PHI

LIPPI
NESUPREMECOURTDECI
SIONS

THI
RDDI
VISI
ON

[
G.R.NO.149177:
Nov
ember23,
2007]

KAZUHI
ROHASEGAWAandNI PPONENGI
NEERI
NGCONSULTANTSCO.
,LTD.
,Pet
it
ioner
s,v
.
MINORUKI
TAMURA,Respondent
.

DECISION

NACHURA,
J.:

Befor
etheCourti
saPet i
ti
onforRevi
ewonCer ti
orar
iunderRule45oft heRulesofCour
t
assai
li
ngtheApri
l18,
2001Deci si
on1oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCA-G.R.SPNo.60827,
and
theJul
y25,2001Resolut
ion2denyi
ngthemotionforreconsi
derat
ionthereof
.

OnMar ch30, 1999, peti

ti
onerNi pponEngineeringConsultantsCo., Ltd.(Ni
ppon) ,aJapanese
consultancyfir
m providi
ngt echnicalandmanagementsuppor ti
nthei nf
rastructurepr oject
sof
forei
gngov ernment s,
3enteredintoanI ndependentCont r
actorAgr eement( ICA)wi th
respondentMi noruKitamura, aJapanesenat i
onal per
manent lyr
esi dinginthePhi l
ippines.4The
agreementpr ovidesthatrespondentwast oext endprofessionalser v
icestoNi pponf oray ear
start
ingonApr il1,1999.5Nippont henassignedr espondenttowor kast hepr ojectmanagerof
theSout her
nTagal ogAccessRoad( STAR)ProjectinthePhi l
i
ppines, fol
lowingt hecompany '
s
consultancycont r
actwiththePhi li
ppineGovernment .
6

Whent heSTARPr oj
ectwasnearcompl et
ion,theDepar tmentofPubli
cWor ksandHi ghways
(DPWH)engagedt heconsul
tancyserv
icesofNi ppon,onJanuary28,2000,
t hi
stimef ort
he
detai
ledengineeri
ngandconstruct
ionsupervisionoft heBongabon-Bal
erRoadI mprovement
(BBRI)Proj
ect.7Respondentwasnamedast hepr oj
ectmanagerinthecontract
'sAppendix
3.1.
8
OnFebr uary28,2000, peti
ti
onerKazuhir
oHasegawa, Ni
ppon'sgeneral
managerforit
s
Int
ernati
onal Di
vision,i
nformedrespondentthatt
hecompanyhadnomor eint
enti
onof
automaticall
yrenewi nghisICA.Hi
sser v
iceswouldbeengagedbyt hecompanyonlyuptothe
substanti
alcompl eti
onoft heSTARPr oj
ectonMar ch31,2000,
justint
imefortheI
CA'sexpir
y.9

Threatenedwithimpendingunemployment,respondent
,thr
oughhisl
awy er
,requesteda
negotiat
ionconferenceanddemandedt hathebeassignedtotheBBRIproj
ect.Nipponinsi
sted
thatrespondent'
scontractwasf
oraf i
xedtermt hathadalr
eadyexpi
red,
andr efusedto
negotiat
efortherenewal oft
heICA.10

Ashewasnotabl etogenerat
eapositi
veresponsefrom t
hepeti
ti
oners,r
espondent
consequent
lyi
nit
iat
edonJune1, 2000Civi
l CaseNo.00-
0264forspecif
icper
formanceand
damageswiththeRegional
Trial
CourtofLipaCity
.11

Fortheirpart
,peti
ti
oners,cont
endingthatt
heICAhadbeenper fectedinJapanandexecut edby
andbet weenJapanesenat i
onals,movedtodismissthecomplaintforl
ackofj
urisdicti
on.They
assertedthatthecl
aimf orimpr
operpre-t
erminat
ionofrespondent'
sICAcouldonl ybeheard
andv enti
lat
edinthepropercourtsofJapanfoll
owingthepri
nciplesoflexl
ocicelebrat
ioni
sand
l
excont ract
us.12

I
nthemeant
ime,
onJune20, 2000,
theDPWHappr ovedNi
ppon'
srequestf
ort
her
epl
acementof
Ki
tamur
abyacert
ainY.Kot
akeaspr oj
ectmanageroft
heBBRIProj
ect.
13

