approval and once approved, we
have to execute the deed of sale and it is the Conservator that sign the deed of sale,
sir.
The plaintiffs, therefore, at that meeting of August 1987 regarding their purpose of buying the
property, dealt with and talked to the right person. Necessarily, the agenda was the price of
the property, and plaintiffs were dealing with the bank official authorized to entertain offers, to
accept offers and to present the offer to the Committee before which the said official is
authorized to discuss information relative to price determination. Necessarily, too, it being
inherent in his authority, Rivera is the officer from whom official information regarding the
price, as determined by the Committee and approved by the Conservator, can be had. And
Rivera confirmed his authority when he talked with the plaintiff in August 1987. The
testimony of plaintiff Demetria is clear on this point (TSN of May 31,1990, pp. 27-28):
Q: When you went to the Producers Bank and talked with Mr. Mercurio Rivera, did
you ask him point-blank his authority to sell any property?
A: No, sir. Not point blank although it came from him, (W)hen I asked him how long it
would take because he was saying that the matter of pricing will be passed upon by
the committee. And when I asked him how long it will take for the committee to
decide and he said the committee meets every week. If I am not mistaken
Wednesday and in about two week's (sic) time, in effect what he was saying he was
not the one who was to decide. But he would refer it to the committee and he would
relay the decision of the committee to me.
Q — Please answer the question.
A — He did not say that he had the authority (.) But he said he would refer the matter
to the committee and he would relay the decision to me and he did just like that.
"Parenthetically, the Committee referred to was the Past Due Committee of which Luis Co
was the Head, with Jose Entereso as one of the members.
What transpired after the meeting of early August 1987 are consistent with the authority and
the duties of Rivera and the bank's internal procedure in the matter of the sale of bank's
assets. As advised by Rivera, the plaintiffs made a formal offer by a letter dated August 20,
1987 stating that they would buy at the price of P3.5 Million in cash. The letter was for the
attention of Mercurio Rivera who was tasked to convey and accept such offers. Considering
an aspect of the official duty of Rivera as some sort of intermediary between the plaintiffs-
buyers with their proposed buying price on one hand, and the bank Committee, the
Conservator and ultimately the bank itself with the set price on the other, and considering
further the discussion of price at the meeting of August resulting in a formal offer of P3.5
Million in cash, there can be no other logical conclusion than that when, on September 1,
1987, Rivera informed plaintiffs by letter that "the bank's counter-offer is at P5.5 Million for
more than 101 hectares on lot basis," such counter-offer price had been determined by the
Past Due Committee and approved by the Conservator after Rivera had duly presented
plaintiffs' offer for discussion by the Committee of such matters as original loan of borrower,
bid price during foreclosure, total claim of the bank, and market value. Tersely put, under the
established facts, the price of P5.5 Million was, as clearly worded in Rivera's letter (Exh. "E"),
the official and definitive price at which the bank was selling the property.
There were averments by defendants below, as well as before this Court, that the P5.5
Million price was not discussed by the Committee and that price. As correctly characterized
by the trial court, this is not credible. The testimonies of Luis Co and Jose Entereso on this
point are at best equivocal and considering the gratuitous and self-serving character of these
declarations, the bank's submission on this point does not inspire belief. Both Co ad
Entereso, as members of the Past Due Committee of the bank, claim that the offer of the
plaintiff was never discussed by the Committee. In the same vein, both Co and Entereso
openly admit that they seldom attend the meetings of the Committee. It is important to note
that negotiations on the price had started in early August and the plaintiffs had already
offered an amount as purchase price, having been made to understand by Rivera, the official
in charge of the negotiation, that the price will be submitted for approval by the bank and that
the bank's decision will be relayed to plaintiffs. From the facts, the official bank price. At any
rate, the bank placed its official, Rivera, in a position of authority to accept offers to buy and
negotiate the sale by having the offer officially acted upon by the bank. The bank cannot turn
around and later say, as it now does, that what Rivera states as the bank's action on the
matter is not in fact so. It is a familiar doctrine, the doctrine of ostensible authority, that if a
corporation knowingly permits one of its officers, or any other agent, to do acts within the
scope of an apparent authority, and thus holds him out to the public as possessing power to
do those acts, the corporation will, as against any one who has in good faith dealt with the
corporation through such agent, he estopped from denying his authority (Francisco v. GSIS,
7 SCRA 577, 583-584; PNB v. Court of Appeals, 94 SCRA 357, 369-370; Prudential Bank v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103957, June 14, 1993). 29
Article 1318 of the Civil Code enumerates the requisites of a valid and perfected contract as follows:
"(1) Consent of the contracting parties; (2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract;
(3) Cause of the obligation which is established."
There is no dispute on requisite no. 2. The object of the questioned contract consists of the six (6)
parcels of land in Sta. Rosa, Laguna with an aggregate area of about 101 hectares, more or less,
and covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-106932 to T-106937. There is, however, a
dispute on the first and third requisites.
Petitioners allege that "there is no counter-offer made by the Bank, and any supposed counter-offer
which Rivera (or Co) may have made is unauthorized. Since there was no counter-offer by the Bank,
there was nothing for Ejercito (in substitution of Demetria and Janolo) to accept." 30 They disputed
the factual basis of the respondent Court's findings that there was an offer made by Janolo for P3.5
million, to which the Bank counter-offered P5.5 million. We have perused the evidence but cannot
find fault with the said Court's findings of fact. Verily, in a petition under Rule 45 such as this, errors
of fact — if there be any - are, as a rule, not reviewable. The mere fact that respondent Court (and
the trial court as well) chose to believe the evidence presented by respondent more than that
presented by petitioners is not by itself a reversible error. In fact, such findings merit serious
consideration by this Court, particularly where, as in this case, said courts carefully and meticulously
discussed their findings. This is basic.
Be that as it may, and in addition to the foregoing disquisitions by the Court of Appeals, let us review
the question of Rivera's authority to act and petitioner's allegations that the P5.5 million counter-offer
was extinguished by the P4.25 million revised offer of Janolo. Here, there are questions of law which
could be drawn from the factual findings of the respondent Court. They also delve into the
contractual elements of consent and cause.
The authority of a corporate officer in dealing with third persons may be actual or apparent. The
doctrine of "apparent authority", with special reference to banks, was laid out in Prudential Bank vs.
Court of Appeals31, where it was held that:
Conformably, we have declared in countless decisions that the principal is liable for
obligations contracted by the agent. The agent's apparent representation yields to the
principal's true representation and the contract is considered as entered into between the
principal and the third person (citing National Food Authority vs. Intermediate Appellate
Court, 184 SCRA 166).
A bank is liable for wrongful acts of its officers done in the interests of the bank or in
the course of dealings of the officers in their representative capacity but not for acts
outside the scape of their authority (9 C.J.S., p. 417). A bank holding out its officers
and agents as worthy of confidence will not be permitted to profit by the frauds they
may thus be enabled to perpetrate in the apparent scope of their employment; nor
will it be permitted to shirk its responsibility for such frauds even though no benefit
may accrue to the bank therefrom (10 Am Jur 2d, p. 114). Accordingly, a banking
corporation is liable to innocent third persons where the representation is made in the
course of its business by an agent acting within the general scope of his authority
even though, in the particular case, the agent is secretly abusing his authority and
attempting to perpetrate a fraud upon his principal or some other person, for his own
ultimate benefit (McIntosh v. Dakota Trust Co., 52 ND 752, 204 NW 818, 40 ALR
1021).
Application of these principles is especially necessary because banks have a fiduciary

relationship with the public and their stability depends on the confidence of the people in their
honesty and efficiency. Such faith will be eroded where banks do not exercise strict care in
the selection and supervision of its employees, resulting in prejudice to their depositors.
From the evidence found by respondent Court, it is obvious that petitioner Rivera has apparent or
implied authority to act for the Bank in the matter of selling its acquired assets. This evidence
includes the following:
(a) The petition itself in par. II-i (p. 3) states that Rivera was "at all times material to this case,
Manager of the Property Management Department of the Bank". By his own admission,
Rivera was already the person in charge of the Bank's acquired assets (TSN, August 6,
1990, pp. 8-9);
(b) As observed by respondent Court, the land was definitely being sold by the Bank. And
during the initial meeting between the buyers and Rivera, the latter suggested that the
buyers' offer should be no less than P3.3 million (TSN, April 26, 1990, pp. 16-17);
(c) Rivera received the buyers' letter dated August 30, 1987 offering P3.5 million (TSN, 30
July 1990, p.11);
(d) Rivera signed the letter dated September 1, 1987 offering to sell the property for P5.5
million (TSN, July 30, p. 11);
(e) Rivera received the letter dated September 17, 1987 containing the buyers' proposal to
buy the property for P4.25 million (TSN, July 30, 1990, p. 12);
(f) Rivera, in a telephone conversation, confirmed that the P5.5 million was the final price of
the Bank (TSN, January 16, 1990, p. 18);
(g) Rivera arranged the meeting between the buyers and Luis Co on September 28, 1994,
during which the Bank's offer of P5.5 million was confirmed by Rivera (TSN, April 26, 1990,
pp. 34-35). At said meeting, Co, a major shareholder and officer of the Bank, confirmed
Rivera's statement as to the finality of the Bank's counter-offer of P5.5 million (TSN, January
16, 1990, p. 21; TSN, April 26, 1990, p. 35);
(h) In its newspaper advertisements and announcements, the Bank referred to Rivera as the
officer acting for the Bank in relation to parties interested in buying assets owned/acquired by
the Bank. In fact, Rivera was the officer mentioned in the Bank's advertisements offering for
sale the property in question (cf. Exhs. "S" and "S-1").
In the very recent case of Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et. al.32, the Court,
through Justice Jose A. R. Melo, affirmed the doctrine of apparent authority as it held that the
apparent authority of the officer of the Bank of P.I. in charge of acquired assets is borne out by
similar circumstances surrounding his dealings with buyers.
To be sure, petitioners attempted to repudiate Rivera's apparent authority through documents and
testimony which seek to establish Rivera's actual authority. These pieces of evidence, however, are
inherently weak as they consist of Rivera's self-serving testimony and various inter-office
memoranda that purport to show his limited actual authority, of which private respondent cannot be
charged with knowledge. In any event, since the issue is apparent authority, the existence of which
is borne out by the respondent Court's findings, the evidence of actual authority is immaterial insofar
as the liability of a corporation is concerned 33.
Petitioners also argued that since Demetria and Janolo were experienced lawyers and their "law
firm" had once acted for the Bank in three criminal cases, they should be charged with actual
knowledge of Rivera's limited authority. But the Court of Appeals in its Decision (p. 12) had already
made a factual finding that the buyers had no notice of Rivera's actual authority prior to the sale. In
fact, the Bank has not shown that they acted as its counsel in respect to any acquired assets; on the
other hand, respondent has proven that Demetria and Janolo merely associated with a loose
aggrupation of lawyers (not a professional partnership), one of whose members (Atty. Susana
Parker) acted in said criminal cases.
Petitioners also alleged that Demetria's and Janolo's P4.25 million counter-offer in the letter dated
September 17, 1987 extinguished the Bank's offer of P5.5 million 34 .They disputed the respondent
Court's finding that "there was a meeting of minds when on 30 September 1987 Demetria and
Janolo through Annex "L" (letter dated September 30, 1987) "accepted" Rivera's counter offer of
P5.5 million under Annex "J" (letter dated September 17, 1987)", citing the late Justice Paras35, Art.
1319 of the Civil Code 36 and related Supreme Court rulings starting with Beaumont vs. Prieto 37.
However, the above-cited authorities and precedents cannot apply in the instant case because, as
found by the respondent Court which reviewed the testimonies on this point, what was "accepted" by
Janolo in his letter dated September 30, 1987 was the Bank's offer of P5.5 million as confirmed and
reiterated to Demetria and Atty. Jose Fajardo by Rivera and Co during their meeting on September
28, 1987. Note that the said letter of September 30, 1987 begins with"(p)ursuant to our discussion
last 28 September 1987 . . .
Petitioners insist that the respondent Court should have believed the testimonies of Rivera and Co
that the September 28, 1987 meeting "was meant to have the offerors improve on their position of
P5.5. million."38However, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found petitioners' testimonial
evidence "not credible", and we find no basis for changing this finding of fact.
Indeed, we see no reason to disturb the lower courts' (both the RTC and the CA) common finding
that private respondents' evidence is more in keeping with truth and logic — that during the meeting
on September 28, 1987, Luis Co and Rivera "confirmed that the P5.5 million price has been passed
upon by the Committee and could no longer be lowered (TSN of April 27, 1990, pp. 34-35)"39.
Hence, assuming arguendo that the counter-offer of P4.25 million extinguished the offer of P5.5
million, Luis Co's reiteration of the said P5.5 million price during the September 28, 1987
meeting revived the said offer. And by virtue of the September 30, 1987 letter accepting
this revived offer, there was a meeting of the minds, as the acceptance in said letter was absolute
and unqualified.
We note that the Bank's repudiation, through Conservator Encarnacion, of Rivera's authority and
action, particularly the latter's counter-offer of P5.5 million, as being "unauthorized and illegal" came
only on May 12, 1988 or more than seven (7) months after Janolo' acceptance. Such delay, and the
absence of any circumstance which might have justifiably prevented the Bank from acting earlier,
clearly characterizes the repudiation as nothing more than a last-minute attempt on the Bank's part
to get out of a binding contractual obligation.
Taken together, the factual findings of the respondent Court point to an implied admission on the
part of the petitioners that the written offer made on September 1, 1987 was carried through during
the meeting of September 28, 1987. This is the conclusion consistent with human experience, truth
and good faith.
It also bears noting that this issue of extinguishment of the Bank's offer of P5.5 million was raised for
the first time on appeal and should thus be disregarded.
This Court in several decisions has repeatedly adhered to the principle that points of law,
theories, issues of fact and arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the trial
court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot
be raised for the first time on appeal (Santos vs. IAC, No. 74243, November 14, 1986, 145
SCRA 592).40
. . . It is settled jurisprudence that an issue which was neither averred in the complaint nor
raised during the trial in the court below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as it
would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process (Dihiansan vs. CA,
153 SCRA 713 [1987]; Anchuelo vs. IAC, 147 SCRA 434 [1987]; Dulos Realty &
Development Corp. vs. CA, 157 SCRA 425 [1988]; Ramos vs. IAC, 175 SCRA 70 [1989];
Gevero vs. IAC, G.R. 77029, August 30, 1990).41
Since the issue was not raised in the pleadings as an affirmative defense, private respondent was
not given an opportunity in the trial court to controvert the same through opposing evidence. Indeed,
this is a matter of due process. But we passed upon the issue anyway, if only to avoid deciding the
case on purely procedural grounds, and we repeat that, on the basis of the evidence already in the
record and as appreciated by the lower courts, the inevitable conclusion is simply that there was a
perfected contract of sale.
The Third Issue: Is the Contract Enforceable?
The petition alleged42:
Even assuming that Luis Co or Rivera did relay a verbal offer to sell at P5.5 million during the
meeting of 28 September 1987, and it was this verbal offer that Demetria and Janolo
accepted with their letter of 30 September 1987, the contract produced thereby would be
unenforceable by action — there being no note, memorandum or writing subscribed by the
Bank to evidence such contract. (Please see article 1403[2], Civil Code.)
Upon the other hand, the respondent Court in its Decision (p, 14) stated:
. . . Of course, the bank's letter of September 1, 1987 on the official price and the plaintiffs'
acceptance of the price on September 30, 1987, are not, in themselves, formal contracts of
sale. They are however clear embodiments of the fact that a contract of sale was perfected
between the parties, such contract being binding in whatever form it may have been entered
into (case citations omitted). Stated simply, the banks' letter of September 1, 1987, taken
together with plaintiffs' letter dated September 30, 1987, constitute in law a sufficient
memorandum of a perfected contract of sale.
The respondent Court could have added that the written communications commenced not only from
September 1, 1987 but from Janolo's August 20, 1987 letter. We agree that, taken together, these
letters constitute sufficient memoranda — since they include the names of the parties, the terms and
conditions of the contract, the price and a description of the property as the object of the contract.
But let it be assumed arguendo that the counter-offer during the meeting on September 28, 1987 did
constitute a "new" offer which was accepted by Janolo on September 30, 1987. Still, the statute of
frauds will not apply by reason of the failure of petitioners to object to oral testimony proving
petitioner Bank's counter-offer of P5.5 million. Hence, petitioners — by such utter failure to object —
are deemed to have waived any defects of the contract under the statute of frauds, pursuant to
Article 1405 of the Civil Code:
Art. 1405. Contracts infringing the Statute of Frauds, referred to in No. 2 of article 1403, are
ratified by the failure to object to the presentation of oral evidence to prove the same, or by
the acceptance of benefits under them.
As private respondent pointed out in his Memorandum, oral testimony on the reaffirmation of the
counter-offer of P5.5 million is a plenty — and the silence of petitioners all throughout the
presentation makes the evidence binding on them thus;
A Yes, sir, I think it was September 28, 1987 and I was again present because Atty.
Demetria told me to accompany him we were able to meet Luis Co at the Bank.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Now, what transpired during this meeting with Luis Co of the Producers Bank?
A Atty. Demetria asked Mr. Luis Co whether the price could be reduced, sir.
Q What price?
A The 5.5 million pesos and Mr. Luis Co said that the amount cited by Mr. Mercurio Rivera is
the final price and that is the price they intends (sic) to have, sir.
Q What do you mean?.
A That is the amount they want, sir.
Q What is the reaction of the plaintiff Demetria to Luis Co's statement (sic) that the defendant
Rivera's counter-offer of 5.5 million was the defendant's bank (sic) final offer?
A He said in a day or two, he will make final acceptance, sir.

