#27 Auten v.

Auten
308 N.Y. 155, 124 N.E. 2d 99 (1954)
Fuld, J.,

Facts (as lifted from Coquia’s book):

Margarite Auten and Harold Auten were married in England in 1917 and lived there until 1931,
when the husband deserted his wife and two children and moved to New York. The wife later went to New
York where a SEPARATION AGREEMENT was executed in 1933. Under the agreement, he had to pay
50 Pounds a month through a New York trustee for the support of his wife and children; the parties had to
live separately and the wife had to promise not to bring “any action relating to their separation.” Mr. Harold
Auten failed to give financial support, so his wife brought a suit for legal separation in England, on the
ground of adultery. Although Mr. Auten was served with process, the case never went to trial and Mrs.
Margarite Auten received nothing. In 1947. The PRESENT ACTION was brought in New York to enforce
the separation agreement. The husband admitted making the agreement, but argued that the wife’s
institution of the English separation proceeding wa in violation thereof and thus, his obligation was
extinguished. The lower court, applying NY law, found for the defendant Mr. Harold Auten.

Issue: Whether the lower court’s application of the NY law as choice of law was correct.

Held: “xxx And still other decisions, including the most recent one in this court, have resorted to a method
— first employed to rationalize the results achieved by the courts in decided cases — which has come to
be called the "center of gravity" or the "grouping of contacts" theory of the conflict of laws. Under this
theory, the courts, instead of regarding as conclusive the parties' intention or the place of making or
performance, lay emphasis rather upon the law of the place "which has the most significant contacts with
the matter in dispute".
Although this "grouping of contacts" theory may, perhaps, afford less certainty and predictability
than the rigid general rules, the merit of its approach is that it gives to the place "having the most interest
in the problem" paramount control over the legal issues arising out of a particular factual context, thus
allowing the forum to apply the policy of the jurisdiction "most intimately concerned with the outcome of
[the] particular litigation". Moreover, by stressing the significant contacts, it enables the court, not only to
reflect the relative interests of the several jurisdictions involved, but also to give effect to the probable
intention of the parties and consideration to "whether one rule or the other produces the best practical
result".
Turning to the case before us, examination of the respective contacts with New York and England
compels the conclusion that it is English law which must be applied to determine the impact and effect
to be given the wife's institution of the separation suit. It hardly needs stating that it is England which
has all the truly significant contacts, while this state's sole nexus with the matter in dispute — entirely
fortuitous, at that — is that it is the place where the agreement was made and where the trustee, to whom
the moneys were in the first instance to be paid, had his office. The agreement effected a separation between
British subjects, who had been married in England, had children there and lived there as a family for
fourteen years. It involved a husband who, according to the papers before us, had willfully deserted and
abandoned his wife and children in England and was in the United States, when the agreement was signed,
merely on a temporary visa. And it concerned an English wife who came to this country at that time because
it was the only way she could see her husband to discuss their differences. The sole purpose of her trip to
New York was to get defendant to agree to the support of his family, and she returned to England
immediately after the agreement was executed. While the moneys were to be paid through the medium of
a New York trustee, such payments were "for account of" the wife and children, who, it was thoroughly
understood, were to live in England. The agreement is instinct with that understanding; not only does it
speak in terms of English currency in providing for payments to the wife, not only does it recite that the
first payment be made to her "immediately before sailing for England", but it specifies that the husband
may visit the children "if he should go to England".
Since, then, the law of England must be applied, and since, at the very least, an issue exists as to
whether the courts of that country treat the commencement of a separation action as a repudiation of an
earlier-made separation agreement, summary judgment should not have been granted.

-oOo-

#31 Spouses Cesar and Suthira Zalamea v. CA and Transworld Airlines

G.R. No. 104235 November 18, 1993
Nocon, J.,

Facts: Spouses Cesar and Suthira Zalamea, along with their daughter Liana, purchased three (3) airline
tickets from the Manila agent of respondent TransWorld Airlines, Inc. for a flight to New York to Los
Angeles. The tickets of petitioners-spouses were purchased at a discount of 75% while that of their daughter
was a full fare ticket. All three tickets represented confirmed reservations. However, while at New York,
the Spouses found out that there had been an overbooking of the flight that they were supposed to be in,
and hence they were put to wait-listed passengers. Priority was given to full-priced ticket holders as against
discounted ticket holders. Only Cesar, who was then holding the full-priced ticket of his daughter, was able
to board the flight to Los Angeles. Similar incident occurred in the next TransWorld flight, and Suthira and
Liana were not able to board the plane because of overbooking and because their flight tickets were not
prioritized. They were constrained to buy an American Airlines ticket (totalled $918.00) instead in order to
board. When the Spouses came home to Manila, they filed a suit for damages based on breach of contract
of air carriage against Transworld Airlines in RTC Makati. The RTC ruled for the Spouses. On appeal, the
Court of Appeals held that there was no bad faith on the part of Transworld since: 1. Overbooking was an
accepted practice in the United States, 2. The omission or negligence is not so gross so as to amount to bad
faith, and 3. Priority given to full-fared ticket holders as against discounted ticket holders does not amount
to bad faith. Hence, the moral damages awarded by the RTC were deleted.

Issue: Whether the CA was correct in ruling that there was no fraud or bad faith on the part of TransWorld
because it has a right to overbook flights.
Held: NO. That there was fraud or bad faith on the part of respondent airline when it did not allow
petitioners to board their flight for Los Angeles in spite of confirmed tickets cannot be disputed. The U.S.
law or regulation allegedly authorizing overbooking has never been proved. Foreign laws do not prove
themselves nor can the courts take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and
proved. Written law may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer
having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied with a certificate that such officer
has custody. The certificate may be made by a secretary of an embassy or legation, consul general, consul,
vice-consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the
foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.
Respondent TransWorld relied solely on the statement of Ms. Gwendolyn Lather, its customer
service agent, in her deposition dated January 27, 1986 that the Code of Federal Regulations of the Civil
Aeronautics Board allows overbooking. Aside from said statement, no official publication of said code was
presented as evidence. Thus, respondent court's finding that overbooking is specifically allowed by the US
Code of Federal Regulations has no basis in fact.
Choice of Law: Even if the claimed U.S. Code of Federal Regulations does exist, the same is not
applicable to the case at bar in accordance with the principle of lex loci contractus which require that the
law of the place where the airline ticket was issued should be applied by the court where the passengers are
residents and nationals of the forum and the ticket is issued in such State by the defendant airline. Since the
tickets were sold and issued in the Philippines, the applicable law in this case would be Philippine law. And
here, existing jurisprudence explicitly states that overbooking amounts to bad faith, entitling the passengers
concerned to an award of moral damages.