OnJune29, 2000, theRTC, inv

okingourr ulingi nI
nsularGov er
nmentv .Frank14thatmat ters
connectedwiththeper f
ormanceofcont r
act sareregulatedbyt helawpr evail
ingattheplaceof
perf
ormance,15deni edthemot i
ontodi smi ss.16Thet r
ialcourtsubsequent l
ydeni edpeti
tioner
s'
motionforreconsider at
ion,17prompt ingthem t ofi
lewi t
ht heappellatecourt,onAugust14,
2000,thei
rfir
stPet i
tionforCer ti
orar
i underRul e65[ docketedasCA- G.R.SPNo.60205] .18On
August23,2000, theCAr esolvedtodi smisst hepetiti
ononpr ocedur algrounds'f
orlackof
stat
ementofmat erialdatesandf orinsuf f
icientveri
fi
cationandcer ti
ficati
onagainstforum
shopping.
19AnEnt ryofJudgmentwasl aterissuedbyt heappel l
atecour tonSept ember20,
2000.20

Aggr
iev
edbyt
hisdev
elopment
,pet
it
ioner
sfi
l
edwi
tht
heCA,
onSept
ember19,
2000,
sti
l
lwi
thi
n
theregl
ementaryperiod,
asecondPet i
ti
onf orCert
ior
ariunderRul
e65alreadystat
ingther
ein
themateri
aldatesandat t
achingtheret
ot heproperveri
fi
cati
onandcert
if
icati
on.Thissecond
peti
ti
on,whichsubstanti
all
yraisedthesamei ssuesasthosei nt
hefi
rst
,wasdocket edasCA-
G.R.SPNo.60827.21

Ruli
ngont hemeritsoft hesecondpetiti
on,theappel l
atecour
tr enderedtheassail
edApri
l18,
2001Deci sion22findingnogr aveabuseofdi scr
etioninthetr
ial cour
t'sdenialoft
hemoti
onto
dismiss.TheCAr ul ed,amongot her
s,thattheprincipl
eoflexloci cel
ebrati
oniswasnot
appli
cablet othecase, becausenowher einthepleadingswast hev al
idit
yoft hewri
tt
en
agreementputi nissue.TheCAt husdeclaredthatthet r
ial
courtwascor r
ectinapply
ingi
nst
ead
theprinci
pleoflexl ocisolut
ioni
s.23

Pet
it
ioner
s'moti
onforr
econsi
der
ati
onwassubsequent
lydeni
edbyt
heCAi
ntheassai
l
edJul
y
25,
2001Resolut
ion.
24

Remaini
ngsteadfasti
nthei
rst
ancedespit
etheseri
esofdeni
als,
peti
ti
oner
sinsti
tut
edthe
i
nstantPet
it
ionforRevi
ewonCerti
orar
i25imput
ingthef
oll
owingerr
orstotheappel
lat
ecour
t:

A.THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDINFINDI
NGTHATTHETRIAL
COURTVALI
DLYEXERCI
SEDJURI
SDICTIONOVERTHEINSTANTCONTROVERSY,
DESPI
TETHE
FACTTHATTHECONTRACTSUBJECTMATTEROFTHEPROCEEDI NGSAQUOWASENTERED
INTOBYANDBETWEENTWOJAPANESENATI ONALS,
WRITTENWHOLLYINTHEJAPANESE
LANGUAGEANDEXECUTEDI
NTOKYO, JAPAN.

B.THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDINOVERLOOKI
NGTHENEEDTO
REVIEW OURADHERENCETOTHEPRI
NCIPLEOFLEXLOCISOLUTI
ONI
SINTHELI
GHTOF
RECENTDEVELOPMENT[S]I
NPRI
VATEINTERNATI
ONALLAWS.26

Thepi votalquestiont hatthi

sCour ti
scalledupont or
esolveiswhethert
hesubj ectmatt
er
j
urisdicti
onofPhi l
ippinecourtsinciv
ilcasesforspeci
ficperf
ormanceanddamagesi nvol
vi
ng
contractsex ecutedout sidethecountrybyforei
gnnational
smaybeassai l
edont hepri
nci
plesof
l
exl ocicelebrati
oni s,
lexcont r
actus,
the"stat
eoft hemostsignif
icantr
elati
onshiprul
e,
"or
for
um nonconv eniens.
However,
befor
erul
i
ngont
hisi
ssue,
wemustf
ir
stdi
sposeoft
hepr
ocedur
almat
ter
srai
sedby
t
herespondent
.