Q What is the response of Mr. Luis Co?.
A He said he will wait for the position of Atty. Demetria, sir.
[Direct testimony of Atty. Jose Fajardo, TSN, January 16, 1990, at pp. 18-21.]
Q What transpired during that meeting between you and Mr. Luis Co of the defendant Bank?
A We went straight to the point because he being a busy person, I told him if the amount of
P5.5 million could still be reduced and he said that was already passed upon by the
committee. What the bank expects which was contrary to what Mr. Rivera stated. And he told
me that is the final offer of the bank P5.5 million and we should indicate our position as soon
as possible.
Q What was your response to the answer of Mr. Luis Co?
A I said that we are going to give him our answer in a few days and he said that was it. Atty.
Fajardo and I and Mr. Mercurio [Rivera] was with us at the time at his office.
Q For the record, your Honor please, will you tell this Court who was with Mr. Co in his Office
in Producers Bank Building during this meeting?
A Mr. Co himself, Mr. Rivera, Atty. Fajardo and I.
Q By Mr. Co you are referring to?
A Mr. Luis Co.
Q After this meeting with Mr. Luis Co, did you and your partner accede on (sic) the counter
offer by the bank?
A Yes, sir, we did.? Two days thereafter we sent our acceptance to the bank which offer we
accepted, the offer of the bank which is P5.5 million.
[Direct testimony of Atty. Demetria, TSN, 26 April 1990, at pp. 34-36.]
Q According to Atty. Demetrio Demetria, the amount of P5.5 million was reached by the
Committee and it is not within his power to reduce this amount. What can you say to that
statement that the amount of P5.5 million was reached by the Committee?
A It was not discussed by the Committee but it was discussed initially by Luis Co and the
group of Atty. Demetrio Demetria and Atty. Pajardo (sic) in that September 28, 1987
meeting, sir.
[Direct testimony of Mercurio Rivera, TSN, 30 July 1990, pp. 14-15.]
The Fourth Issue: May the Conservator Revoke

the Perfected and Enforceable Contract.
It is not disputed that the petitioner Bank was under a conservator placed by the Central Bank of the
Philippines during the time that the negotiation and perfection of the contract of sale took place.
Petitioners energetically contended that the conservator has the power to revoke or overrule actions
of the management or the board of directors of a bank, under Section 28-A of Republic Act No. 265
(otherwise known as the Central Bank Act) as follows:
Whenever, on the basis of a report submitted by the appropriate supervising or examining

department, the Monetary Board finds that a bank or a non-bank financial intermediary
performing quasi-banking functions is in a state of continuing inability or unwillingness to
maintain a state of liquidity deemed adequate to protect the interest of depositors and
creditors, the Monetary Board may appoint a conservator to take charge of the assets,
liabilities, and the management of that institution, collect all monies and debts due said
institution and exercise all powers necessary to preserve the assets of the institution,
reorganize the management thereof, and restore its viability. He shall have the power to
overrule or revoke the actions of the previous management and board of directors of the
bank or non-bank financial intermediary performing quasi-banking functions, any provision of
law to the contrary notwithstanding, and such other powers as the Monetary Board shall
deem necessary.
In the first place, this issue of the Conservator's alleged authority to revoke or repudiate the
perfected contract of sale was raised for the first time in this Petition — as this was not litigated in
the trial court or Court of Appeals. As already stated earlier, issues not raised and/or ventilated in the
trial court, let alone in the Court of Appeals, "cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as it would
be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process."43
In the second place, there is absolutely no evidence that the Conservator, at the time the contract
was perfected, actually repudiated or overruled said contract of sale. The Bank's acting conservator
at the time, Rodolfo Romey, never objected to the sale of the property to Demetria and Janolo. What
petitioners are really referring to is the letter of Conservator Encarnacion, who took over from Romey
after the sale was perfected on September 30, 1987 (Annex V, petition) which unilaterally repudiated
— not the contract — but the authority of Rivera to make a binding offer — and which unarguably
came months after the perfection of the contract. Said letter dated May 12, 1988 is reproduced
hereunder:
May 12, 1988
Atty. Noe C. Zarate

Zarate Carandang Perlas & Ass.
Suite 323 Rufino Building
Ayala Avenue, Makati, Metro-Manila
Dear Atty. Zarate:
This pertains to your letter dated May 5, 1988 on behalf of Attys. Janolo and Demetria
regarding the six (6) parcels of land located at Sta. Rosa, Laguna.
We deny that Producers Bank has ever made a legal counter-offer to any of your clients nor
perfected a "contract to sell and buy" with any of them for the following reasons.
In the "Inter-Office Memorandum" dated April 25, 1986 addressed to and approved by former
Acting Conservator Mr. Andres I. Rustia, Producers Bank Senior Manager Perfecto M.
Pascua detailed the functions of Property Management Department (PMD) staff and officers
(Annex A.), you will immediately read that Manager Mr. Mercurio Rivera or any of his
subordinates has no authority, power or right to make any alleged counter-offer. In short,
your lawyer-clients did not deal with the authorized officers of the bank.
Moreover, under Sec. 23 and 36 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines (Bates
Pambansa Blg. 68.) and Sec. 28-A of the Central Bank Act (Rep. Act No. 265, as amended),
only the Board of Directors/Conservator may authorize the sale of any property of the
corportion/bank..
Our records do not show that Mr. Rivera was authorized by the old board or by any of the
bank conservators (starting January, 1984) to sell the aforesaid property to any of your
clients. Apparently, what took place were just preliminary discussions/consultations between
him and your clients, which everyone knows cannot bind the Bank's Board or Conservator.
We are, therefore, constrained to refuse any tender of payment by your clients, as the same
is patently violative of corporate and banking laws. We believe that this is more than
sufficient legal justification for refusing said alleged tender.
Rest assured that we have nothing personal against your clients. All our acts are official,
legal and in accordance with law. We also have no personal interest in any of the properties
of the Bank.
Please be advised accordingly.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) Leonida T. Encarnacion

LEONIDA T. EDCARNACION
Acting Conservator
In the third place, while admittedly, the Central Bank law gives vast and far-reaching powers to the
conservator of a bank, it must be pointed out that such powers must be related to the "(preservation
of) the assets of the bank, (the reorganization of) the management thereof and (the restoration of) its
viability." Such powers, enormous and extensive as they are, cannot extend to the post-
facto repudiation of perfected transactions, otherwise they would infringe against the non-impairment
clause of the Constitution 44. If the legislature itself cannot revoke an existing valid contract, how can
it delegate such non-existent powers to the conservator under Section 28-A of said law?
Obviously, therefore, Section 28-A merely gives the conservator power to revoke contracts that are,
under existing law, deemed to be defective — i.e., void, voidable, unenforceable or rescissible.
Hence, the conservator merely takes the place of a bank's board of directors. What the said board
cannot do — such as repudiating a contract validly entered into under the doctrine of implied
authority — the conservator cannot do either. Ineluctably, his power is not unilateral and he cannot
simply repudiate valid obligations of the Bank. His authority would be only to bring court actions to
assail such contracts — as he has already done so in the instant case. A contrary understanding of
the law would simply not be permitted by the Constitution. Neither by common sense. To rule
otherwise would be to enable a failing bank to become solvent, at the expense of third parties, by
simply getting the conservator to unilaterally revoke all previous dealings which had one way or
another or come to be considered unfavorable to the Bank, yielding nothing to perfected contractual
rights nor vested interests of the third parties who had dealt with the Bank.
The Fifth Issue: Were There Reversible Errors of Facts?
Basic is the doctrine that in petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, findings of fact
by the Court of Appeals are not reviewable by the Supreme Court. In Andres vs. Manufacturers
Hanover & Trust Corporation, 45, we held:
. . . The rule regarding questions of fact being raised with this Court in a petition
for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court has been stated in Remalante vs.
Tibe, G.R. No. 59514, February 25, 1988, 158 SCRA 138, thus:
The rule in this jurisdiction is that only questions of law may be raised in a petition
for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. "The jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court in cases brought to it from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing and revising the
errors of law imputed to it, its findings of the fact being conclusive " [Chan vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. L-27488, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 737, reiterating a long line of
decisions]. This Court has emphatically declared that "it is not the function of the Supreme
Court to analyze or weigh such evidence all over again, its jurisdiction being limited to
reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the lower court" (Tiongco v. De la
Merced, G. R. No. L-24426, July 25, 1974, 58 SCRA 89; Corona vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. L-62482, April 28, 1983, 121 SCRA 865; Baniqued vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-
47531, February 20, 1984, 127 SCRA 596). "Barring, therefore, a showing that the findings
complained of are totally devoid of support in the record, or that they are so glaringly
erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion, such findings must stand, for this
Court is not expected or required to examine or contrast the oral and documentary evidence
submitted by the parties" [Santa Ana, Jr. vs. Hernandez, G. R. No. L-16394, December 17,
1966, 18 SCRA 973] [at pp. 144-145.]
Likewise, in Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals 46, we held:
The resolution of this petition invites us to closely scrutinize the facts of the case, relating to
the sufficiency of evidence and the credibility of witnesses presented. This Court so held that
it is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh such evidence all over again.
The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been
committed by the lower court. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. . . .
As held in the recent case of Chua Tiong Tay vs. Court of Appeals and Goldrock Construction and
Development Corp. 47:
The Court has consistently held that the factual findings of the trial court, as well as the Court
of Appeals, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal. Among the
exceptional circumstances where a reassessment of facts found by the lower courts is
allowed are when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or
conjectures; when the inference made is manifestly absurd, mistaken or impossible; when
there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; when the judgment is premised
on a misapprehension of facts; when the findings went beyond the issues of the case and
the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee. After a careful study
of the case at bench, we find none of the above grounds present to justify the re-evaluation
of the findings of fact made by the courts below.
In the same vein, the ruling of this Court in the recent case of South Sea Surety and Insurance
Company Inc. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. 48 is equally applicable to the present case:
We see no valid reason to discard the factual conclusions of the appellate court, . . . (I)t is
not the function of this Court to assess and evaluate all over again the evidence, testimonial
and documentary, adduced by the parties, particularly where, such as here, the findings of
both the trial court and the appellate court on the matter coincide. (emphasis supplied)
Petitioners, however, assailed the respondent Court's Decision as "fraught with findings and
conclusions which were not only contrary to the evidence on record but have no bases at all,"
specifically the findings that (1) the "Bank's counter-offer price of P5.5 million had been determined
by the past due committee and approved by conservator Romey, after Rivera presented the same
for discussion" and (2) "the meeting with Co was not to scale down the price and start negotiations
anew, but a meeting on the already determined price of P5.5 million" Hence, citing Philippine
National Bank vs. Court of Appeals 49, petitioners are asking us to review and reverse such factual
findings.
The first point was clearly passed upon by the Court of Appeals 50, thus:
There can be no other logical conclusion than that when, on September 1, 1987, Rivera
informed plaintiffs by letter that "the bank's counter-offer is at P5.5 Million for more than 101
hectares on lot basis, "such counter-offer price had been determined by the Past Due
Committee and approved by the Conservator after Rivera had duly presented plaintiffs' offer
for discussion by the Committee . . . Tersely put, under the established fact, the price of P5.5
Million was, as clearly worded in Rivera's letter (Exh. "E"), the official and definitive price at
which the bank was selling the property. (p. 11, CA Decision)
xxx xxx xxx
. . . The argument deserves scant consideration. As pointed out by plaintiff, during the
meeting of September 28, 1987 between the plaintiffs, Rivera and Luis Co, the senior vice-
president of the bank, where the topic was the possible lowering of the price, the bank official
refused it and confirmed that the P5.5 Million price had been passed upon by the Committee
and could no longer be lowered (TSN of April 27, 1990, pp. 34-35) (p. 15, CA Decision).
The respondent Court did not believe the evidence of the petitioners on this point, characterizing it
as "not credible" and "at best equivocal and considering the gratuitous and self-serving character of
these declarations, the bank's submissions on this point do not inspire belief."
To become credible and unequivocal, petitioners should have presented then Conservator Rodolfo
Romey to testify on their behalf, as he would have been in the best position to establish their thesis.
Under the rules on evidence 51, such suppression gives rise to the presumption that his testimony
would have been adverse, if produced.
The second point was squarely raised in the Court of Appeals, but petitioners' evidence was deemed
insufficient by both the trial court and the respondent Court, and instead, it was respondent's
submissions that were believed and became bases of the conclusions arrived at.
In fine, it is quite evident that the legal conclusions arrived at from the findings of fact by the lower
courts are valid and correct. But the petitioners are now asking this Court to disturb these findings to
fit the conclusion they are espousing, This we cannot do.
To be sure, there are settled exceptions where the Supreme Court may disregard findings of fact by
the Court of Appeals 52. We have studied both the records and the CA Decision and we find no such
exceptions in this case. On the contrary, the findings of the said Court are supported by a
preponderance of competent and credible evidence. The inferences and conclusions are seasonably
based on evidence duly identified in the Decision. Indeed, the appellate court patiently traversed and
dissected the issues presented before it, lending credibility and dependability to its findings. The best
that can be said in favor of petitioners on this point is that the factual findings of respondent Court
did not correspond to petitioners' claims, but were closer to the evidence as presented in the trial
court by private respondent. But this alone is no reason to reverse or ignore such factual findings,
particularly where, as in this case, the trial court and the appellate court were in common agreement
thereon. Indeed, conclusions of fact of a trial judge — as affirmed by the Court of Appeals — are
conclusive upon this Court, absent any serious abuse or evident lack of basis or capriciousness of
any kind, because the trial court is in a better position to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and
their courtroom manner as well as to examine the real evidence presented.
Epilogue.
In summary, there are two procedural issues involved forum-shopping and the raising of issues for
the first time on appeal [viz., the extinguishment of the Bank's offer of P5.5 million and the
conservator's powers to repudiate contracts entered into by the Bank's officers] — which per
se could justify the dismissal of the present case. We did not limit ourselves thereto, but delved as
well into the substantive issues — the perfection of the contract of sale and its enforceability, which
required the determination of questions of fact. While the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and as
a rule we are not required to look into the factual bases of respondent Court's decisions and
resolutions, we did so just the same, if only to find out whether there is reason to disturb any of its
factual findings, for we are only too aware of the depth, magnitude and vigor by which the parties
through their respective eloquent counsel, argued their positions before this Court.
We are not unmindful of the tenacious plea that the petitioner Bank is operating abnormally under a
government-appointed conservator and "there is need to rehabilitate the Bank in order to get it back
on its feet . . . as many people depend on (it) for investments, deposits and well as employment. As
of June 1987, the Bank's overdraft with the Central Bank had already reached P1.023 billion . . . and
there were (other) offers to buy the subject properties for a substantial amount of money." 53
While we do not deny our sympathy for this distressed bank, at the same time, the Court cannot
emotionally close its eyes to overriding considerations of substantive and procedural law, like
respect for perfected contracts, non-impairment of obligations and sanctions against forum-
shopping, which must be upheld under the rule of law and blind justice.
This Court cannot just gloss over private respondent's submission that, while the subject properties
may currently command a much higher price, it is equally true that at the time of the transaction in
1987, the price agreed upon of P5.5 million was reasonable, considering that the Bank acquired
these properties at a foreclosure sale for no more than P3.5 million 54. That the Bank procrastinated
and refused to honor its commitment to sell cannot now be used by it to promote its own advantage,
to enable it to escape its binding obligation and to reap the benefits of the increase in land values.
To rule in favor of the Bank simply because the property in question has algebraically accelerated in
price during the long period of litigation is to reward lawlessness and delays in the fulfillment of
binding contracts. Certainly, the Court cannot stamp its imprimatur on such outrageous proposition.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the questioned Decision and Resolution, the Court
hereby DENIES the petition. The assailed Decision is AFFIRMED. Moreover, petitioner Bank is
REPRIMANDED for engaging in forum-shopping and WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
SUPREME COURT
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 120077 October 13, 2000
THE MANILA HOTEL CORP. AND MANILA HOTEL INTL. LTD., petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ARBITER CEFERINA J. DIOSANA AND
MARCELO G. SANTOS, respondents.
PARDO, J.:
The case before the Court is a petition for certiorari1 to annul the following orders of the National
Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as "NLRC") for having been issued without or
with excess jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion:2
(1) Order of May 31, 1993.3 Reversing and setting aside its earlier resolution of August 28,
1992.4 The questioned order declared that the NLRC, not the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (hereinafter referred to as "POEA"), had jurisdiction over private
respondent's complaint;
(2) Decision of December 15, 1994.5 Directing petitioners to jointly and severally pay private
respondent twelve thousand and six hundred dollars (US$ 12,600.00) representing salaries
for the unexpired portion of his contract; three thousand six hundred dollars (US$3,600.00)
as extra four months salary for the two (2) year period of his contract, three thousand six
hundred dollars (US$3,600.00) as "14th month pay" or a total of nineteen thousand and eight
hundred dollars (US$19,800.00) or its peso equivalent and attorney's fees amounting to ten
percent (10%) of the total award; and
(3) Order of March 30, 1995.6 Denying the motion for reconsideration of the petitioners.
In May, 1988, private respondent Marcelo Santos (hereinafter referred to as "Santos") was an
overseas worker employed as a printer at the Mazoon Printing Press, Sultanate of Oman.
Subsequently, in June 1988, he was directly hired by the Palace Hotel, Beijing, People's Republic of
China and later terminated due to retrenchment.
Petitioners are the Manila Hotel Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "MHC") and the Manila Hotel
International Company, Limited (hereinafter referred to as "MHICL").
When the case was filed in 1990, MHC was still a government-owned and controlled corporation
duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines.
MHICL is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Hong Kong.7 MHC is an
"incorporator" of MHICL, owning 50% of its capital stock.8
By virtue of a "management agreement"9 with the Palace Hotel (Wang Fu Company Limited),
MHICL10 trained the personnel and staff of the Palace Hotel at Beijing, China.
Now the facts.

During his employment with the Mazoon Printing Press in the Sultanate of Oman, respondent
Santos received a letter dated May 2, 1988 from Mr. Gerhard R. Shmidt, General Manager, Palace
Hotel, Beijing, China. Mr. Schmidt informed respondent Santos that he was recommended by one
Nestor Buenio, a friend of his.
Mr. Shmidt offered respondent Santos the same position as printer, but with a higher monthly salary
and increased benefits. The position was slated to open on October 1, 1988.11
On May 8, 1988, respondent Santos wrote to Mr. Shmidt and signified his acceptance of the offer.
On May 19, 1988, the Palace Hotel Manager, Mr. Hans J. Henk mailed a ready to sign employment
contract to respondent Santos. Mr. Henk advised respondent Santos that if the contract was
acceptable, to return the same to Mr. Henk in Manila, together with his passport and two additional
pictures for his visa to China.
On May 30, 1988, respondent Santos resigned from the Mazoon Printing Press, effective June 30,
1988, under the pretext that he was needed at home to help with the family's piggery and poultry
business.
On June 4, 1988, respondent Santos wrote the Palace Hotel and acknowledged Mr. Henk's letter.
Respondent Santos enclosed four (4) signed copies of the employment contract (dated June 4,
1988) and notified them that he was going to arrive in Manila during the first week of July 1988.
The employment contract of June 4, 1988 stated that his employment would commence September
1, 1988 for a period of two years.12 It provided for a monthly salary of nine hundred dollars
(US$900.00) net of taxes, payable fourteen (14) times a year.13
On June 30, 1988, respondent Santos was deemed resigned from the Mazoon Printing Press.
On July 1, 1988, respondent Santos arrived in Manila.
On November 5, 1988, respondent Santos left for Beijing, China. He started to work at the Palace
Hotel.14
Subsequently, respondent Santos signed an amended "employment agreement" with the Palace
Hotel, effective November 5, 1988. In the contract, Mr. Shmidt represented the Palace Hotel. The
Vice President (Operations and Development) of petitioner MHICL Miguel D. Cergueda signed the
employment agreement under the word "noted".
From June 8 to 29, 1989, respondent Santos was in the Philippines on vacation leave. He returned
to China and reassumed his post on July 17, 1989.
On July 22, 1989, Mr. Shmidt's Executive Secretary, a certain Joanna suggested in a handwritten
note that respondent Santos be given one (1) month notice of his release from employment.
On August 10, 1989, the Palace Hotel informed respondent Santos by letter signed by Mr. Shmidt
that his employment at the Palace Hotel print shop would be terminated due to business reverses
brought about by the political upheaval in China.15 We quote the letter:16
"After the unfortunate happenings in China and especially Beijing (referring to Tiannamen
Square incidents), our business has been severely affected. To reduce expenses, we will not
open/operate printshop for the time being.
"We sincerely regret that a decision like this has to be made, but rest assured this does in no
way reflect your past performance which we found up to our expectations."
"Should a turnaround in the business happen, we will contact you directly and give you
priority on future assignment."
On September 5, 1989, the Palace Hotel terminated the employment of respondent Santos and paid
all benefits due him, including his plane fare back to the Philippines.
On October 3, 1989, respondent Santos was repatriated to the Philippines.
On October 24, 1989, respondent Santos, through his lawyer, Atty. Ednave wrote Mr. Shmidt,
demanding full compensation pursuant to the employment agreement.
On November 11, 1989, Mr. Shmidt replied, to wit:17
His service with the Palace Hotel, Beijing was not abruptly terminated but we followed the
one-month notice clause and Mr. Santos received all benefits due him.
"For your information the Print Shop at the Palace Hotel is still not operational and with a low
business outlook, retrenchment in various departments of the hotel is going on which is a
normal management practice to control costs.
"When going through the latest performance ratings, please also be advised that his
performance was below average and a Chinese National who is doing his job now shows a
better approach.
"In closing, when Mr. Santos received the letter of notice, he hardly showed up for work but
still enjoyed free accommodation/laundry/meals up to the day of his departure."
On February 20, 1990, respondent Santos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Arbitration
Branch, National Capital Region, National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). He prayed for an
award of nineteen thousand nine hundred and twenty three dollars (US$19,923.00) as actual
damages, forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00) as exemplary damages and attorney's fees equivalent
to 20% of the damages prayed for. The complaint named MHC, MHICL, the Palace Hotel and Mr.
Shmidt as respondents.
The Palace Hotel and Mr. Shmidt were not served with summons and neither participated in the
proceedings before the Labor Arbiter.18
On June 27, 1991, Labor Arbiter Ceferina J. Diosana, decided the case against petitioners, thus:19
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
"1. directing all the respondents to pay complainant jointly and severally;
"a) $20,820 US dollars or its equivalent in Philippine currency as unearned salaries;

