HSBC vs Sherman

G.R. No. 72494 August 11, 1989

Facts:
A complaint for collection of a sum of money was filed by HSBC against Sherman and Reloj before the
RTC of Quezon City.

Eastern Book Supply Service PTE, Ltd. was granted by HSBC and overdraft facility in the max amount of
$200,000 with interest. As security, Sherman, Reloj and Lowe executed a joint and several guarantee -
providing that the Courts of Singapore shall have jurisdiction over all disputes arising under this
guarantee - in favor of the bank whereby they agreed to pay on demand all sums owed to HSBC.

Eastern failed to pay its obligation thus HSBC demanded payment from the respondents. Inasmuch as
the private respondents still failed to pay, HSBC filed the above-mentioned complaint.

Private respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the subject matter
and over the defendants. The trial court ruled that jurisdiction is fixed by law and it cannot be conferred
by the will, submission or consent of the parties. Furthermore, jurisdiction over the person is acquired
by service of summons and copy of the complaint where were validly given to them. Respondents
appealed which the appellate court granted.

Issue:
whether or not Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the suit.

Ruling:
Yes. The parties did not thereby stipulate that only the courts of Singapore, to the exclusion of all the
rest, has jurisdiction. Neither did the clause in question operate to divest Philippine courts of
jurisdiction. In International Law, jurisdiction is often defined as the right of a State to exercise authority
over persons and things within its boundaries subject to certain exceptions.

However, whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of the principle of forum non
conveniens depends largely upon the facts of the particular case and is addressed to the sound
discretion of the trial court.

Respondents did not even claim, much less prove, that the filing of the action here will cause them any
unnecessary trouble, damage, or expense. On the other hand, there is no showing that petitioner BANK
filed the action here just to harass private respondents.