Kit
amuracontendsthatthefi
nal
ityoft
heappell
atecourt
'sdeci
sioni
nCA-G.R.SPNo.60205has
al
readybar
redthefili
ngofthesecondpet
it
iondocketedasCA- G.
R.SPNo.60827
(f
undamental
lyrai
singthesameissuesasthoseinthefi
rstone)andthei
nstantPet
it
ionf
or
Reviewt
hereof.

Wedonotagr ee.Whent heCAdi smissedCA-G.R.SPNo.60205onaccountoft hepet it

ion's
defecti
vecerti
fi
cati
onofnon- f
or um shopping,i
twasadi smissal withoutpr ej
udice.27Thesame
holdstrueintheCA'sdismi ssal ofthesaidcaseduet odefectsint heformal requirementof
veri
fi
cation28andintheot herr equirementinRule46oft heRulesofCour tont hest atementof
themat eri
aldat
es.29Thedi smissal bei
ngwi t
houtprej
udice,petit
ionerscanr e-fil
et hepetiti
on,
orfil
easecondpet it
ionat t
achingt heretotheappropri
ateveri
ficati
onandcer tif
icationast hey,
i
nf actdidandstati
ngt hereinthemat er
ialdat
es,wit
hintheprescr i
bedper iod30i nSect i
on4,
Rule65oft hesaidRules.31

Thedi smi ssal

ofacasewi thoutprej
udicesi
gnif
iestheabsenceofadecisi
ononthemerit
sand
l
eav est heparti
esfreetoli
ti
gatethemat t
eri
nasubsequentact i
onasthoughthedismi
ssed
acti
onhadnotbeencommenced.I notherwords,t
het er
minati
onofacasenotonthemer i
ts
doesnotbaranot heracti
oninvol
vingthesamepar t
ies,onthesamesubjectmat
terand
theory.32

Necessar i
l
y,becauset hesai ddi smi ssal iswi t
houtpr ejudiceandhasnor esjudicataeffect,and
eveni fpetit
ionerssti
llindicat edint hev erif
icati
onandcer ti
ficat
ionoft hesecondcer t
iorari
peti
tiont hatthefir
sthadal readybeendi smi ssedonpr ocedur algrounds,33petiti
onersar eno
l
ongerr equir
edbyt heRul est oindicat eintheircer t
if
icationofnon- for
um shoppingi nthei nstant
Petit
ionf orRev i
ewoft hesecondcer t
ioraripeti
tion,thest atusoft heaforesaidfir
stpet iti
on
beforet heCA.I nanycase, anomi ssi oninthecer ti
fi
cateofnon- forum shoppingaboutany
eventt hatwillnotconst i
tuter esjudi cataandl i
ti
spendent ia,asint hepresentcase, i
snotaf atal
defect.Itwillnotwarrantt hedi smi ssal andnul li
ficat
ionoft heent i
reproceedings,consi deri
ng
thattheev il
ssoughtt obepr eventedbyt hesai dcer ti
fi
cat ear enol ongerpresent.
34
TheCour talsofindsnomer i
tinrespondent '
scont entionthatpet i
tionerHasegawai sonl y
authorizedt overifyandcer ti
fy,onbehal fofNi ppon,thecertioraripetit
ionf il
edwi ththeCAand
notthei nstantpet it
ion.Tr ue,theAut horizat
ion35dat edSept ember4, 2000, whichi sattachedto
thesecondcer ti
or aripet i
ti
onandwhi chi salsoat t
achedtot hei nstantPet iti
onf orRev i
ew, i
s
l
imitedi nscopei tswor dingsindicatet hatHasegawai sgivent heaut horitytosignf orandacton
behalfoft hecompanyonl yint hepetit
ionf i
l
edwi ththeappel latecour t
, andt hatauthority
cannotext endt ot hei nst antPet i
ti
onf orRev i
ew. 36Inapl ethor aofcases, howev er,t
hisCour t
hasliberall
yappl iedt heRul esorev ensuspendedi tsapplicationwhenev erasat i
sfactory
explanationandasubsequentf ulf
il
lmentoft herequirementshav ebeenmade. 37Gi venthat
peti
tionersher ei
nsuf ficientlyexplainedt hei
rmi sgivi
ngsont hi spointandappendedt otheir
Reply38anupdat edAut hori
zat i
on39f orHasegawat oactonbehal fofthecompanyi nt he
i
nstantpet iti
on,theCour tfi
ndst hesameassuf fi
cientcompl iancewi tht heRules.