"b) P50,000.00 as moral damages;
"c) P40,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
"d) Ten (10) percent of the total award as attorney's fees.
"SO ORDERED."
On July 23, 1991, petitioners appealed to the NLRC, arguing that the POEA, not the NLRC had
jurisdiction over the case.
On August 28, 1992, the NLRC promulgated a resolution, stating:20
"WHEREFORE, let the appealed Decision be, as it is hereby, declared null and void for want
of jurisdiction. Complainant is hereby enjoined to file his complaint with the POEA.
"SO ORDERED."
On September 18, 1992, respondent Santos moved for reconsideration of the afore-quoted
resolution. He argued that the case was not cognizable by the POEA as he was not an "overseas
contract worker."21
On May 31, 1993, the NLRC granted the motion and reversed itself. The NLRC directed Labor
Arbiter Emerson Tumanon to hear the case on the question of whether private respondent was
retrenched or dismissed.22
On January 13, 1994, Labor Arbiter Tumanon completed the proceedings based on the testimonial
and documentary evidence presented to and heard by him.23
Subsequently, Labor Arbiter Tumanon was re-assigned as trial Arbiter of the National Capital
Region, Arbitration Branch, and the case was transferred to Labor Arbiter Jose G. de Vera.24
On November 25, 1994, Labor Arbiter de Vera submitted his report.25 He found that respondent
Santos was illegally dismissed from employment and recommended that he be paid actual damages
equivalent to his salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract.26
On December 15, 1994, the NLRC ruled in favor of private respondent, to wit:27
"WHEREFORE, finding that the report and recommendations of Arbiter de Vera are
supported by substantial evidence, judgment is hereby rendered, directing the respondents
to jointly and severally pay complainant the following computed contractual benefits: (1)
US$12,600.00 as salaries for the unexpired portion of the parties' contract; (2) US$3,600.00
as extra four (4) months salary for the two (2) years period (sic) of the parties' contract; (3)
US$3,600.00 as "14th month pay" for the aforesaid two (2) years contract stipulated by the
parties or a total of US$19,800.00 or its peso equivalent, plus (4) attorney's fees of 10% of
complainant's total award.
"SO ORDERED."
On February 2, 1995, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that Labor Arbiter de
Vera's recommendation had no basis in law and in fact.28
On March 30, 1995, the NLRC denied the motion for reconsideration.29
Hence, this petition.30
On October 9, 1995, petitioners filed with this Court an urgent motion for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction and a motion for the annulment of the entry of
judgment of the NLRC dated July 31, 1995.31
On November 20, 1995, the Court denied petitioner's urgent motion. The Court required respondents
to file their respective comments, without giving due course to the petition.32
On March 8, 1996, the Solicitor General filed a manifestation stating that after going over the petition
and its annexes, they can not defend and sustain the position taken by the NLRC in its assailed
decision and orders. The Solicitor General prayed that he be excused from filing a comment on
behalf of the NLRC33
On April 30,1996, private respondent Santos filed his comment.34
On June 26, 1996, the Court granted the manifestation of the Solicitor General and required the
NLRC to file its own comment to the petition.35
On January 7, 1997, the NLRC filed its comment.
The petition is meritorious.
I. Forum Non-Conveniens
The NLRC was a seriously inconvenient forum.
We note that the main aspects of the case transpired in two foreign jurisdictions and the case
involves purely foreign elements. The only link that the Philippines has with the case is that
respondent Santos is a Filipino citizen. The Palace Hotel and MHICL are foreign corporations. Not
all cases involving our citizens can be tried here.
The employment contract. — Respondent Santos was hired directly by the Palace Hotel, a foreign
employer, through correspondence sent to the Sultanate of Oman, where respondent Santos was
then employed. He was hired without the intervention of the POEA or any authorized recruitment
agency of the government.36
Under the rule of forum non conveniens, 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; (2) that the Philippine court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as
to the law and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine court has or is likely to have power to enforce its
decision.37 The conditions are unavailing in the case at bar.
Not Convenient. — We fail to see how the NLRC is a convenient forum given that all the incidents of
the case — from the time of recruitment, to employment to dismissal occurred outside the
Philippines. The inconvenience is compounded by the fact that the proper defendants, the Palace
Hotel and MHICL are not nationals of the Philippines. Neither .are they "doing business in the
Philippines." Likewise, the main witnesses, Mr. Shmidt and Mr. Henk are non-residents of the
Philippines.
No power to determine applicable law. — Neither can an intelligent decision be made as to the law
governing the employment contract as such was perfected in foreign soil. This calls to fore the
application of the principle of lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract was
made).38
The employment contract was not perfected in the Philippines. Respondent Santos signified his
acceptance by writing a letter while he was in the Republic of Oman. This letter was sent to the
Palace Hotel in the People's Republic of China.
No power to determine the facts. — Neither can the NLRC determine the facts surrounding the
alleged illegal dismissal as all acts complained of took place in Beijing, People's Republic of China.
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.
Principle of effectiveness, no power to execute decision. — Even assuming that a proper decision
could be reached by the NLRC, such would not have any binding effect against the employer, the
Palace Hotel. The Palace Hotel is a corporation incorporated under the laws of China and was not
even served with summons. Jurisdiction over its person was not acquired.
This is not to say that Philippine courts and agencies have no power to solve controversies involving
foreign employers. Neither are we saying that we do not have power over an employment contract
executed in a foreign country. If Santos were an "overseas contract worker", a Philippine forum,
specifically the POEA, not the NLRC, would protect him.39 He is not an "overseas contract worker" a
fact which he admits with conviction.40
Even assuming that the NLRC was the proper forum, even on the merits, the NLRC's decision
cannot be sustained.
II. MHC Not Liable
Even if we assume two things: (1) that the NLRC had jurisdiction over the case, and (2) that MHICL
was liable for Santos' retrenchment, still MHC, as a separate and distinct juridical entity cannot be
held liable.
True, MHC is an incorporator of MHICL and owns fifty percent (50%) of its capital stock. However,
this is not enough to pierce the veil of corporate fiction between MHICL and MHC.
Piercing the veil of corporate entity is an equitable remedy. It is resorted to when the corporate
fiction is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend a crime. 41 It is
done only when a corporation is a mere alter ego or business conduit of a person or another
corporation.
In Traders Royal Bank v. Court of Appeals,42 we held that "the mere ownership by a single
stockholder or by another corporation of all or nearly all of the capital stock of a corporation is not of
itself a sufficient reason for disregarding the fiction of separate corporate personalities."
The tests in determining whether the corporate veil may be pierced are: First, the defendant must
have control or complete domination of the other corporation's finances, policy and business
practices with regard to the transaction attacked. There must be proof that the other corporation had
no separate mind, will or existence with respect the act complained of. Second, control must be used
by the defendant to commit fraud or wrong. Third, the aforesaid control or breach of duty must be the
proximate cause of the injury or loss complained of. The absence of any of the elements prevents
the piercing of the corporate veil.43
It is basic that a corporation has a personality separate and distinct from those composing it as well
as from that of any other legal entity to which it may be related.44 Clear and convincing evidence is
needed to pierce the veil of corporate fiction.45 In this case, we find no evidence to show that MHICL
and MHC are one and the same entity.
III. MHICL not Liable
Respondent Santos predicates MHICL's liability on the fact that MHICL "signed" his employment
contract with the Palace Hotel. This fact fails to persuade us.
First, we note that the Vice President (Operations and Development) of MHICL, Miguel D. Cergueda
signed the employment contract as a mere witness. He merely signed under the word "noted".
When one "notes" a contract, one is not expressing his agreement or approval, as a party
would.46 In Sichangco v. Board of Commissioners of Immigration,47 the Court recognized that the
term "noted" means that the person so noting has merely taken cognizance of the existence of an
act or declaration, without exercising a judicious deliberation or rendering a decision on the matter.
Mr. Cergueda merely signed the "witnessing part" of the document. The "witnessing part" of the
document is that which, "in a deed or other formal instrument is that part which comes after the
recitals, or where there are no recitals, after the parties (emphasis ours)."48 As opposed to a party to
a contract, a witness is simply one who, "being present, personally sees or perceives a thing; a
beholder, a spectator, or eyewitness."49 One who "notes" something just makes a "brief written
statement"50 a memorandum or observation.
Second, and more importantly, there was no existing employer-employee relationship between
Santos and MHICL. In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the
following elements are considered:51
"(1) the selection and engagement of the employee;
"(2) the payment of wages;
"(3) the power to dismiss; and
"(4) the power to control employee's conduct."
MHICL did not have and did not exercise any of the aforementioned powers. It did not select
respondent Santos as an employee for the Palace Hotel. He was referred to the Palace Hotel by his
friend, Nestor Buenio. MHICL did not engage respondent Santos to work. The terms of employment
were negotiated and finalized through correspondence between respondent Santos, Mr. Schmidt
and Mr. Henk, who were officers and representatives of the Palace Hotel and not MHICL. Neither did
respondent Santos adduce any proof that MHICL had the power to control his conduct. Finally, it
was the Palace Hotel, through Mr. Schmidt and not MHICL that terminated respondent Santos'
services.
Neither is there evidence to suggest that MHICL was a "labor-only contractor."52 There is no proof
that MHICL "supplied" respondent Santos or even referred him for employment to the Palace Hotel.
Likewise, there is no evidence to show that the Palace Hotel and MHICL are one and the same
entity. The fact that the Palace Hotel is a member of the "Manila Hotel Group" is not enough to
pierce the corporate veil between MHICL and the Palace Hotel.
IV. Grave Abuse of Discretion
Considering that the NLRC was forum non-conveniens and considering further that no employer-
employee relationship existed between MHICL, MHC and respondent Santos, Labor Arbiter Ceferina
J. Diosana clearly had no jurisdiction over respondent's claim in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-02-01058-
90.
Labor Arbiters have exclusive and original jurisdiction only over the following:53
"1. Unfair labor practice cases;
"2. Termination disputes;
"3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving
wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment;
"4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from employer-
employee relations;
"5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions involving
legality of strikes and lockouts; and
"6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and maternity
benefits, all other claims, arising from employer-employee relations, including those of
persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand
pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement."
In all these cases, an employer-employee relationship is an indispensable jurisdictional requirement.
The jurisdiction of labor arbiters and the NLRC under Article 217 of the Labor Code is limited to
disputes arising from an employer-employee relationship which can be resolved by reference to the
Labor Code, or other labor statutes, or their collective bargaining agreements.54
"To determine which body has jurisdiction over the present controversy, we rely on the sound judicial
principle that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and is determined by the
allegations of the complaint irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims
asserted therein."55
The lack of jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter was obvious from the allegations of the complaint. His
failure to dismiss the case amounts to grave abuse of discretion.56
V. The Fallo
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby GRANTS the petition for certiorari and ANNULS the orders and
resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission dated May 31, 1993, December 15, 1994
and March 30, 1995 in NLRC NCR CA No. 002101-91 (NLRC NCR Case No. 00-02-01058-90).
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C .J ., Puno, Kapunan, Pardo and Ynares-Santiago, JJ ., concur.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-32636 March 17, 1930
In the matter Estate of Edward Randolph Hix, deceased.

A.W. FLUEMER, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
ANNIE COUSHING HIX, oppositor-appellee.
C.A. Sobral for appellant.

Harvey & O' Brien and Gibbs & McDonough for appellee.
MALCOLM, J.:
The special administrator of the estate of Edward Randolph Hix appeals from a decision of Judge of
First Instance Tuason denying the probate of the document alleged to by the last will and testament
of the deceased. Appellee is not authorized to carry on this appeal. We think, however, that the
appellant, who appears to have been the moving party in these proceedings, was a "person
interested in the allowance or disallowance of a will by a Court of First Instance," and so should be
permitted to appeal to the Supreme Court from the disallowance of the will (Code of Civil Procedure,
sec. 781, as amended; Villanueva vs. De Leon [1925], 42 Phil., 780).
It is theory of the petitioner that the alleged will was executed in Elkins, West Virginia, on November
3, 1925, by Hix who had his residence in that jurisdiction, and that the laws of West Verginia Code,
Annotated, by Hogg, Charles E., vol. 2, 1914, p. 1690, and as certified to by the Director of the
National Library. But this was far from a compliance with the law. The laws of a foreign jurisdiction
do not prove themselves in our courts. the courts of the Philippine Islands are not authorized to take
American Union. Such laws must be proved as facts. (In re Estate of Johnson [1918], 39 Phil., 156.)
Here the requirements of the law were not met. There was no was printed or published under the
authority of the State of West Virginia, as provided in section 300 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Nor
was the extract from the law attested by the certificate of the officer having charge of the original,
under the sale of the State of West Virginia, as provided in section 301 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. No evidence was introduced to show that the extract from the laws of West Virginia was
in force at the time the alleged will was executed.
In addition, the due execution of the will was not established. The only evidence on this point is to be
found in the testimony of the petitioner. Aside from this, there was nothing to indicate that the will
was acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two competent witnesses, of that these
witnesses subscribed the will in the presence of the testator and of each other as the law of West
Virginia seems to require. On the supposition that the witnesses to the will reside without the
Philippine Islands, it would then the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means
(Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 633.)
It was also necessary for the petitioner to prove that the testator had his domicile in West Virginia
and not establish this fact consisted of the recitals in the CATHY will and the testimony of the
petitioner. Also in beginning administration proceedings orginally in the Philippine Islands, the
petitioner violated his own theory by attempting to have the principal administration in the Philippine
Islands.
While the appeal pending submission in this court, the attorney for the appellant presented an
unverified petition asking the court to accept as part of the evidence the documents attached to the
petition. One of these documents discloses that a paper writing purporting to be the was presented
for probate on June 8, 1929, to the clerk of Randolph Country, State of West Virginia, in vacation,
and was duly proven by the oaths of Dana Wamsley and Joseph L. MAdden, the subscribing
witnesses thereto , and ordered to be recorded and filed. It was shown by another document that, in
vacation, on June 8, 1929, the clerk of court of Randolph Country, West Virginia, appointed Claude
W. Maxwell as administrator, cum testamento annexo, of the estate of Edward Randolph Hix,
deceased. In this connection, it is to be noted that the application for the probate of the will in the
Philippines was filed on February 20, 1929, while the proceedings in West Virginia appear to have
been initiated on June 8, 1929. These facts are strongly indicative of an intention to make the
Philippines the principal administration and West Virginia the ancillary administration. However this
may be, no attempt has been made to comply with Civil Procedure, for no hearing on the question of
the allowance of a will said to have been proved and allowed in West Virginia has been requested.
There is no showing that the deceased left any property at any place other than the Philippine
Islands and no contention that he left any in West Virginia.
Reference has been made by the parties to a divorce purported to have been awarded Edward
Randolph Hix from Annie Cousins Hix on October 8, 1925, in the State of West specific
pronouncements on the validity or validity of this alleged divorce.
For all of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed, with the costs of this instance
against the appellant.
Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-12105 January 30, 1960
TESTATE ESTATE OF C. O. BOHANAN, deceased. PHILIPPINE TRUST CO., executor-appellee,

vs.
MAGDALENA C. BOHANAN, EDWARD C. BOHANAN, and MARY LYDIA
BOHANAN, oppositors-appellants.
Jose D. Cortes for appellants.

Ohnick, Velilla and Balonkita for appellee.
LABRADOR, J.:
Appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon. Ramon San Jose, presiding,
dismissing the objections filed by Magdalena C. Bohanan, Mary Bohanan and Edward Bohanan to
the project of partition submitted by the executor and approving the said project.
On April 24, 195 0, the Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon. Rafael Amparo, presiding, admitted to
probate a last will and testament of C. O. Bohanan, executed by him on April 23, 1944 in Manila. In
the said order, the court made the following findings:
According to the evidence of the opponents the testator was born in Nebraska and therefore
a citizen of that state, or at least a citizen of California where some of his properties are
located. This contention in untenable. Notwithstanding the long residence of the decedent in
the Philippines, his stay here was merely temporary, and he continued and remained to be a
citizen of the United States and of the state of his pertinent residence to spend the rest of his
days in that state. His permanent residence or domicile in the United States depended upon
his personal intent or desire, and he selected Nevada as his homicide and therefore at the
time of his death, he was a citizen of that state. Nobody can choose his domicile or
permanent residence for him. That is his exclusive personal right.
Wherefore, the court finds that the testator C. O. Bohanan was at the time of his death a
citizen of the United States and of the State of Nevada and declares that his will and
testament, Exhibit A, is fully in accordance with the laws of the state of Nevada and admits
the same to probate. Accordingly, the Philippine Trust Company, named as the executor of
the will, is hereby appointed to such executor and upon the filing of a bond in the sum of
P10,000.00, let letters testamentary be issued and after taking the prescribed oath, it may
enter upon the execution and performance of its trust. (pp. 26-27, R.O.A.).
It does not appear that the order granting probate was ever questions on appeal. The executor filed
a project of partition dated January 24, 1956, making, in accordance with the provisions of the will,
the following adjudications: (1) one-half of the residuary estate, to the Farmers and Merchants
National Bank of Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. in trust only for the benefit of testator's grandson
Edward George Bohanan, which consists of several mining companies; (2) the other half of the
residuary estate to the testator's brother, F.L. Bohanan, and his sister, Mrs. M. B. Galbraith, share
and share alike. This consist in the same amount of cash and of shares of mining stock similar to
those given to testator's grandson; (3) legacies of P6,000 each to his (testator) son, Edward Gilbert
Bohana, and his daughter, Mary Lydia Bohanan, to be paid in three yearly installments; (4) legacies
to Clara Daen, in the amount of P10,000.00; Katherine Woodward, P2,000; Beulah Fox, P4,000; and
Elizabeth Hastings, P2,000;
It will be seen from the above that out of the total estate (after deducting administration expenses) of
P211,639.33 in cash, the testator gave his grandson P90,819.67 and one-half of all shares of stock
of several mining companies and to his brother and sister the same amount. To his children he gave
a legacy of only P6,000 each, or a total of P12,000.
The wife Magadalena C. Bohanan and her two children question the validity of the testamentary
provisions disposing of the estate in the manner above indicated, claiming that they have been
deprived of the legitimate that the laws of the form concede to them.
The first question refers to the share that the wife of the testator, Magdalena C. Bohanan, should be
entitled to received. The will has not given her any share in the estate left by the testator. It is argued
that it was error for the trial court to have recognized the Reno divorce secured by the testator from
his Filipino wife Magdalena C. Bohanan, and that said divorce should be declared a nullity in this
jurisdiction, citing the case of Querubin vs. Querubin, 87 Phil., 124, 47 Off. Gaz., (Sup, 12) 315,
Cousins Hiz vs. Fluemer, 55 Phil., 852, Ramirez vs. Gmur, 42 Phil., 855 and Gorayeb vs. Hashim,
50 Phil., 22. The court below refused to recognize the claim of the widow on the ground that the laws
of Nevada, of which the deceased was a citizen, allow him to dispose of all of his properties without
requiring him to leave any portion of his estate to his wife. Section 9905 of Nevada Compiled Laws
of 1925 provides:
Every person over the age of eighteen years, of sound mind, may, by last will, dispose of all
his or her estate, real and personal, the same being chargeable with the payment of the
testator's debts.
Besides, the right of the former wife of the testator, Magdalena C. Bohanan, to a share in the
testator's estafa had already been passed upon adversely against her in an order dated June 19,
1955, (pp. 155-159, Vol II Records, Court of First Instance), which had become final, as Magdalena
C. Bohanan does not appear to have appealed therefrom to question its validity. On December 16,
1953, the said former wife filed a motion to withdraw the sum of P20,000 from the funds of the
estate, chargeable against her share in the conjugal property, (See pp. 294-297, Vol. I, Record,
Court of First Instance), and the court in its said error found that there exists no community property
owned by the decedent and his former wife at the time the decree of divorce was issued. As already
and Magdalena C. Bohanan may no longer question the fact contained therein, i.e. that there was no
community property acquired by the testator and Magdalena C. Bohanan during their converture.
Moreover, the court below had found that the testator and Magdalena C. Bohanan were married on
January 30, 1909, and that divorce was granted to him on May 20, 1922; that sometime in 1925,
Magdalena C. Bohanan married Carl Aaron and this marriage was subsisting at the time of the death
of the testator. Since no right to share in the inheritance in favor of a divorced wife exists in the State
of Nevada and since the court below had already found that there was no conjugal property between
the testator and Magdalena C. Bohanan, the latter can now have no longer claim to pay portion of
the estate left by the testator.
The most important issue is the claim of the testator's children, Edward and Mary Lydia, who had
received legacies in the amount of P6,000 each only, and, therefore, have not been given their
shares in the estate which, in accordance with the laws of the forum, should be two-thirds of the
estate left by the testator. Is the failure old the testator to give his children two-thirds of the estate left
by him at the time of his death, in accordance with the laws of the forum valid?
The old Civil Code, which is applicable to this case because the testator died in 1944, expressly
provides that successional rights to personal property are to be earned by the national law of the
person whose succession is in question. Says the law on this point:
Nevertheless, legal and testamentary successions, in respect to the order of succession as

well as to the extent of the successional rights and the intrinsic validity of their provisions,
shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is in question,
whatever may be the nature of the property and the country in which it is found. (par. 2, Art.
10, old Civil Code, which is the same as par. 2 Art. 16, new Civil Code.)
In the proceedings for the probate of the will, it was found out and it was decided that the testator
was a citizen of the State of Nevada because he had selected this as his domicile and his
permanent residence. (See Decision dated April 24, 1950, supra). So the question at issue is
whether the estementary dispositions, especially hose for the children which are short of the legitime
given them by the Civil Code of the Philippines, are valid. It is not disputed that the laws of Nevada
allow a testator to dispose of all his properties by will (Sec. 9905, Complied Nevada Laws of
1925, supra). It does not appear that at time of the hearing of the project of partition, the above-
quoted provision was introduced in evidence, as it was the executor's duly to do. The law of Nevada,
being a foreign law can only be proved in our courts in the form and manner provided for by our
Rules, which are as follows:
SEC. 41. Proof of public or official record. — An official record or an entry therein, when
admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy
tested by the officer having the legal custody of he record, or by his deputy, and
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer
has the custody. . . . (Rule 123).
We have, however, consulted the records of the case in the court below and we have found that
during the hearing on October 4, 1954 of the motion of Magdalena C. Bohanan for withdrawal of
P20,000 as her share, the foreign law, especially Section 9905, Compiled Nevada Laws. was
introduced in evidence by appellant's (herein) counsel as Exhibits "2" (See pp. 77-79, VOL. II, and
t.s.n. pp. 24-44, Records, Court of First Instance). Again said laws presented by the counsel for the
executor and admitted by the Court as Exhibit "B" during the hearing of the case on January 23,
1950 before Judge Rafael Amparo (se Records, Court of First Instance, Vol. 1).
In addition, the other appellants, children of the testator, do not dispute the above-quoted provision
of the laws of the State of Nevada. Under all the above circumstances, we are constrained to hold
that the pertinent law of Nevada, especially Section 9905 of the Compiled Nevada Laws of 1925,
can be taken judicial notice of by us, without proof of such law having been offered at the hearing of
the project of partition.
As in accordance with Article 10 of the old Civil Code, the validity of testamentary dispositions are to
be governed by the national law of the testator, and as it has been decided and it is not disputed that
the national law of the testator is that of the State of Nevada, already indicated above, which allows
a testator to dispose of all his property according to his will, as in the case at bar, the order of the
court approving the project of partition made in accordance with the testamentary provisions, must
be, as it is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellants.
Paras, Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo and Endencia, JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., concurs in the result.
Citation. Ala. Sup. Ct., 97 Ala. 126, 11 So. 803 (1892).
Brief Fact Summary.

Carroll (Plaintiff) worked as a railroad brakeman, and was injured in Mississippi due to
the failure of other employees’ to inspect the brakes in Alabama.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
Where a negligent act is committed in one state, but causes injury in a different state, an
action seeking damages for injuries resulting from the act may be brought only in the state
where the result occurred, and not where the act was committed.
Facts.
Carroll (Plaintiff), a resident of Alabama, was injured in Mississippi due to a break in a
defective railroad car link. The Railroad’s (Defendant) employees had been negligent in
their duty to inspect the links in Alabama. Plaintiff sued the Defendant in Alabama under
a state statute that authorized recovery. Mississippi would have denied recovery as it
had no similar statute.
Issue.
May recovery be obtained for a tortious act in the state where the breach of duty occurred,
but not the injury?
(McClellan, J.) No. The general rule is that recovery cannot be made in one state for the
injuries to the person sustained in a different state unless the infliction of the injuries is
actionable under the law of the state where the injuries were received. In this case, up to the
time the train passed from Alabama, no injury had resulted. The Alabama statute has no
efficiency beyond state lines. Only Mississippi could apply proper jurisdiction over the claim.
There may have been a different result if Carroll had been injured in Alabama but suffered in
Mississippi. As for an argument that the Railroad (Defendant) was under a contractual duty to
Carroll (Plaintiff), which arose in Alabama, the Alabama law will govern only occurrences of the
employment relationship and not with any specific contractual obligations. Reversed and
remanded.
Dissent.
Under the First Restatement, where a tort is involved the choice of law focuses on the situs of
the wrong””that is, where the last incidence required to make the defendant liable took
place. This will usually be the place of plaintiff’s injury.
GRANT v MCAULIFFE
Brief Fact Summary

Two California residents driving separate cars in Arizona crashed into one another and
one died as a result. Under Arizona law, a tort action did not survive the death of the
plaintiff, while under California law it did.
Synopsis of Rule of Law

Statutes providing for the survival of a tort action if the plaintiff dies are procedural, not
substantive, and may be applied to a suit that arises from an injury sustained in a different
jurisdiction.
Facts
Pullen was a resident of California and the driver of an automobile who died as result of
an auto accident in which he was allegedly the negligent party. The accident took place
in Arizona. Grant (Plaintiff), also a resident of California, was injured in the accident and
sought damages from McAuliffe (Defendant), Pullen’s administrator. Under California
law, tort actions survive the tortfeasor’s death, however, under Arizona law they do
not. The California trial court found that Arizona law applied sine it was a substantive
rather than procedural nature and, therefore, granted McAuliffe’s (Defendant) motion to
abate Plaintiff’s suit. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the law was in fact procedural and
therefore the law of the forum, California, should apply.
Issue
Is a survival statute as to tort actions substantive law that would govern litigation over
injuries sustained wherever the case is tried?
Held
(Traynor, J.) No. A survival statute as to tort actions is not substantive law that would govern
litigation over injuries sustained wherever the case is tried. This court recognizes the doctrine
that the substantive law of the place of the wrong must govern litigation wherever it is
tried. However, the forum state may always follow its own procedural rules of law. Since the
authorities are split on whether a survival statute is procedural or substantive, this court will
determine which argument has the most merit. Because a survival statute does not create a
new cause of action but simply allows the continuation of an existing action, it is procedural. All
the relevant contacts are with California and the survival statute does not relate to liability but is
a procedural rule to enforce claims for damages. Since a court may always follow its own
procedural rules, this case may properly be tried under California law. Reversed and
remanded.
Dissent
(Schauer, J.) The characterization of this statute as procedural will produce a “rule” of
law that is no rule at all. The only limit on the variable results this will produce is the limit
of the judge’s whimsy. Administration of an estate is a local procedure but the rights and
liabilities of the parties in a personal injury suit are substantive.
Discussion
The California court was preparing the groundwork for abandoning the vested rights
doctrine in choice of laws. The substance-procedure distinction was an escape device to
allow the state that had the most contacts to apply its own law to the case. Arizona had
no interest in this case, as all the parties and their families were in California.
BIENVENIDO
Gerardo A. Del Mundo and Associates for petitioners.

Romulo, Mabanta, Sayoc, Buenaventura, De los Angeles Law Offices for BRII/AIBC.
Florante M. De Castro for private respondents in 105029-32.
QUIASON, J.:
The petition in G.R. No. 104776, entitled "Bienvenido M. Cadalin, et. al. v. Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration's Administrator, et. al.," was filed under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of
Court:
(1) to modify the Resolution dated September 2, 1991 of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) in POEA Cases Nos.
L-84-06-555, L-85-10-777, L-85-10-779 and L-86-05-460; (2) to render a new
decision: (i) declaring private respondents as in default; (ii) declaring the said labor
cases as a class suit; (iii) ordering Asia International Builders Corporation (AIBC) and
Brown and Root International Inc. (BRII) to pay the claims of the 1,767 claimants in
said labor cases; (iv) declaring Atty. Florante M. de Castro guilty of forum-shopping;
and (v) dismissing POEA Case No. L-86-05-460; and
(3) to reverse the Resolution dated March 24, 1992 of NLRC, denying the motion for
reconsideration of its Resolution dated September 2, 1991 (Rollo, pp. 8-288).
The petition in G.R. Nos. 104911-14, entitled "Bienvenido M. Cadalin, et. al., v. Hon. National Labor
Relations Commission, et. al.," was filed under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court:
(1) to reverse the Resolution dated September 2, 1991 of NLRC in POEA Cases
Nos. L-84-06-555, L-85-10-777, L-85-10-799 and
L-86-05-460 insofar as it: (i) applied the three-year prescriptive period under the
Labor Code of the Philippines instead of the ten-year prescriptive period under the
Civil Code of the Philippines; and (ii) denied the
"three-hour daily average" formula in the computation of petitioners' overtime pay;
and
(2) to reverse the Resolution dated March 24, 1992 of NLRC, denying the motion for
reconsideration of its Resolution dated September 2, 1991 (Rollo, pp. 8-25; 26-220).
The petition in G.R. Nos. 105029-32, entitled "Asia International Builders Corporation, et. al., v.
National Labor Relations Commission, et. al." was filed under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court:
(1) to reverse the Resolution dated September 2, 1991 of NLRC in POEA Cases
Nos. L-84-06-555, L-85-10-777, L-85-10-779 and
L-86-05-460, insofar as it granted the claims of 149 claimants; and
(2) to reverse the Resolution dated March 21, 1992 of NLRC insofar as it denied the
motions for reconsideration of AIBC and BRII (Rollo, pp. 2-59; 61-230).
The Resolution dated September 2, 1991 of NLRC, which modified the decision of POEA in four
labor cases: (1) awarded monetary benefits only to 149 claimants and (2) directed Labor Arbiter
Fatima J. Franco to conduct hearings and to receive evidence on the claims dismissed by the POEA
for lack of substantial evidence or proof of employment.
Consolidation of Cases
G.R. Nos. 104776 and 105029-32 were originally raffled to the Third Division while G.R. Nos.
104911-14 were raffled to the Second Division. In the Resolution dated July 26, 1993, the Second
Division referred G.R. Nos. 104911-14 to the Third Division (G.R. Nos. 104911-14, Rollo, p. 895).
In the Resolution dated September 29, 1993, the Third Division granted the motion filed in G.R. Nos.
104911-14 for the consolidation of said cases with G.R. Nos. 104776 and 105029-32, which were
assigned to the First Division (G.R. Nos. 104911-14, Rollo, pp. 986-1,107; G.R. Nos. 105029-
30, Rollo, pp. 369-377, 426-432). In the Resolution dated October 27, 1993, the First Division
granted the motion to consolidate G.R. Nos. 104911-14 with G.R. No. 104776 (G.R. Nos. 104911-
14, Rollo, p. 1109; G.R. Nos. 105029-32, Rollo, p. 1562).
On June 6, 1984, Bienvenido M.. Cadalin, Rolando M. Amul and Donato B. Evangelista, in their own
behalf and on behalf of 728 other overseas contract workers (OCWs) instituted a class suit by filing
an "Amended Complaint" with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) for
money claims arising from their recruitment by AIBC and employment by BRII (POEA Case No. L-
84-06-555). The claimants were represented by Atty. Gerardo del Mundo.
BRII is a foreign corporation with headquarters in Houston, Texas, and is engaged in construction;
while AIBC is a domestic corporation licensed as a service contractor to recruit, mobilize and deploy
Filipino workers for overseas employment on behalf of its foreign principals.
The amended complaint principally sought the payment of the unexpired portion of the employment
contracts, which was terminated prematurely, and secondarily, the payment of the interest of the
earnings of the Travel and Reserved Fund, interest on all the unpaid benefits; area wage and salary
differential pay; fringe benefits; refund of SSS and premium not remitted to the SSS; refund of
withholding tax not remitted to the BIR; penalties for committing prohibited practices; as well as the
suspension of the license of AIBC and the accreditation of BRII (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 13-14).
At the hearing on June 25, 1984, AIBC was furnished a copy of the complaint and was given,
together with BRII, up to July 5, 1984 to file its answer.
On July 3, 1984, POEA Administrator, upon motion of AIBC and BRII, ordered the claimants to file a
bill of particulars within ten days from receipt of the order and the movants to file their answers within
ten days from receipt of the bill of particulars. The POEA Administrator also scheduled a pre-trial
conference on July 25, 1984.
On July 13, 1984, the claimants submitted their "Compliance and Manifestation." On July 23, 1984,
AIBC filed a "Motion to Strike Out of the Records", the "Complaint" and the "Compliance and
Manifestation." On July 25, 1984, the claimants filed their "Rejoinder and Comments," averring,
among other matters, the failure of AIBC and BRII to file their answers and to attend the pre-trial
conference on July 25, 1984. The claimants alleged that AIBC and BRII had waived their right to
present evidence and had defaulted by failing to file their answers and to attend the pre-trial
conference.
On October 2, 1984, the POEA Administrator denied the "Motion to Strike Out of the Records" filed
by AIBC but required the claimants to correct the deficiencies in the complaint pointed out in the
order.
On October 10, 1984, claimants asked for time within which to comply with the Order of October 2,
1984 and filed an "Urgent Manifestation," praying that the POEA Administrator direct the parties to
submit simultaneously their position papers, after which the case should be deemed submitted for
decision. On the same day, Atty. Florante de Castro filed another complaint for the same money
claims and benefits in behalf of several claimants, some of whom were also claimants in POEA
Case No. L-84-06-555 (POEA Case No. 85-10-779).
On October 19, 1984, claimants filed their "Compliance" with the Order dated October 2, 1984 and
an "Urgent Manifestation," praying that the POEA direct the parties to submit simultaneously their
position papers after which the case would be deemed submitted for decision. On the same day,
AIBC asked for time to file its comment on the "Compliance" and "Urgent Manifestation" of
claimants. On November 6, 1984, it filed a second motion for extension of time to file the comment.
On November 8, 1984, the POEA Administrator informed AIBC that its motion for extension of time
was granted.
On November 14, 1984, claimants filed an opposition to the motions for extension of time and asked
that AIBC and BRII be declared in default for failure to file their answers.
On November 20, 1984, AIBC and BRII filed a "Comment" praying, among other reliefs, that
claimants should be ordered to amend their complaint.
On December 27, 1984, the POEA Administrator issued an order directing AIBC and BRII to file their
answers within ten days from receipt of the order.
On February 27, 1985, AIBC and BRII appealed to NLRC seeking the reversal of the said order of
the POEA Administrator. Claimants opposed the appeal, claiming that it was dilatory and praying
that AIBC and BRII be declared in default.
On April 2, 1985, the original claimants filed an "Amended Complaint and/or Position Paper" dated
March 24, 1985, adding new demands: namely, the payment of overtime pay, extra night work pay,
annual leave differential pay, leave indemnity pay, retirement and savings benefits and their share of
forfeitures (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 14-16). On April 15, 1985, the POEA Administrator directed
AIBC to file its answer to the amended complaint (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, p. 20).
On May 28, 1985, claimants filed an "Urgent Motion for Summary Judgment." On the same day, the
POEA issued an order directing AIBC and BRII to file their answers to the "Amended Complaint,"
otherwise, they would be deemed to have waived their right to present evidence and the case would
be resolved on the basis of complainant's evidence.
On June 5, 1985, AIBC countered with a "Motion to Dismiss as Improper Class Suit and Motion for
Bill of Particulars Re: Amended Complaint dated March 24, 1985." Claimants opposed the motions.
On September 4, 1985, the POEA Administrator reiterated his directive to AIBC and BRII to file their
answers in POEA Case No. L-84-06-555.
On September 18, 1985, AIBC filed its second appeal to the NLRC, together with a petition for the
issuance of a writ of injunction. On September 19, 1985, NLRC enjoined the POEA Administrator
from hearing the labor cases and suspended the period for the filing of the answers of AIBC and
BRII.
On September 19, 1985, claimants asked the POEA Administrator to include additional claimants in
the case and to investigate alleged wrongdoings of BRII, AIBC and their respective lawyers.
On October 10, 1985, Romeo Patag and two co-claimants filed a complaint (POEA Case No. L-85-
10-777) against AIBC and BRII with the POEA, demanding monetary claims similar to those subject
of POEA Case No. L-84-06-555. In the same month, Solomon Reyes also filed his own complaint
(POEA Case No. L-85-10-779) against AIBC and BRII.
On October 17, 1985, the law firm of Florante M. de Castro & Associates asked for the substitution
of the original counsel of record and the cancellation of the special powers of attorney given the
original counsel.
On December 12, 1985, Atty. Del Mundo filed in NLRC a notice of the claim to enforce attorney's
lien.
On May 29, 1986, Atty. De Castro filed a complaint for money claims (POEA Case No. 86-05-460) in
behalf of 11 claimants including Bienvenido Cadalin, a claimant in POEA Case No. 84-06-555.
On December 12, 1986, the NLRC dismissed the two appeals filed on February 27, 1985 and
September 18, 1985 by AIBC and BRII.
In narrating the proceedings of the labor cases before the POEA Administrator, it is not amiss to
mention that two cases were filed in the Supreme Court by the claimants, namely — G.R. No. 72132
on September 26, 1985 and Administrative Case No. 2858 on March 18, 1986. On May 13, 1987,
the Supreme Court issued a resolution in Administrative Case No. 2858 directing the POEA
Administrator to resolve the issues raised in the motions and oppositions filed in POEA Cases Nos.
L-84-06-555 and L-86-05-460 and to decide the labor cases with deliberate dispatch.
AIBC also filed a petition in the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 78489), questioning the Order dated
September 4, 1985 of the POEA Administrator. Said order required BRII and AIBC to answer the
amended complaint in POEA Case No. L-84-06-555. In a resolution dated November 9, 1987, we
dismissed the petition by informing AIBC that all its technical objections may properly be resolved in
the hearings before the POEA.
Complaints were also filed before the Ombudsman. The first was filed on September 22, 1988 by
claimant Hermie Arguelles and 18 co-claimants against the POEA Administrator and several NLRC
Commissioners. The Ombudsman merely referred the complaint to the Secretary of Labor and
Employment with a request for the early disposition of POEA Case No. L-84-06-555. The second
was filed on April 28, 1989 by claimants Emigdio P. Bautista and Rolando R. Lobeta charging AIBC
and BRII for violation of labor and social legislations. The third was filed by Jose R. Santos,
Maximino N. Talibsao and Amado B. Bruce denouncing AIBC and BRII of violations of labor laws.
On January 13, 1987, AIBC filed a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC Resolution dated
December 12, 1986.
On January 14, 1987, AIBC reiterated before the POEA Administrator its motion for suspension of
the period for filing an answer or motion for extension of time to file the same until the resolution of
its motion for reconsideration of the order of the NLRC dismissing the two appeals. On April 28,
1987, NLRC en banc denied the motion for reconsideration.
At the hearing on June 19, 1987, AIBC submitted its answer to the complaint. At the same hearing,
the parties were given a period of 15 days from said date within which to submit their respective
position papers. On June 24, 1987 claimants filed their "Urgent Motion to Strike Out Answer,"
alleging that the answer was filed out of time. On June 29, 1987, claimants filed their "Supplement to
Urgent Manifestational Motion" to comply with the POEA Order of June 19, 1987. On February 24,
1988, AIBC and BRII submitted their position paper. On March 4, 1988, claimants filed their "Ex-
Parte Motion to Expunge from the Records" the position paper of AIBC and BRII, claiming that it was
filed out of time.
On September 1, 1988, the claimants represented by Atty. De Castro filed their memorandum in
POEA Case No. L-86-05-460. On September 6, 1988, AIBC and BRII submitted their Supplemental
Memorandum. On September 12, 1988, BRII filed its "Reply to Complainant's Memorandum." On
October 26, 1988, claimants submitted their "Ex-Parte Manifestational Motion and Counter-
Supplemental Motion," together with 446 individual contracts of employments and service records.
On October 27, 1988, AIBC and BRII filed a "Consolidated Reply."
On January 30, 1989, the POEA Administrator rendered his decision in POEA Case No. L-84-06-
555 and the other consolidated cases, which awarded the amount of $824,652.44 in favor of only
324 complainants.
On February 10, 1989, claimants submitted their "Appeal Memorandum For Partial Appeal" from the
decision of the POEA. On the same day, AIBC also filed its motion for reconsideration and/or appeal
in addition to the "Notice of Appeal" filed earlier on February 6, 1989 by another counsel for AIBC.
On February 17, 1989, claimants filed their "Answer to Appeal," praying for the dismissal of the
appeal of AIBC and BRII.
On March 15, 1989, claimants filed their "Supplement to Complainants' Appeal Memorandum,"
together with their "newly discovered evidence" consisting of payroll records.
On April 5, 1989, AIBC and BRII submitted to NLRC their "Manifestation," stating among other
matters that there were only 728 named claimants. On April 20, 1989, the claimants filed their
"Counter-Manifestation," alleging that there were 1,767 of them.
On July 27, 1989, claimants filed their "Urgent Motion for Execution" of the Decision dated January
30, 1989 on the grounds that BRII had failed to appeal on time and AIBC had not posted the
supersedeas bond in the amount of $824,652.44.
On December 23, 1989, claimants filed another motion to resolve the labor cases.
On August 21, 1990, claimants filed their "Manifestational Motion," praying that all the 1,767
claimants be awarded their monetary claims for failure of private respondents to file their answers
within the reglamentary period required by law.
On September 2, 1991, NLRC promulgated its Resolution, disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the POEA in these
consolidated cases is modified to the extent and in accordance with the following
dispositions:
1. The claims of the 94 complainants identified and listed in Annex

"A" hereof are dismissed for having prescribed;
2. Respondents AIBC and Brown & Root are hereby ordered, jointly
and severally, to pay the 149 complainants, identified and listed in
Annex "B" hereof, the peso equivalent, at the time of payment, of the
total amount in US dollars indicated opposite their respective names;
3. The awards given by the POEA to the 19 complainants classified

and listed in Annex "C" hereof, who appear to have worked
elsewhere than in Bahrain are hereby set aside.
4. All claims other than those indicated in Annex "B", including those
for overtime work and favorably granted by the POEA, are hereby
dismissed for lack of substantial evidence in support thereof or are
beyond the competence of this Commission to pass upon.
In addition, this Commission, in the exercise of its powers and authority under Article
218(c) of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 6715, hereby directs Labor Arbiter
Fatima J. Franco of this Commission to summon parties, conduct hearings and
receive evidence, as expeditiously as possible, and thereafter submit a written report
to this Commission (First Division) of the proceedings taken, regarding the claims of
the following:
(a) complainants identified and listed in Annex "D" attached and

made an integral part of this Resolution, whose claims were
dismissed by the POEA for lack of proof of employment in Bahrain
(these complainants numbering 683, are listed in pages 13 to 23 of
the decision of POEA, subject of the appeals) and,
(b) complainants identified and listed in Annex "E" attached and

made an integral part of this Resolution, whose awards decreed by
the POEA, to Our mind, are not supported by substantial evidence"
(G.R. No. 104776; Rollo, pp. 113-115; G.R. Nos. 104911-14, pp. 85-
87; G.R. Nos. 105029-31, pp. 120-122).
On November 27, 1991, claimant Amado S. Tolentino and 12

co-claimants, who were former clients of Atty. Del Mundo, filed a petition for certiorari with the
Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 120741-44). The petition was dismissed in a resolution dated January 27,
1992.
Three motions for reconsideration of the September 2, 1991 Resolution of the NLRC were filed. The
first, by the claimants represented by Atty. Del Mundo; the second, by the claimants represented by
Atty. De Castro; and the third, by AIBC and BRII.
In its Resolution dated March 24, 1992, NLRC denied all the motions for reconsideration.
Hence, these petitions filed by the claimants represented by Atty. Del Mundo (G.R. No. 104776), the
claimants represented by Atty. De Castro (G.R. Nos. 104911-14) and by AIBC and BRII (G.R. Nos.
105029-32).
II
Compromise Agreements
Before this Court, the claimants represented by Atty. De Castro and AIBC and BRII have submitted,
from time to time, compromise agreements for our approval and jointly moved for the dismissal of
their respective petitions insofar as the claimants-parties to the compromise agreements were
concerned (See Annex A for list of claimants who signed quitclaims).
Thus the following manifestations that the parties had arrived at a compromise agreement and the
corresponding motions for the approval of the agreements were filed by the parties and approved by
the Court:
1) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant Emigdio Abarquez and 47 co-
claimants dated September 2, 1992 (G.R. Nos. 104911-14, Rollo, pp. 263-406; G.R.
Nos. 105029-32, Rollo, pp.
470-615);
2) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving petitioner Bienvenido Cadalin and 82 co-
petitioners dated September 3, 1992 (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 364-507);
3) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant Jose

M. Aban and 36 co-claimants dated September 17, 1992 (G.R. Nos. 105029-
32, Rollo, pp. 613-722; G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 518-626; G.R. Nos. 104911-
14, Rollo, pp. 407-516);
4) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant Antonio T. Anglo and 17 co-
claimants dated October 14, 1992 (G.R. Nos.
105029-32, Rollo, pp. 778-843; G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 650-713; G.R. Nos.
104911-14, Rollo, pp. 530-590);
5) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant Dionisio Bobongo and 6 co-
claimants dated January 15, 1993 (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 813-836; G.R. Nos.
104911-14, Rollo, pp. 629-652);
6) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant Valerio A. Evangelista and 4 co-
claimants dated March 10, 1993 (G.R. Nos. 104911-14, Rollo, pp. 731-746; G.R. No.
104776, Rollo, pp. 1815-1829);
7) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving claimants Palconeri Banaag and 5 co-
claimants dated March 17, 1993 (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 1657-1703; G.R. Nos.
104911-14, Rollo, pp. 655-675);
8) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant Benjamin Ambrosio and 15

other co-claimants dated May 4, 1993 (G.R. Nos. 105029-32, Rollo, pp. 906-956;
G.R. Nos. 104911-14, Rollo, pp. 679-729; G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 1773-1814);
9) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving Valerio Evangelista and 3 co-claimants
dated May 10, 1993 (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 1815-1829);
10) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving petitioner Quiterio R. Agudo and 36 co-
claimants dated June 14, 1993 (G.R. Nos. 105029-32, Rollo, pp. 974-1190; G.R.
Nos. 104911-14, Rollo, pp. 748-864; G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 1066-1183);
11) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant Arnaldo J. Alonzo and 19 co-
claimants dated July 22, 1993 (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 1173-1235; G.R. Nos.
105029-32, Rollo, pp. 1193-1256; G.R. Nos. 104911-14, Rollo, pp. 896-959);
12) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant Ricardo C. Dayrit and 2 co-
claimants dated September 7, 1993 (G.R. Nos.
105029-32, Rollo, pp. 1266-1278; G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 1243-1254; G.R. Nos.
104911-14, Rollo, pp. 972-984);
13) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving claimant Dante C. Aceres and 37 co-
claimants dated September 8, 1993 (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 1257-1375; G.R.
Nos. 104911-14, Rollo, pp. 987-1105; G.R. Nos. 105029-32, Rollo, pp. 1280-1397);
14) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving Vivencio V. Abella and 27 co-claimants
dated January 10, 1994 (G.R. Nos. 105029-32, Rollo, Vol. II);
15) Joint Manifestation and Motion involving Domingo B. Solano and six co-claimants
dated August 25, 1994 (G.R. Nos. 105029-32; G.R. No. 104776; G.R. Nos. 104911-
14).
III
The facts as found by the NLRC are as follows:
We have taken painstaking efforts to sift over the more than fifty volumes now
comprising the records of these cases. From the records, it appears that the
complainants-appellants allege that they were recruited by respondent-appellant
AIBC for its accredited foreign principal, Brown & Root, on various dates from 1975
to 1983. They were all deployed at various projects undertaken by Brown & Root in
several countries in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, Libya, United Arab
Emirates and Bahrain, as well as in Southeast Asia, in Indonesia and Malaysia.
Having been officially processed as overseas contract workers by the Philippine

Government, all the individual complainants signed standard overseas employment
contracts (Records, Vols. 25-32. Hereafter, reference to the records would be
sparingly made, considering their chaotic arrangement) with AIBC before their
departure from the Philippines. These overseas employment contracts invariably
contained the following relevant terms and conditions.
PART B —
(1) Employment Position Classification :—————————

(Code) :—————————
(2) Company Employment Status :—————————
(3) Date of Employment to Commence on :—————————
(4) Basic Working Hours Per Week :—————————
(5) Basic Working Hours Per Month :—————————
(6) Basic Hourly Rate :—————————
(7) Overtime Rate Per Hour :—————————
(8) Projected Period of Service
(Subject to C(1) of this [sic]) :—————————
Months and/or
Job Completion
xxx xxx xxx
3. HOURS OF WORK AND COMPENSATION
a) The Employee is employed at the hourly rate and overtime rate as set out in Part
B of this Document.
b) The hours of work shall be those set forth by the Employer, and Employer may, at
his sole option, change or adjust such hours as maybe deemed necessary from time
to time.
4. TERMINATION
a) Notwithstanding any other terms and conditions of this agreement, the Employer
may, at his sole discretion, terminate employee's service with cause, under this
agreement at any time. If the Employer terminates the services of the Employee
under this Agreement because of the completion or termination, or suspension of the
work on which the Employee's services were being utilized, or because of a
reduction in force due to a decrease in scope of such work, or by change in the type
of construction of such work. The Employer will be responsible for his return
transportation to his country of origin. Normally on the most expeditious air route,
economy class accommodation.
xxx xxx xxx
10. VACATION/SICK LEAVE BENEFITS
a) After one (1) year of continuous service and/or satisfactory completion of contract,
employee shall be entitled to 12-days vacation leave with pay. This shall be
computed at the basic wage rate. Fractions of a year's service will be computed on
a pro-rata basis.
b) Sick leave of 15-days shall be granted to the employee for every year of service
for non-work connected injuries or illness. If the employee failed to avail of such
leave benefits, the same shall be forfeited at the end of the year in which said sick
leave is granted.
11. BONUS
A bonus of 20% (for offshore work) of gross income will be accrued and payable only
upon satisfactory completion of this contract.
12. OFFDAY PAY
The seventh day of the week shall be observed as a day of rest with 8 hours regular
pay. If work is performed on this day, all hours work shall be paid at the premium
rate. However, this offday pay provision is applicable only when the laws of the Host
Country require payments for rest day.
In the State of Bahrain, where some of the individual complainants were deployed,
His Majesty Isa Bin Salman Al Kaifa, Amir of Bahrain, issued his Amiri Decree No. 23
on June 16, 1976, otherwise known as the Labour Law for the Private Sector
(Records, Vol. 18). This decree took effect on August 16, 1976. Some of the
provisions of Amiri Decree No. 23 that are relevant to the claims of the complainants-
appellants are as follows (italics supplied only for emphasis):
Art. 79: . . . A worker shall receive payment for each extra hour
equivalent to his wage entitlement increased by a minimum of twenty-
five per centum thereof for hours worked during the day; and by a
minimum of fifty per centum thereof for hours worked during the
night which shall be deemed to being from seven o'clock in the
evening until seven o'clock in the morning. . . .
Art. 80: Friday shall be deemed to be a weekly day of rest on full pay.
. . . an employer may require a worker, with his consent, to work on

his weekly day of rest if circumstances so require and in respect of
which an additional sum equivalent to 150% of his normal wage shall
be paid to him. . . .
Art. 81: . . . When conditions of work require the worker to work on

any official holiday, he shall be paid an additional sum equivalent to
150% of his normal wage.
Art. 84: Every worker who has completed one year's continuous
service with his employer shall be entitled to leave on full pay for a
period of not less than 21 days for each year increased to a period
not less than 28 days after five continuous years of service.
A worker shall be entitled to such leave upon a quantum meruit in

respect of the proportion of his service in that year.
Art. 107: A contract of employment made for a period of indefinite

duration may be terminated by either party thereto after giving the
other party thirty days' prior notice before such termination, in writing,
in respect of monthly paid workers and fifteen days' notice in respect
of other workers. The party terminating a contract without giving the
required notice shall pay to the other party compensation equivalent
to the amount of wages payable to the worker for the period of such
notice or the unexpired portion thereof.
Art. 111: . . . the employer concerned shall pay to such worker, upon
termination of employment, a leaving indemnity for the period of his
employment calculated on the basis of fifteen days' wages for each
year of the first three years of service and of one month's wages for
each year of service thereafter. Such worker shall be entitled to
payment of leaving indemnity upon a quantum meruit in proportion to
the period of his service completed within a year.
All the individual complainants-appellants have already been

repatriated to the Philippines at the time of the filing of these cases
(R.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 59-65).
IV
The issues raised before and resolved by the NLRC were:
First: — Whether or not complainants are entitled to the benefits provided by Amiri
Decree No. 23 of Bahrain;
(a) Whether or not the complainants who have worked in Bahrain are
entitled to the above-mentioned benefits.
(b) Whether or not Art. 44 of the same Decree (allegedly prescribing

a more favorable treatment of alien employees) bars complainants
from enjoying its benefits.
Second: — Assuming that Amiri Decree No. 23 of Bahrain is applicable in these

cases, whether or not complainants' claim for the benefits provided therein have
prescribed.
Third: — Whether or not the instant cases qualify as a class suit.
Fourth: — Whether or not the proceedings conducted by the POEA, as well as the
decision that is the subject of these appeals, conformed with the requirements of due
process;
(a) Whether or not the respondent-appellant was denied its right to

due process;
(b) Whether or not the admission of evidence by the POEA after

these cases were submitted for decision was valid;
(c) Whether or not the POEA acquired jurisdiction over Brown & Root
International, Inc.;
(d) Whether or not the judgment awards are supported by substantial

evidence;
(e) Whether or not the awards based on the averages and formula
presented by the complainants-appellants are supported by
substantial evidence;
(f) Whether or not the POEA awarded sums beyond what the
complainants-appellants prayed for; and, if so, whether or not these
awards are valid.
Fifth: — Whether or not the POEA erred in holding respondents AIBC and Brown &
Root jointly are severally liable for the judgment awards despite the alleged finding
that the former was the employer of the complainants;
(a) Whether or not the POEA has acquired jurisdiction over Brown &
Root;
(b) Whether or not the undisputed fact that AIBC was a licensed
construction contractor precludes a finding that Brown & Root is liable
for complainants claims.
Sixth: — Whether or not the POEA Administrator's failure to hold respondents in

default constitutes a reversible error.
Seventh: — Whether or not the POEA Administrator erred in dismissing the following
claims:
a. Unexpired portion of contract;
b. Interest earnings of Travel and Reserve Fund;
c. Retirement and Savings Plan benefits;
d. War Zone bonus or premium pay of at least 100% of basic pay;
e. Area Differential Pay;
f. Accrued interests on all the unpaid benefits;
g. Salary differential pay;
h. Wage differential pay;
i. Refund of SSS premiums not remitted to SSS;
j. Refund of withholding tax not remitted to BIR;
k. Fringe benefits under B & R's "A Summary of Employee Benefits"

(Annex "Q" of Amended Complaint);
l. Moral and exemplary damages;
m. Attorney's fees of at least ten percent of the judgment award;
n. Other reliefs, like suspending and/or cancelling the license to

recruit of AIBC and the accreditation of B & R issued by POEA;
o. Penalty for violations of Article 34 (prohibited practices), not
excluding reportorial requirements thereof.
Eighth: — Whether or not the POEA Administrator erred in not dismissing POEA
Case No. (L) 86-65-460 on the ground of multiplicity of suits (G.R. Nos. 104911-
14, Rollo, pp. 25-29, 51-55).
Anent the first issue, NLRC set aside Section 1, Rule 129 of the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence
governing the pleading and proof of a foreign law and admitted in evidence a simple copy of the
Bahrain's Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 (Labour Law for the Private Sector). NLRC invoked Article
221 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, vesting on the Commission ample discretion to use every
and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case without regard to the technicalities of
law or procedure. NLRC agreed with the POEA Administrator that the Amiri Decree No. 23, being
more favorable and beneficial to the workers, should form part of the overseas employment contract
of the complainants.
NLRC, however, held that the Amiri Decree No. 23 applied only to the claimants, who worked in
Bahrain, and set aside awards of the POEA Administrator in favor of the claimants, who worked
elsewhere.
On the second issue, NLRC ruled that the prescriptive period for the filing of the claims of the
complainants was three years, as provided in Article 291 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, and
not ten years as provided in Article 1144 of the Civil Code of the Philippines nor one year as
provided in the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976.
On the third issue, NLRC agreed with the POEA Administrator that the labor cases cannot be treated
as a class suit for the simple reason that not all the complainants worked in Bahrain and therefore,
the subject matter of the action, the claims arising from the Bahrain law, is not of common or general
interest to all the complainants.
On the fourth issue, NLRC found at least three infractions of the cardinal rules of administrative due
process: namely, (1) the failure of the POEA Administrator to consider the evidence presented by
AIBC and BRII; (2) some findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence; and (3) some
of the evidence upon which the decision was based were not disclosed to AIBC and BRII during the
hearing.
On the fifth issue, NLRC sustained the ruling of the POEA Administrator that BRII and AIBC are
solidarily liable for the claims of the complainants and held that BRII was the actual employer of the
complainants, or at the very least, the indirect employer, with AIBC as the labor contractor.
NLRC also held that jurisdiction over BRII was acquired by the POEA Administrator through the
summons served on AIBC, its local agent.
On the sixth issue, NLRC held that the POEA Administrator was correct in denying the Motion to
Declare AIBC in default.
On the seventh issue, which involved other money claims not based on the Amiri Decree No. 23,
NLRC ruled:
(1) that the POEA Administrator has no jurisdiction over the claims for refund of the
SSS premiums and refund of withholding taxes and the claimants should file their
claims for said refund with the appropriate government agencies;
(2) the claimants failed to establish that they are entitled to the claims which are not
based on the overseas employment contracts nor the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976;
(3) that the POEA Administrator has no jurisdiction over claims for moral and
exemplary damages and nonetheless, the basis for granting said damages was not
established;
(4) that the claims for salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of their contract
may be allowed if filed within the three-year prescriptive period;
(5) that the allegation that complainants were prematurely repatriated prior to the
expiration of their overseas contract was not established; and
(6) that the POEA Administrator has no jurisdiction over the complaint for the
suspension or cancellation of the AIBC's recruitment license and the cancellation of
the accreditation of BRII.
NLRC passed sub silencio the last issue, the claim that POEA Case No. (L) 86-65-460 should have
been dismissed on the ground that the claimants in said case were also claimants in POEA Case
No. (L) 84-06-555. Instead of dismissing POEA Case No. (L) 86-65-460, the POEA just resolved the
corresponding claims in POEA Case No. (L) 84-06-555. In other words, the POEA did not pass upon
the same claims twice.
G.R. No. 104776
Claimants in G.R. No. 104776 based their petition for certiorari on the following grounds:
(1) that they were deprived by NLRC and the POEA of their right to a speedy
disposition of their cases as guaranteed by Section 16, Article III of the 1987
Constitution. The POEA Administrator allowed private respondents to file their
answers in two years (on June 19, 1987) after the filing of the original complaint (on
April 2, 1985) and NLRC, in total disregard of its own rules, affirmed the action of the
POEA Administrator;
(2) that NLRC and the POEA Administrator should have declared AIBC and BRII in
default and should have rendered summary judgment on the basis of the pleadings
and evidence submitted by claimants;
(3) the NLRC and POEA Administrator erred in not holding that the labor cases filed
by AIBC and BRII cannot be considered a class suit;
(4) that the prescriptive period for the filing of the claims is ten years; and
(5) that NLRC and the POEA Administrator should have dismissed POEA Case No.
L-86-05-460, the case filed by Atty. Florante de Castro (Rollo, pp. 31-40).
AIBC and BRII, commenting on the petition in G.R. No. 104776, argued:
(1) that they were not responsible for the delay in the disposition of the labor cases,
considering the great difficulty of getting all the records of the more than 1,500
claimants, the piece-meal filing of the complaints and the addition of hundreds of new
claimants by petitioners;
(2) that considering the number of complaints and claimants, it was impossible to
prepare the answers within the ten-day period provided in the NLRC Rules, that
when the motion to declare AIBC in default was filed on July 19, 1987, said party had
already filed its answer, and that considering the staggering amount of the claims
(more than US$50,000,000.00) and the complicated issues raised by the parties, the
ten-day rule to answer was not fair and reasonable;
(3) that the claimants failed to refute NLRC's finding that

there was no common or general interest in the subject matter of the controversy —
which was the applicability of the Amiri Decree No. 23. Likewise, the nature of the
claims varied, some being based on salaries pertaining to the unexpired portion of
the contracts while others being for pure money claims. Each claimant demanded
separate claims peculiar only to himself and depending upon the particular
circumstances obtaining in his case;
(4) that the prescriptive period for filing the claims is that prescribed by Article 291 of
the Labor Code of the Philippines (three years) and not the one prescribed by Article
1144 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (ten years); and
(5) that they are not concerned with the issue of whether POEA Case No. L-86-05-
460 should be dismissed, this being a private quarrel between the two labor lawyers
(Rollo, pp. 292-305).
Attorney's Lien
On November 12, 1992, Atty. Gerardo A. del Mundo moved to strike out the joint manifestations and
motions of AIBC and BRII dated September 2 and 11, 1992, claiming that all the claimants who
entered into the compromise agreements subject of said manifestations and motions were his clients
and that Atty. Florante M. de Castro had no right to represent them in said agreements. He also
claimed that the claimants were paid less than the award given them by NLRC; that Atty. De Castro
collected additional attorney's fees on top of the 25% which he was entitled to receive; and that the
consent of the claimants to the compromise agreements and quitclaims were procured by fraud
(G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 838-810). In the Resolution dated November 23, 1992, the Court
denied the motion to strike out the Joint Manifestations and Motions dated September 2 and 11,
1992 (G.R. Nos. 104911-14, Rollo, pp. 608-609).
On December 14, 1992, Atty. Del Mundo filed a "Notice and Claim to Enforce Attorney's Lien,"
alleging that the claimants who entered into compromise agreements with AIBC and BRII with the
assistance of Atty. De Castro, had all signed a retainer agreement with his law firm (G.R. No.
104776, Rollo, pp. 623-624; 838-1535).
Contempt of Court
On February 18, 1993, an omnibus motion was filed by Atty. Del Mundo to cite Atty. De Castro and
Atty. Katz Tierra for contempt of court and for violation of Canons 1, 15 and 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The said lawyers allegedly misled this Court, by making it appear that
the claimants who entered into the compromise agreements were represented by Atty. De Castro,
when in fact they were represented by Atty. Del Mundo (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 1560-1614).
On September 23, 1994, Atty. Del Mundo reiterated his charges against Atty. De Castro for unethical
practices and moved for the voiding of the quitclaims submitted by some of the claimants.
G.R. Nos. 104911-14
The claimants in G.R. Nos. 104911-14 based their petition for certiorari on the grounds that NLRC
gravely abused its discretion when it: (1) applied the three-year prescriptive period under the Labor
Code of the Philippines; and (2) it denied the claimant's formula based on an average overtime pay
of three hours a day (Rollo, pp. 18-22).
The claimants argue that said method was proposed by BRII itself during the negotiation for an
amicable settlement of their money claims in Bahrain as shown in the Memorandum dated April 16,
1983 of the Ministry of Labor of Bahrain (Rollo, pp. 21-22).
BRII and AIBC, in their Comment, reiterated their contention in G.R. No. 104776 that the prescriptive
period in the Labor Code of the Philippines, a special law, prevails over that provided in the Civil
Code of the Philippines, a general law.
As to the memorandum of the Ministry of Labor of Bahrain on the method of computing the overtime
pay, BRII and AIBC claimed that they were not bound by what appeared therein, because such
memorandum was proposed by a subordinate Bahrain official and there was no showing that it was
approved by the Bahrain Minister of Labor. Likewise, they claimed that the averaging method was
discussed in the course of the negotiation for the amicable settlement of the dispute and any offer
made by a party therein could not be used as an admission by him (Rollo, pp. 228-236).
G.R. Nos. 105029-32
In G.R. Nos. 105029-32, BRII and AIBC claim that NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it: (1)
enforced the provisions of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 and not the terms of the employment
contracts; (2) granted claims for holiday, overtime and leave indemnity pay and other benefits, on
evidence admitted in contravention of petitioner's constitutional right to due process; and (3) ordered
the POEA Administrator to hold new hearings for the 683 claimants whose claims had been
dismissed for lack of proof by the POEA Administrator or NLRC itself. Lastly, they allege that
assuming that the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 was applicable, NLRC erred when it did not apply
the one-year prescription provided in said law (Rollo, pp. 29-30).
VI
G.R. No. 104776; G.R. Nos. 104911-14; G.R. Nos. 105029-32
All the petitions raise the common issue of prescription although they disagreed as to the time that
should be embraced within the prescriptive period.
To the POEA Administrator, the prescriptive period was ten years, applying Article 1144 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines. NLRC believed otherwise, fixing the prescriptive period at three years as
provided in Article 291 of the Labor Code of the Philippines.
The claimants in G.R. No. 104776 and G.R. Nos. 104911-14, invoking different grounds, insisted
that NLRC erred in ruling that the prescriptive period applicable to the claims was three years,
instead of ten years, as found by the POEA Administrator.
The Solicitor General expressed his personal view that the prescriptive period was one year as
prescribed by the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 but he deferred to the ruling of NLRC that Article 291
of the Labor Code of the Philippines was the operative law.
The POEA Administrator held the view that:
These money claims (under Article 291 of the Labor Code) refer to those arising from
the employer's violation of the employee's right as provided by the Labor Code.
In the instant case, what the respondents violated are not the rights of the workers as
provided by the Labor Code, but the provisions of the Amiri Decree No. 23 issued in
Bahrain, which ipso facto amended the worker's contracts of employment.
Respondents consciously failed to conform to these provisions which specifically
provide for the increase of the worker's rate. It was only after June 30, 1983, four
months after the brown builders brought a suit against B & R in Bahrain for this same
claim, when respondent AIBC's contracts have undergone amendments in Bahrain
for the new hires/renewals (Respondent's Exhibit 7).
Hence, premises considered, the applicable law of prescription to this instant case is
Article 1144 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which provides:
Art. 1144. The following actions may be brought within ten years from
the time the cause of action accrues:
(1) Upon a written contract;
(2) Upon an obligation created by law;
Thus, herein money claims of the complainants against the respondents shall
prescribe in ten years from August 16, 1976. Inasmuch as all claims were filed within
the ten-year prescriptive period, no claim suffered the infirmity of being prescribed
(G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, 89-90).
In overruling the POEA Administrator, and holding that the prescriptive period is three years as
provided in Article 291 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, the NLRC argued as follows:
The Labor Code provides that "all money claims arising from employer-employee
relations . . . shall be filed within three years from the time the cause of action
accrued; otherwise they shall be forever barred" (Art. 291, Labor Code, as
amended). This three-year prescriptive period shall be the one applied here and
which should be reckoned from the date of repatriation of each individual
complainant, considering the fact that the case is having (sic) filed in this country. We
do not agree with the POEA Administrator that this three-year prescriptive period
applies only to money claims specifically recoverable under the Philippine Labor
Code. Article 291 gives no such indication. Likewise, We can not consider
complainants' cause/s of action to have accrued from a violation of their employment
contracts. There was no violation; the claims arise from the benefits of the law of the
country where they worked. (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp.
90-91).
Anent the applicability of the one-year prescriptive period as provided by the Amiri Decree No. 23 of
1976, NLRC opined that the applicability of said law was one of characterization, i.e., whether to
characterize the foreign law on prescription or statute of limitation as "substantive" or "procedural."
NLRC cited the decision in Bournias v. Atlantic Maritime Company (220 F. 2d. 152, 2d Cir. [1955],
where the issue was the applicability of the Panama Labor Code in a case filed in the State of New
York for claims arising from said Code. In said case, the claims would have prescribed under the
Panamanian Law but not under the Statute of Limitations of New York. The U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals held that the Panamanian Law was procedural as it was not "specifically intended to be
substantive," hence, the prescriptive period provided in the law of the forum should apply. The Court
observed:
. . . And where, as here, we are dealing with a statute of limitations of a foreign

country, and it is not clear on the face of the statute that its purpose was to limit the
enforceability, outside as well as within the foreign country concerned, of the
substantive rights to which the statute pertains, we think that as a yardstick for
determining whether that was the purpose this test is the most satisfactory one. It
does not lead American courts into the necessity of examining into the unfamiliar
peculiarities and refinements of different foreign legal systems. . .
The court further noted:
xxx xxx xxx
Applying that test here it appears to us that the libelant is entitled to succeed, for the
respondents have failed to satisfy us that the Panamanian period of limitation in
question was specifically aimed against the particular rights which the libelant seeks
to enforce. The Panama Labor Code is a statute having broad objectives, viz: "The
present Code regulates the relations between capital and labor, placing them on a
basis of social justice, so that, without injuring any of the parties, there may be
guaranteed for labor the necessary conditions for a normal life and to capital an
equitable return to its investment." In pursuance of these objectives the Code gives
laborers various rights against their employers. Article 623 establishes the period of
limitation for all such rights, except certain ones which are enumerated in Article 621.
And there is nothing in the record to indicate that the Panamanian legislature gave
special consideration to the impact of Article 623 upon the particular rights sought to
be enforced here, as distinguished from the other rights to which that Article is also
applicable. Were we confronted with the question of whether the limitation period of
Article 621 (which carves out particular rights to be governed by a shorter limitation
period) is to be regarded as "substantive" or "procedural" under the rule of "specifity"
we might have a different case; but here on the surface of things we appear to be
dealing with a "broad," and not a "specific," statute of limitations (G.R. No.
104776, Rollo, pp.
92-94).
Claimants in G.R. Nos. 104911-14 are of the view that Article 291 of the Labor Code of the
Philippines, which was applied by NLRC, refers only to claims "arising from the employer's violation
of the employee's right as provided by the Labor Code." They assert that their claims are based on
the violation of their employment contracts, as amended by the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 and
therefore the claims may be brought within ten years as provided by Article 1144 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines (Rollo, G.R. Nos. 104911-14, pp.
18-21). To bolster their contention, they cite PALEA v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 70 SCRA 244 (1976).
AIBC and BRII, insisting that the actions on the claims have prescribed under the Amiri Decree No.
23 of 1976, argue that there is in force in the Philippines a "borrowing law," which is Section 48 of
the Code of Civil Procedure and that where such kind of law exists, it takes precedence over the
common-law conflicts rule (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 45-46).
First to be determined is whether it is the Bahrain law on prescription of action based on the Amiri
Decree No. 23 of 1976 or a Philippine law on prescription that shall be the governing law.
Article 156 of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 provides:
A claim arising out of a contract of employment shall not be actionable after the lapse
of one year from the date of the expiry of the contract. (G.R. Nos. 105029-31, Rollo,
p. 226).
As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be applied in the forum. Procedural matters, such
as service of process, joinder of actions, period and requisites for appeal, and so forth, are governed
by the laws of the forum. This is true even if the action is based upon a foreign substantive law
(Restatement of the Conflict of Laws, Sec. 685; Salonga, Private International Law, 131 [1979]).
A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict of Laws in the sense that it may be viewed
either as procedural or substantive, depending on the characterization given such a law.
Thus in Bournias v. Atlantic Maritime Company, supra, the American court applied the statute of
limitations of New York, instead of the Panamanian law, after finding that there was no showing that
the Panamanian law on prescription was intended to be substantive. Being considered merely a
procedural law even in Panama, it has to give way to the law of the forum on prescription of actions.
However, the characterization of a statute into a procedural or substantive law becomes irrelevant
when the country of the forum has a "borrowing statute." Said statute has the practical effect of
treating the foreign statute of limitation as one of substance (Goodrich, Conflict of Laws 152-153
[1938]). A "borrowing statute" directs the state of the forum to apply the foreign statute of limitations
to the pending claims based on a foreign law (Siegel, Conflicts, 183 [1975]). While there are several
kinds of "borrowing statutes," one form provides that an action barred by the laws of the place where
it accrued, will not be enforced in the forum even though the local statute has not run against it
(Goodrich and Scoles, Conflict of Laws, 152-153 [1938]). Section 48 of our Code of Civil Procedure
is of this kind. Said Section provides:
If by the laws of the state or country where the cause of action arose, the action is
barred, it is also barred in the Philippines Islands.
Section 48 has not been repealed or amended by the Civil Code of the Philippines. Article 2270 of
said Code repealed only those provisions of the Code of Civil Procedures as to which were
inconsistent with it. There is no provision in the Civil Code of the Philippines, which is inconsistent
with or contradictory to Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Paras, Philippine Conflict of Laws
104 [7th ed.]).
In the light of the 1987 Constitution, however, Section 48 cannot be enforced ex proprio
vigore insofar as it ordains the application in this jurisdiction of Section 156 of the Amiri Decree No.
23 of 1976.
The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to the forum's public policy
(Canadian Northern Railway Co. v. Eggen, 252 U.S. 553, 40 S. Ct. 402, 64 L. ed. 713 [1920]). To
enforce the one-year prescriptive period of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 as regards the claims in
question would contravene the public policy on the protection to labor.
In the Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the 1987 Constitution emphasized that:
The state shall promote social justice in all phases of national development. (Sec.
10).
The state affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights
of workers and promote their welfare (Sec. 18).
In article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights, the 1987 Constitution provides:
Sec. 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized
and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment
opportunities for all.
Having determined that the applicable law on prescription is the Philippine law, the next question is
whether the prescriptive period governing the filing of the claims is three years, as provided by the
Labor Code or ten years, as provided by the Civil Code of the Philippines.
The claimants are of the view that the applicable provision is Article 1144 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, which provides:
The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right of
action accrues:
(1) Upon a written contract;
(2) Upon an obligation created by law;
(3) Upon a judgment.
NLRC, on the other hand, believes that the applicable provision is Article 291 of the Labor Code of
the Philippines, which in pertinent part provides:
Money claims-all money claims arising from employer-employee relations accruing

during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three (3) years from the time
the cause of action accrued, otherwise they shall be forever barred.
xxx xxx xxx
The case of Philippine Air Lines Employees Association v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc., 70 SCRA 244
(1976) invoked by the claimants in G.R. Nos. 104911-14 is inapplicable to the cases at bench (Rollo,
p. 21). The said case involved the correct computation of overtime pay as provided in the collective
bargaining agreements and not the Eight-Hour Labor Law.
As noted by the Court: "That is precisely why petitioners did not make any reference as to the
computation for overtime work under the Eight-Hour Labor Law (Secs. 3 and 4, CA No. 494) and
instead insisted that work computation provided in the collective bargaining agreements between the
parties be observed. Since the claim for pay differentials is primarily anchored on the written
contracts between the litigants, the ten-year prescriptive period provided by Art. 1144(1) of the New
Civil Code should govern."
Section 7-a of the Eight-Hour Labor Law (CA No. 444 as amended by R.A. No. 19933) provides:
Any action to enforce any cause of action under this Act shall be commenced within
three years after the cause of action accrued otherwise such action shall be forever
barred, . . . .
The court further explained:
The three-year prescriptive period fixed in the Eight-Hour Labor Law (CA No. 444 as
amended) will apply, if the claim for differentials for overtime work is solely based on
said law, and not on a collective bargaining agreement or any other contract. In the
instant case, the claim for overtime compensation is not so much because of
Commonwealth Act No. 444, as amended but because the claim is demandable right
of the employees, by reason of the above-mentioned collective bargaining
agreement.
Section 7-a of the Eight-Hour Labor Law provides the prescriptive period for filing "actions to enforce
any cause of action under said law." On the other hand, Article 291 of the Labor Code of the
Philippines provides the prescriptive period for filing "money claims arising from employer-employee
relations." The claims in the cases at bench all arose from the employer-employee relations, which is
broader in scope than claims arising from a specific law or from the collective bargaining agreement.
The contention of the POEA Administrator, that the three-year prescriptive period under Article 291
of the Labor Code of the Philippines applies only to money claims specifically recoverable under said
Code, does not find support in the plain language of the provision. Neither is the contention of the
claimants in G.R. Nos. 104911-14 that said Article refers only to claims "arising from the employer's
violation of the employee's right," as provided by the Labor Code supported by the facial reading of
the provision.
VII
G.R. No. 104776
A. As to the first two grounds for the petition in G.R. No. 104776, claimants aver: (1) that while their
complaints were filed on June 6, 1984 with POEA, the case was decided only on January 30, 1989,
a clear denial of their right to a speedy disposition of the case; and (2) that NLRC and the POEA
Administrator should have declared AIBC and BRII in default (Rollo, pp.
31-35).
Claimants invoke a new provision incorporated in the 1987 Constitution, which provides:
Sec. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before
all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
It is true that the constitutional right to "a speedy disposition of cases" is not limited to the accused in
criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, including civil and administrative cases,
and in all proceedings, including judicial and quasi-judicial hearings. Hence, under the Constitution,
any party to a case may demand expeditious action on all officials who are tasked with the
administration of justice.
However, as held in Caballero v. Alfonso, Jr., 153 SCRA 153 (1987), "speedy disposition of cases" is
a relative term. Just like the constitutional guarantee of "speedy trial" accorded to the accused in all
criminal proceedings, "speedy disposition of cases" is a flexible concept. It is consistent with delays
and depends upon the circumstances of each case. What the Constitution prohibits are
unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive delays which render rights nugatory.
Caballero laid down the factors that may be taken into consideration in determining whether or not
the right to a "speedy disposition of cases" has been violated, thus:
In the determination of whether or not the right to a "speedy trial" has been violated,
certain factors may be considered and balanced against each other. These are
length of delay, reason for the delay, assertion of the right or failure to assert it, and
prejudice caused by the delay. The same factors may also be considered in
answering judicial inquiry whether or not a person officially charged with the
administration of justice has violated the speedy disposition of cases.
Likewise, in Gonzales v. Sandiganbayan, 199 SCRA 298, (1991), we held:
It must be here emphasized that the right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the
right to speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by
vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of
the trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or justified motive a long
period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.
Since July 25, 1984 or a month after AIBC and BRII were served with a copy of the amended
complaint, claimants had been asking that AIBC and BRII be declared in default for failure to file
their answers within the ten-day period provided in Section 1, Rule III of Book VI of the Rules and
Regulations of the POEA. At that time, there was a pending motion of AIBC and BRII to strike out of
the records the amended complaint and the "Compliance" of claimants to the order of the POEA,
requiring them to submit a bill of particulars.
The cases at bench are not of the run-of-the-mill variety, such that their final disposition in the
administrative level after seven years from their inception, cannot be said to be attended by
unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive delays as to violate the constitutional rights to a speedy
disposition of the cases of complainants.
The amended complaint filed on June 6, 1984 involved a total of 1,767 claimants. Said complaint
had undergone several amendments, the first being on April 3, 1985.
The claimants were hired on various dates from 1975 to 1983. They were deployed in different
areas, one group in and the other groups outside of, Bahrain. The monetary claims totalling more
than US$65 million according to Atty. Del Mundo, included:
1. Unexpired portion of contract;
2. Interest earnings of Travel and Fund;
3. Retirement and Savings Plan benefit;
4. War Zone bonus or premium pay of at least 100% of basic pay;
5. Area Differential pay;
6. Accrued Interest of all the unpaid benefits;
7. Salary differential pay;
8. Wage Differential pay;
9. Refund of SSS premiums not remitted to Social Security System;
10. Refund of Withholding Tax not remitted to Bureau of Internal Revenue (B.I.R.);
11. Fringe Benefits under Brown & Root's "A Summary of Employees Benefits
consisting of 43 pages (Annex "Q" of Amended Complaint);
12. Moral and Exemplary Damages;
13. Attorney's fees of at least ten percent of amounts;
14. Other reliefs, like suspending and/or cancelling the license to recruit of AIBC and
issued by the POEA; and
15. Penalty for violation of Article 34 (Prohibited practices) not excluding reportorial
requirements thereof (NLRC Resolution, September 2, 1991, pp. 18-19; G.R. No.
104776, Rollo, pp. 73-74).
Inasmuch as the complaint did not allege with sufficient definiteness and clarity of some facts, the
claimants were ordered to comply with the motion of AIBC for a bill of particulars. When claimants
filed their "Compliance and Manifestation," AIBC moved to strike out the complaint from the records
for failure of claimants to submit a proper bill of particulars. While the POEA Administrator denied the
motion to strike out the complaint, he ordered the claimants "to correct the deficiencies" pointed out
by AIBC.
Before an intelligent answer could be filed in response to the complaint, the records of employment
of the more than 1,700 claimants had to be retrieved from various countries in the Middle East.
Some of the records dated as far back as 1975.
The hearings on the merits of the claims before the POEA Administrator were interrupted several
times by the various appeals, first to NLRC and then to the Supreme Court.
Aside from the inclusion of additional claimants, two new cases were filed against AIBC and BRII on
October 10, 1985 (POEA Cases Nos.
L-85-10-777 and L-85-10-779). Another complaint was filed on May 29, 1986 (POEA Case No. L-86-
05-460). NLRC, in exasperation, noted that the exact number of claimants had never been
completely established (Resolution, Sept. 2, 1991, G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, p. 57). All the three new
cases were consolidated with POEA Case No. L-84-06-555.
NLRC blamed the parties and their lawyers for the delay in terminating the proceedings, thus:
These cases could have been spared the long and arduous route towards resolution
had the parties and their counsel been more interested in pursuing the truth and the
merits of the claims rather than exhibiting a fanatical reliance on technicalities.
Parties and counsel have made these cases a litigation of emotion. The
intransigence of parties and counsel is remarkable. As late as last month, this
Commission made a last and final attempt to bring the counsel of all the parties (this
Commission issued a special order directing respondent Brown & Root's resident
agent/s to appear) to come to a more conciliatory stance. Even this failed (Rollo,
p. 58).
The squabble between the lawyers of claimants added to the delay in the disposition of the cases, to
the lament of NLRC, which complained:
It is very evident from the records that the protagonists in these consolidated cases
appear to be not only the individual complainants, on the one hand, and AIBC and
Brown & Root, on the other hand. The two lawyers for the complainants, Atty.
Gerardo Del Mundo and Atty. Florante De Castro, have yet to settle the right of
representation, each one persistently claiming to appear in behalf of most of the
complainants. As a result, there are two appeals by the complainants. Attempts by
this Commission to resolve counsels' conflicting claims of their respective authority to
represent the complainants prove futile. The bickerings by these two counsels are
reflected in their pleadings. In the charges and countercharges of falsification of
documents and signatures, and in the disbarment proceedings by one against the
other. All these have, to a large extent, abetted in confounding the issues raised in
these cases, jumble the presentation of evidence, and even derailed the prospects of
an amicable settlement. It would not be far-fetched to imagine that both counsel,
unwittingly, perhaps, painted a rainbow for the complainants, with the proverbial pot
of gold at its end containing more than US$100 million, the aggregate of the claims in
these cases. It is, likewise, not improbable that their misplaced zeal and exuberance
caused them to throw all caution to the wind in the matter of elementary rules of
procedure and evidence (Rollo, pp. 58-59).
Adding to the confusion in the proceedings before NLRC, is the listing of some of the complainants
in both petitions filed by the two lawyers. As noted by NLRC, "the problem created by this situation is
that if one of the two petitions is dismissed, then the parties and the public respondents would not
know which claim of which petitioner was dismissed and which was not."
B. Claimants insist that all their claims could properly be consolidated in a "class suit" because "all
the named complainants have similar money claims and similar rights sought irrespective of whether
they worked in Bahrain, United Arab Emirates or in Abu Dhabi, Libya or in any part of the Middle
East" (Rollo, pp. 35-38).
A class suit is proper where the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general
interest to many and the parties are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the
court (Revised Rules of Court, Rule 3, Sec. 12).
While all the claims are for benefits granted under the Bahrain Law, many of the claimants worked
outside Bahrain. Some of the claimants were deployed in Indonesia and Malaysia under different
terms and conditions of employment.
NLRC and the POEA Administrator are correct in their stance that inasmuch as the first requirement
of a class suit is not present (common or general interest based on the Amiri Decree of the State of
Bahrain), it is only logical that only those who worked in Bahrain shall be entitled to file their claims in
a class suit.
While there are common defendants (AIBC and BRII) and the nature of the claims is the same (for
employee's benefits), there is no common question of law or fact. While some claims are based on
the Amiri Law of Bahrain, many of the claimants never worked in that country, but were deployed
elsewhere. Thus, each claimant is interested only in his own demand and not in the claims of the
other employees of defendants. The named claimants have a special or particular interest in specific
benefits completely different from the benefits in which the other named claimants and those
included as members of a "class" are claiming (Berses v. Villanueva, 25 Phil. 473 [1913]). It appears
that each claimant is only interested in collecting his own claims. A claimants has no concern in
protecting the interests of the other claimants as shown by the fact, that hundreds of them have
abandoned their co-claimants and have entered into separate compromise settlements of their
respective claims. A principle basic to the concept of "class suit" is that plaintiffs brought on the
record must fairly represent and protect the interests of the others (Dimayuga v. Court of Industrial
Relations, 101 Phil. 590 [1957]). For this matter, the claimants who worked in Bahrain can not be
allowed to sue in a class suit in a judicial proceeding. The most that can be accorded to them under
the Rules of Court is to be allowed to join as plaintiffs in one complaint (Revised Rules of Court, Rule
3, Sec. 6).
The Court is extra-cautious in allowing class suits because they are the exceptions to the
condition sine qua non, requiring the joinder of all indispensable parties.
In an improperly instituted class suit, there would be no problem if the decision secured is favorable
to the plaintiffs. The problem arises when the decision is adverse to them, in which case the others
who were impleaded by their self-appointed representatives, would surely claim denial of due
process.
C. The claimants in G.R. No. 104776 also urged that the POEA Administrator and NLRC should
have declared Atty. Florante De Castro guilty of "forum shopping, ambulance chasing activities,
falsification, duplicity and other unprofessional activities" and his appearances as counsel for some
of the claimants as illegal (Rollo, pp. 38-40).
The Anti-Forum Shopping Rule (Revised Circular No. 28-91) is intended to put a stop to the practice
of some parties of filing multiple petitions and complaints involving the same issues, with the result
that the courts or agencies have to resolve the same issues. Said Rule, however, applies only to
petitions filed with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. It is entitled "Additional
Requirements For Petitions Filed with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals To Prevent
Forum Shopping or Multiple Filing of Petitioners and Complainants." The first sentence of the circular
expressly states that said circular applies to an governs the filing of petitions in the Supreme Court
and the Court of Appeals.
While Administrative Circular No. 04-94 extended the application of the anti-forum shopping rule to
the lower courts and administrative agencies, said circular took effect only on April 1, 1994.
POEA and NLRC could not have entertained the complaint for unethical conduct against Atty. De
Castro because NLRC and POEA have no jurisdiction to investigate charges of unethical conduct of
lawyers.
Attorney's Lien
The "Notice and Claim to Enforce Attorney's Lien" dated December 14, 1992 was filed by Atty.
Gerardo A. Del Mundo to protect his claim for attorney's fees for legal services rendered in favor of
the claimants (G.R. No. 104776, Rollo, pp. 841-844).
A statement of a claim for a charging lien shall be filed with the court or administrative agency which
renders and executes the money judgment secured by the lawyer for his clients. The lawyer shall
cause written notice thereof to be delivered to his clients and to the adverse party (Revised Rules of
Court, Rule 138, Sec. 37). The statement of the claim for the charging lien of Atty. Del Mundo should
have been filed with the administrative agency that rendered and executed the judgment.
Contempt of Court
The complaint of Atty. Gerardo A. Del Mundo to cite Atty. Florante De Castro and Atty. Katz Tierra
for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility should be filed in a separate and appropriate
proceeding.
G.R. No. 104911-14
Claimants charge NLRC with grave abuse of discretion in not accepting their formula of "Three
Hours Average Daily Overtime" in computing the overtime payments. They claim that it was BRII
itself which proposed the formula during the negotiations for the settlement of their claims in Bahrain
and therefore it is in estoppel to disclaim said offer (Rollo, pp. 21-22).
Claimants presented a Memorandum of the Ministry of Labor of Bahrain dated April 16, 1983, which
in pertinent part states:
After the perusal of the memorandum of the Vice President and the Area Manager,
Middle East, of Brown & Root Co. and the Summary of the compensation offered by
the Company to the employees in respect of the difference of pay of the wages of the
overtime and the difference of vacation leave and the perusal of the documents
attached thereto i.e., minutes of the meetings between the Representative of the
employees and the management of the Company, the complaint filed by the
employees on 14/2/83 where they have claimed as hereinabove stated, sample of
the Service Contract executed between one of the employees and the company
through its agent in (sic) Philippines, Asia International Builders Corporation where it
has been provided for 48 hours of work per week and an annual leave of 12 days
and an overtime wage of 1 & 1/4 of the normal hourly wage.
xxx xxx xxx
The Company in its computation reached the following averages:
A. 1. The average duration of the actual service of the employee is 35 months for the
Philippino (sic) employees . . . .
2. The average wage per hour for the Philippino (sic) employee is US$2.69 . . . .
3. The average hours for the overtime is 3 hours plus in all public holidays and
weekends.
4. Payment of US$8.72 per months (sic) of service as compensation for the

difference of the wages of the overtime done for each Philippino (sic) employee . . .
(Rollo, p.22).
BRII and AIBC countered: (1) that the Memorandum was not prepared by them but by a subordinate
official in the Bahrain Department of Labor; (2) that there was no showing that the Bahrain Minister
of Labor had approved said memorandum; and (3) that the offer was made in the course of the
negotiation for an amicable settlement of the claims and therefore it was not admissible in evidence
to prove that anything is due to the claimants.
While said document was presented to the POEA without observing the rule on presenting official
documents of a foreign government as provided in Section 24, Rule 132 of the 1989 Revised Rules
on Evidence, it can be admitted in evidence in proceedings before an administrative body. The
opposing parties have a copy of the said memorandum, and they could easily verify its authenticity
and accuracy.
The admissibility of the offer of compromise made by BRII as contained in the memorandum is
another matter. Under Section 27, Rule 130 of the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence, an offer to
settle a claim is not an admission that anything is due.
Said Rule provides:
Offer of compromise not admissible. — In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not

an admission of any liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror.
This Rule is not only a rule of procedure to avoid the cluttering of the record with unwanted evidence
but a statement of public policy. There is great public interest in having the protagonists settle their
differences amicable before these ripen into litigation. Every effort must be taken to encourage them
to arrive at a settlement. The submission of offers and counter-offers in the negotiation table is a
step in the right direction. But to bind a party to his offers, as what claimants would make this Court
do, would defeat the salutary purpose of the Rule.
G.R. Nos. 105029-32
A. NLRC applied the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976, which provides for greater benefits than those
stipulated in the overseas-employment contracts of the claimants. It was of the belief that "where the
laws of the host country are more favorable and beneficial to the workers, then the laws of the host
country shall form part of the overseas employment contract." It quoted with approval the
observation of the POEA Administrator that ". . . in labor proceedings, all doubts in the
implementation of the provisions of the Labor Code and its implementing regulations shall be
resolved in favor of labor" (Rollo, pp. 90-94).
AIBC and BRII claim that NLRC acted capriciously and whimsically when it refused to enforce the
overseas-employment contracts, which became the law of the parties. They contend that the
principle that a law is deemed to be a part of a contract applies only to provisions of Philippine law in
relation to contracts executed in the Philippines.
The overseas-employment contracts, which were prepared by AIBC and BRII themselves, provided
that the laws of the host country became applicable to said contracts if they offer terms and
conditions more favorable that those stipulated therein. It was stipulated in said contracts that:
The Employee agrees that while in the employ of the Employer, he will not engage in
any other business or occupation, nor seek employment with anyone other than the
Employer; that he shall devote his entire time and attention and his best energies,
and abilities to the performance of such duties as may be assigned to him by the
Employer; that he shall at all times be subject to the direction and control of the
Employer; and that the benefits provided to Employee hereunder are substituted for
and in lieu of all other benefits provided by any applicable law, provided of course,
that total remuneration and benefits do not fall below that of the host country
regulation or custom, it being understood that should applicable laws establish that
fringe benefits, or other such benefits additional to the compensation herein agreed
cannot be waived, Employee agrees that such compensation will be adjusted
downward so that the total compensation hereunder, plus the non-waivable benefits
shall be equivalent to the compensation herein agreed (Rollo, pp. 352-353).
The overseas-employment contracts could have been drafted more felicitously. While a part thereof
provides that the compensation to the employee may be "adjusted downward so that the total
computation (thereunder) plus the non-waivable benefits shall be equivalent to the compensation"
therein agreed, another part of the same provision categorically states "that total remuneration and
benefits do not fall below that of the host country regulation and custom."
Any ambiguity in the overseas-employment contracts should be interpreted against AIBC and BRII,
the parties that drafted it (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Margarine-Verkaufs-Union, 93 SCRA 257
[1979]).
Article 1377 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides:
The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the
party who caused the obscurity.
Said rule of interpretation is applicable to contracts of adhesion where there is already a prepared
form containing the stipulations of the employment contract and the employees merely "take it or
leave it." The presumption is that there was an imposition by one party against the other and that the
employees signed the contracts out of necessity that reduced their bargaining power (Fieldmen's
Insurance Co., Inc. v. Songco, 25 SCRA 70 [1968]).
Applying the said legal precepts, we read the overseas-employment contracts in question as
adopting the provisions of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 as part and parcel thereof.
The parties to a contract may select the law by which it is to be governed (Cheshire, Private
International Law, 187 [7th ed.]). In such a case, the foreign law is adopted as a "system" to regulate
the relations of the parties, including questions of their capacity to enter into the contract, the
formalities to be observed by them, matters of performance, and so forth (16 Am Jur 2d,
150-161).
Instead of adopting the entire mass of the foreign law, the parties may just agree that specific
provisions of a foreign statute shall be deemed incorporated into their contract "as a set of terms." By
such reference to the provisions of the foreign law, the contract does not become a foreign contract
to be governed by the foreign law. The said law does not operate as a statute but as a set of
contractual terms deemed written in the contract (Anton, Private International Law, 197 [1967]; Dicey
and Morris, The Conflict of Laws, 702-703, [8th ed.]).
A basic policy of contract is to protect the expectation of the parties (Reese, Choice of Law in Torts
and Contracts, 16 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 1, 21 [1977]). Such party expectation is
protected by giving effect to the parties' own choice of the applicable law (Fricke v. Isbrandtsen Co.,
Inc., 151 F. Supp. 465, 467 [1957]). The choice of law must, however, bear some relationship to the
parties or their transaction (Scoles and Hayes, Conflict of Law 644-647 [1982]). There is no question
that the contracts sought to be enforced by claimants have a direct connection with the Bahrain law
because the services were rendered in that country.
In Norse Management Co. (PTE) v. National Seamen Board, 117 SCRA 486 (1982), the
"Employment Agreement," between Norse Management Co. and the late husband of the private
respondent, expressly provided that in the event of illness or injury to the employee arising out of
and in the course of his employment and not due to his own misconduct, "compensation shall be
paid to employee in accordance with and subject to the limitation of the Workmen's Compensation
Act of the Republic of the Philippines or the Worker's Insurance Act of registry of the vessel,
whichever is greater." Since the laws of Singapore, the place of registry of the vessel in which the
late husband of private respondent served at the time of his death, granted a better compensation
package, we applied said foreign law in preference to the terms of the contract.
The case of Bagong Filipinas Overseas Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 135
SCRA 278 (1985), relied upon by AIBC and BRII is inapposite to the facts of the cases at bench.
The issue in that case was whether the amount of the death compensation of a Filipino seaman
should be determined under the shipboard employment contract executed in the Philippines or the
Hongkong law. Holding that the shipboard employment contract was controlling, the court
differentiated said case from Norse Management Co. in that in the latter case there was an express
stipulation in the employment contract that the foreign law would be applicable if it afforded greater
compensation.
B. AIBC and BRII claim that they were denied by NLRC of their right to due process when said
administrative agency granted Friday-pay differential, holiday-pay differential, annual-leave
differential and leave indemnity pay to the claimants listed in Annex B of the Resolution. At first,
NLRC reversed the resolution of the POEA Administrator granting these benefits on a finding that
the POEA Administrator failed to consider the evidence presented by AIBC and BRII, that some
findings of fact of the POEA Administrator were not supported by the evidence, and that some of the
evidence were not disclosed to AIBC and BRII (Rollo, pp. 35-36; 106-107). But instead of remanding
the case to the POEA Administrator for a new hearing, which means further delay in the termination
of the case, NLRC decided to pass upon the validity of the claims itself. It is this procedure that AIBC
and BRII complain of as being irregular and a "reversible error."
They pointed out that NLRC took into consideration evidence submitted on appeal, the same
evidence which NLRC found to have been "unilaterally submitted by the claimants and not disclosed
to the adverse parties" (Rollo, pp. 37-39).
NLRC noted that so many pieces of evidentiary matters were submitted to the POEA administrator
by the claimants after the cases were deemed submitted for resolution and which were taken
cognizance of by the POEA Administrator in resolving the cases. While AIBC and BRII had no
opportunity to refute said evidence of the claimants before the POEA Administrator, they had all the
opportunity to rebut said evidence and to present their
counter-evidence before NLRC. As a matter of fact, AIBC and BRII themselves were able to present
before NLRC additional evidence which they failed to present before the POEA Administrator.
Under Article 221 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, NLRC is enjoined to "use every and all
reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to
technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process."
In deciding to resolve the validity of certain claims on the basis of the evidence of both parties
submitted before the POEA Administrator and NLRC, the latter considered that it was not expedient
to remand the cases to the POEA Administrator for that would only prolong the already protracted
legal controversies.
Even the Supreme Court has decided appealed cases on the merits instead of remanding them to
the trial court for the reception of evidence, where the same can be readily determined from the
uncontroverted facts on record (Development Bank of the Philippines v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, 190 SCRA 653 [1990]; Pagdonsalan v. National Labor Relations Commission, 127 SCRA 463
[1984]).
C. AIBC and BRII charge NLRC with grave abuse of discretion when it ordered the POEA
Administrator to hold new hearings for 683 claimants listed in Annex D of the Resolution dated
September 2, 1991 whose claims had been denied by the POEA Administrator "for lack of proof" and
for 69 claimants listed in Annex E of the same Resolution, whose claims had been found by NLRC
itself as not "supported by evidence" (Rollo, pp. 41-45).
NLRC based its ruling on Article 218(c) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, which empowers it "[to]
conduct investigation for the determination of a question, matter or controversy, within its jurisdiction,
. . . ."
It is the posture of AIBC and BRII that NLRC has no authority under Article 218(c) to remand a case
involving claims which had already been dismissed because such provision contemplates only
situations where there is still a question or controversy to be resolved (Rollo, pp. 41-42).
A principle well embedded in Administrative Law is that the technical rules of procedure and
evidence do not apply to the proceedings conducted by administrative agencies (First Asian
Transport & Shipping Agency, Inc. v. Ople, 142 SCRA 542 [1986]; Asiaworld Publishing House, Inc.
v. Ople, 152 SCRA 219 [1987]). This principle is enshrined in Article 221 of the Labor Code of the
Philippines and is now the bedrock of proceedings before NLRC.
Notwithstanding the non-applicability of technical rules of procedure and evidence in administrative

proceedings, there are cardinal rules which must be observed by the hearing officers in order to
comply with the due process requirements of the Constitution. These cardinal rules are collated
in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635 (1940).
VIII
The three petitions were filed under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court on the grounds that
NLRC had committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the
questioned orders. We find no such abuse of discretion.
WHEREFORE, all the three petitions are DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-35694 December 23, 1933
ALLISON G. GIBBS, petitioner-appelle,

vs.
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, oppositor-appellant.
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE CITY OF MANILA, respondent-appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Hilado for appellants.

Allison D. Gibbs in his own behalf.
BUTTE, J.:
This is an appeal from a final order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, requiring the register of
deeds of the City of Manila to cancel certificates of title Nos. 20880, 28336 and 28331, covering
lands located in the City of Manila, Philippine Islands, and issue in lieu thereof new certificates of
transfer of title in favor of Allison D. Gibbs without requiring him to present any document showing
that the succession tax due under Article XI of Chapter 40 of the Administrative Code has been paid.
The said order of the court of March 10, 1931, recites that the parcels of land covered by said
certificates of title formerly belonged to the conjugal partnership of Allison D. Gibbs and Eva
Johnson Gibbs; that the latter died intestate in Palo Alto, California, on November 28, 1929; that at
the time of her death she and her husband were citizens of the State of California and domiciled
therein.
It appears further from said order that Allison D. Gibbs was appointed administrator of the state of
his said deceased wife in case No. 36795 in the same court, entitled "In the Matter of the Intestate
Estate of Eva Johnson Gibbs, Deceased"; that in said intestate proceedings, the said Allison D.
Gibbs, on September 22,1930, filed an ex parte petition in which he alleged "that the parcels of land
hereunder described belong to the conjugal partnership of your petitioner and his wife, Eva Johnson
Gibbs", describing in detail the three facts here involved; and further alleging that his said wife, a
citizen and resident of California, died on November 28,1929; that in accordance with the law of
California, the community property of spouses who are citizens of California, upon the death of the
wife previous to that of the husband, belongs absolutely to the surviving husband without
administration; that the conjugal partnership of Allison D. Gibbs and Eva Johnson Gibbs, deceased,
has no obligations or debts and no one will be prejudiced by adjucating said parcels of land (and
seventeen others not here involved) to be the absolute property of the said Allison D. Gibbs as sole
owner. The court granted said petition and on September 22, 1930, entered a decree adjucating the
said Allison D. Gibbs to be the sole and absolute owner of said lands, applying section 1401 of the
Civil Code of California. Gibbs presented this decree to the register of deeds of Manila and
demanded that the latter issue to him a "transfer certificate of title".
Section 1547 of Article XI of Chapter 40 of the Administrative Code provides in part that:
Registers of deeds shall not register in the registry of property any document transferring real
property or real rights therein or any chattel mortgage, by way of gifts mortis causa, legacy or
inheritance, unless the payment of the tax fixed in this article and actually due thereon shall
be shown. And they shall immediately notify the Collector of Internal Revenue or the
corresponding provincial treasurer of the non payment of the tax discovered by them. . . .
Acting upon the authority of said section, the register of deeds of the City of Manila, declined to
accept as binding said decree of court of September 22,1930, and refused to register the transfer of
title of the said conjugal property to Allison D. Gibbs, on the ground that the corresponding
inheritance tax had not been paid. Thereupon, under date of December 26, 1930, Allison D. Gibbs
filed in the said court a petition for an order requiring the said register of deeds "to issue the
corresponding titles" to the petitioner without requiring previous payment of any inheritance tax. After
due hearing of the parties, the court reaffirmed said order of September 22, 1930, and entered the
order of March 10, 1931, which is under review on this appeal.
On January 3, 1933, this court remanded the case to the court of origin for new trial upon additional
evidence in regard to the pertinent law of California in force at the time of the death of Mrs. Gibbs,
also authorizing the introduction of evidence with reference to the dates of the acquisition of the
property involved in this suit and with reference to the California law in force at the time of such
acquisition. The case is now before us with the supplementary evidence.
For the purposes of this case, we shall consider the following facts as established by the evidence or
the admissions of the parties: Allison D. Gibbs has been continuously, since the year 1902, a citizen
of the State of California and domiciled therein; that he and Eva Johnson Gibbs were married at
Columbus, Ohio, in July 1906; that there was no antenuptial marriage contract between the parties;
that during the existence of said marriage the spouses acquired the following lands, among others,
in the Philippine Islands, as conjugal property:law phil.net
1. A parcel of land in the City of Manila represented by transfer certificate of title No. 20880, dated
March 16, 1920, and registered in the name of "Allison D. Gibbs casado con Eva Johnson Gibbs".
2. A parcel of land in the City of Manila, represented by transfer certificate of title No. 28336, dated
May 14, 1927, in which it is certified "that spouses Allison D. Gibbs and Eva Johnson Gibbs are the
owners in fee simple" of the land therein described.
3. A parcel of land in the City of Manila, represented by transfer certificate of title No. 28331, dated
April 6, 1927, which it states "that Allison D. Gibbs married to Eva Johnson Gibbs" is the owner of
the land described therein; that said Eva Johnson Gibbs died intestate on November 28, 1929, living
surviving her her husband, the appellee, and two sons, Allison J. Gibbs , now age 25 and Finley J.
Gibbs, now aged 22, as her sole heirs of law.
Article XI of Chapter 40 of the Administrative Code entitled "Tax on inheritances, legacies and other
acquisitions mortis causa" provides in section 1536 that "Every transmission by virtue of inheritance
... of real property ... shall be subject to the following tax." It results that the question for
determination in this case is as follows: Was Eva Johnson Gibbs at the time of her death the owner
of a descendible interest in the Philippine lands above-mentioned?
The appellee contends that the law of California should determine the nature and extent of the title, if
any, that vested in Eva Johnson Gibbs under the three certificates of title Nos. 20880, 28336 and
28331 above referred to, citing article 9 of the Civil Code. But that, even if the nature and extent of
her title under said certificates be governed by the law of the Philippine Islands, the laws of
California govern the succession to such title, citing the second paragraph of article 10 of the Civil
Code.
Article 9 of the Civil Code is as follows:
The laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition, and legal capacity of
persons, are binding upon Spaniards even though they reside in a foreign country." It is
argued that the conjugal right of the California wife in community real estate in the Philippine
Islands is a personal right and must, therefore, be settled by the law governing her personal
status, that is, the law of California. But our attention has not been called to any law of
California that incapacitates a married woman from acquiring or holding land in a foreign
jurisdiction in accordance with the lex rei sitae. There is not the slightest doubt that a
California married woman can acquire title to land in a common law jurisdiction like the State
of Illinois or the District of Columbia, subject to the common-law estate by the courtesy which
would vest in her husband. Nor is there any doubt that if a California husband acquired land
in such a jurisdiction his wife would be vested with the common law right of dower, the
prerequisite conditions obtaining. Article 9 of the Civil Code treats of purely personal
relations and status and capacity for juristic acts, the rules relating to property, both personal
and real, being governed by article 10 of the Civil Code. Furthermore, article 9, by its very
terms, is applicable only to "Spaniards" (now, by construction, to citizens of the Philippine
Islands).
The Organic Act of the Philippine Islands (Act of Congress, August 29, 1916, known as the
"Jones Law") as regards the determination of private rights, grants practical autonomy to the
Government of the Philippine Islands. This Government, therefore, may apply the principles
and rules of private international law (conflicts of laws) on the same footing as an organized
territory or state of the United States. We should, therefore, resort to the law of California, the
nationality and domicile of Mrs. Gibbs, to ascertain the norm which would be applied here as
law were there any question as to her status.
But the appellant's chief argument and the sole basis of the lower court's decision rests upon the
second paragraph of article 10 of the Civil Code which is as follows:
Nevertheless, legal and testamentary successions, in respect to the order of succession as

well as to the amount of the successional rights and the intrinsic validity of their provisions,
shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is in question,
whatever may be the nature of the property or the country in which it may be situated.
In construing the above language we are met at the outset with some difficulty by the expression
"the national law of the person whose succession is in question", by reason of the rather anomalous
political status of the Philippine Islands. (Cf. Manresa, vol. 1, Codigo Civil, pp. 103, 104.) We
encountered no difficulty in applying article 10 in the case of a citizen of Turkey. (Miciano vs. Brimo,
50 Phil., 867.) Having regard to the practical autonomy of the Philippine Islands, as above stated, we
have concluded that if article 10 is applicable and the estate in question is that of a deceased
American citizen, the succession shall be regulated in accordance with the norms of the State of his
domicile in the United States. (Cf. Babcock Templeton vs. Rider Babcock, 52 Phil., 130, 137; In
re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil., 156, 166.)
The trial court found that under the law of California, upon the death of the wife, the entire
community property without administration belongs to the surviving husband; that he is the absolute
owner of all the community property from the moment of the death of his wife, not by virtue of
succession or by virtue of her death, but by virtue of the fact that when the death of the wife
precedes that of the husband he acquires the community property, not as an heir or as the
beneficiary of his deceased wife, but because she never had more than an inchoate interest or
expentancy which is extinguished upon her death. Quoting the case of Estate of Klumpke (167 Cal.,
415, 419), the court said: "The decisions under this section (1401 Civil Code of California) are
uniform to the effect that the husband does not take the community property upon the death of the
wife by succession, but that he holds it all from the moment of her death as though required by
himself. ... It never belonged to the estate of the deceased wife."
The argument of the appellee apparently leads to this dilemma: If he takes nothing by succession
from his deceased wife, how can the second paragraph of article 10 be invoked? Can the appellee
be heard to say that there is a legal succession under the law of the Philippine Islands and no legal
succession under the law of California? It seems clear that the second paragraph of article 10
applies only when a legal or testamentary succession has taken place in the Philippines and in
accordance with the law of the Philippine Islands; and the foreign law is consulted only in regard to
the order of succession or the extent of the successional rights; in other words, the second
paragraph of article 10 can be invoked only when the deceased was vested with a descendible
interest in property within the jurisdiction of the Philippine Islands.
In the case of Clarke vs. Clarke (178 U. S., 186, 191; 44 Law ed., 1028, 1031), the court said:
It is principle firmly established that to the law of the state in which the land is situated we
must look for the rules which govern its descent, alienation, and transfer, and for the effect
and construction of wills and other conveyances. (United States vs. Crosby, 7 Cranch, 115; 3
L. ed., 287; Clark vs. Graham, 6 Wheat., 577; 5 L. ed., 334; McGoon vs. Scales, 9 Wall., 23;
19 L. ed., 545; Brine vs. Hartford F. Ins. Co., 96 U. S., 627; 24 L. ed., 858.)" (See also Estate
of Lloyd, 175 Cal., 704, 705.) This fundamental principle is stated in the first paragraph of
article 10 of our Civil Code as follows: "Personal property is subject to the laws of the nation
of the owner thereof; real property to the laws of the country in which it is situated.
It is stated in 5 Cal. Jur., 478:
In accord with the rule that real property is subject to the lex rei sitae, the respective rights of
husband and wife in such property, in the absence of an antenuptial contract, are determined
by the law of the place where the property is situated, irrespective of the domicile of the
parties or to the place where the marriage was celebrated. (See also Saul vs. His Creditors,
5 Martin [N. S.], 569; 16 Am. Dec., 212 [La.]; Heidenheimer vs. Loring, 26 S. W., 99 [Texas].)
Under this broad principle, the nature and extent of the title which vested in Mrs. Gibbs at the time of
the acquisition of the community lands here in question must be determined in accordance with
the lex rei sitae.
It is admitted that the Philippine lands here in question were acquired as community property of the
conjugal partnership of the appellee and his wife. Under the law of the Philippine Islands, she was
vested of a title equal to that of her husband. Article 1407 of the Civil Code provides:
All the property of the spouses shall be deemed partnership property in the absence of proof
that it belongs exclusively to the husband or to the wife. Article 1395 provides:
"The conjugal partnership shall be governed by the rules of law applicable to the contract of
partnership in all matters in which such rules do not conflict with the express provisions of this
chapter." Article 1414 provides that "the husband may dispose by will of his half only of the property
of the conjugal partnership." Article 1426 provides that upon dissolution of the conjugal partnership
and after inventory and liquidation, "the net remainder of the partnership property shall be divided
share and share alike between the husband and wife, or their respective heirs." Under the provisions
of the Civil Code and the jurisprudence prevailing here, the wife, upon the acquisition of any conjugal
property, becomes immediately vested with an interest and title therein equal to that of her husband,
subject to the power of management and disposition which the law vests in the husband.
Immediately upon her death, if there are no obligations of the decedent, as is true in the present
case, her share in the conjugal property is transmitted to her heirs by succession. (Articles 657, 659,
661, Civil Code; cf. also Coronel vs. Ona, 33 Phil., 456, 469.)
It results that the wife of the appellee was, by the law of the Philippine Islands, vested of a
descendible interest, equal to that of her husband, in the Philippine lands covered by certificates of
title Nos. 20880, 28336 and 28331, from the date of their acquisition to the date of her death. That
appellee himself believed that his wife was vested of such a title and interest in manifest from the
second of said certificates, No. 28336, dated May 14, 1927, introduced by him in evidence, in which
it is certified that "the spouses Allison D. Gibbs and Eva Johnson Gibbs are the owners in fee simple
of the conjugal lands therein described."
The descendible interest of Eva Johnson Gibbs in the lands aforesaid was transmitted to her heirs
by virtue of inheritance and this transmission plainly falls within the language of section 1536 of
Article XI of Chapter 40 of the Administrative Code which levies a tax on inheritances. (Cf. Re Estate
of Majot, 199 N. Y., 29; 92 N. E., 402; 29 L. R. A. [N. S.], 780.) It is unnecessary in this proceeding to
determine the "order of succession" or the "extent of the successional rights" (article 10, Civil
Code, supra) which would be regulated by section 1386 of the Civil Code of California which was in
effect at the time of the death of Mrs. Gibbs.
The record does not show what the proper amount of the inheritance tax in this case would be nor
that the appellee (petitioner below) in any way challenged the power of the Government to levy an
inheritance tax or the validity of the statute under which the register of deeds refused to issue a
certificate of transfer reciting that the appellee is the exclusive owner of the Philippine lands included
in the three certificates of title here involved.
The judgment of the court below of March 10, 1931, is reversed with directions to dismiss the
petition, without special pronouncement as to the costs.
Avanceña, C. J., Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, and Vickers, JJ., concur.
Street, J., dissents.

Conflicts 3-23-17

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conflicts 3-23-17

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. L-13141 May 22, 1959

VICENTA PANTALEON, plaintiff-appellee,

Feliciano R. Bautista for appellee.

Instalment for January-February, 1948

March 1949— P30.00 paid personally

Republic of the Philippines

DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO., INC., petitioner,

Breva & Breva Law Offices for petitioner.

Goc-Ong & Associates for private respondents.

The Appellate Tribunal declared that —

(a) When an attachment may not be dissolved by a showing of its irregular or

. . . The dissolution of the preliminary attachment upon security given, or a showing

Fernan, C.J., is on leave.

Davide, Jr., J., took no part.

Heine v. New York Life Insurance Company

Arguments for the Plaintiff

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 115849 January 24, 1996

Costs against appellant bank.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs

With costs against the defendants.

August 30, 1987

The Producers Bank of the Philippines

Attn. Mr. Mercurio Q. Rivera

TCT NO. AREA

My offer is for PESOS: THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P3,500,000.00)

Kindly contact me at Telephone Number 921-1344.

JP M-P GUTIERREZ ENTERPRISES

Attention: JOSE O. JANOLO

We shall be very glad to hear your position on the on the matter.

September 17, 1987

Attention: Mr. Mercurio Rivera

Hoping that this proposal meets your satisfaction.

The Producers Bank of the Philippines

Attention: Mr. Mercurio Rivera

Re: 101 Hectares of Land

Attention: Atty. Demetrio Demetria

For your information.

Mr. Mercurio Rivera

Dear Mr. Rivera:

We trust that you will be guided accordingly.

Attn.: Atty. NIDA ENCARNACION

Kindly acknowledge receipt of our payment.

In their Petition6 and Memorandum7, petitioners summarized their position as follows:

Petitioners have engaged in forum shopping.

1) Was there forum-shopping on the part of petitioner Bank?

2) Was there a perfected contract of sale between the parties?

The First Issue: Was There Forum-Shopping?

On the other hand, petitioners explain 11 that there is no forum-shopping because:

3) Although the CERTIFICATION/VERIFICATION (supra) signed by the Bank president and

We rule for private respondent.

There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party

xxx xxx xxx

An individual stockholder is permitted to institute a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation

The Second Issue: Was The Contract Perfected?

Q — Please answer the question.

Application of these principles is especially necessary because banks have a fiduciary

The Third Issue: Is the Contract Enforceable?

The petition alleged42:

xxx xxx xxx

Q What do you mean?.

A That is the amount they want, sir.

A He said in a day or two, he will make final acceptance, sir.