Howev er ,theCour tcannotext endt hesamel i

ber altreatmentt ot hedef ectinthev eri
fication
andcer tifi
cat i
on.Asr espondentpoi ntedout ,andt owhi chweagr ee,Hasegawai st r
ulynot
authorizedt oactonbehal fofNi pponi nt hiscase.Theaf or esaidSept ember4, 2000
Authorizationandev ent hesubsequentAugust17, 2001Aut hor i
zati
onwer eissuedonl yby
Nippon'spr esidentandchi efexecutiveof ficer,notbyt hecompany 'sboar dofdi r
ectors.I nnota
fewcases, wehav er uledt hatcorporatepower sar eexer cisedbyt heboar dofdi rect
ors; thus,no
person, notev eni tsof fi
cers,canbindt hecor poration, i
nt heabsenceofaut hori
tyfrom t he
board.40Consi deringt hatHasegawav eri
fiedandcer tif
iedt hepet i
ti
ononl yonhisbehal fand
notonbehal foft heot herpetiti
oner,thepet i
ti
onhast obedeni edpursuantt oLoqui asv .Of f
ice
oftheOmbudsman. 41Subst anti
alcompl iancewi llnotsuf f i
cei namat terthatdemandsst ri
ct
observanceoft heRul es.42Whi l
etechni cal r
ulesofpr ocedur earedesi gnednott of rustratethe
endsofj ustice,nonet heless,theyarei ntendedt oef f
ectt hepr operandor derl
ydisposi ti
onof
casesandef fectivelypr eventt hecloggi ngofcour tdocket s. 43

Further,theCourthasobser vedthatpetit
ionersi ncorr
ectl
yfil
edaRul e65petiti
ontoquestion
thetrialcourt'
sdenialofthei
rmot iontodismi ss.Itisawell
-establi
shedrul
ethatanor der
deny i
ngamot iontodismissisinterl
ocutory,andcannotbet hesubjectoft
heext r
aordinar
y
Petiti
onf orCerti
orari
ormandamus.Theappr opriat
erecourseist ofi
l
eananswerandt o
i
nterposeasdef ensestheobjectionsrai
sedi nt hemot i
on,toproceedt ot
ri
al,and,i
ncaseofan
adversedeci si
on,toelevatetheent i
recasebyappeal induecour se.
44Whi l
ethereare
recognizedexcept i
onstot hi
srule,45peti
tioners'casedoesnotf allamongthem.

Thi
sbr
ingsust
othedi
scussi
onoft
hesubst
ant
ivei
ssueoft
hecase.
Assert
ingthattheRTCofLi paCi tyisaninconvenientforum,peti
ti
onersquesti
onitsjuri
sdict
ion
tohearandresolvet hecivi
l caseforspecifi
cperformanceanddamagesf il
edbyt herespondent.
TheICAsubjectoft hel i
ti
gationwasent eredint
oandper fect
edinTokyo,Japan,byJapanese
nati
onals,
andwr it
tenwhol lyint heJapaneselanguage.Thus, pet
iti
onersposi
tthatlocalcourts
havenosubst ant
ialrelati
onshipt otheparti
es46followingthe[st
ateofthe]mostsignifi
cant
rel
ati
onshiprulei
nPr i
vateInternati
onalLaw.47

TheCour tnot esthatpet i

ti
onersadopt edanaddi t
ional butdifferentt heorywhent heyelev ated
thecaset ot heappel latecourt.I
nt heMot iontoDi smi ss48filedwi ththetri
al court,peti
tioners
nev ercont endedt hatt heRTCi sani nconvenientf orum.Theymer elyarguedt hattheappl i
cable
l
awwhi chwi lldet
ermi nethevali
dityori nvali
dityofr espondent 'scl aimisthatofJapan,
followingt hepr i
nciplesofl exlocicel ebrat
ionisandl excont ract us.49Whi lenotabandoni ngt hi
s
stancei nt heirpeti
tionbef oretheappel l
atecour t,peti
tionersoncer ti
orari
signifi
cant lyi
nv oked
thedef enseoff orum nonconv eniens. 50OnPet i
tionforRev iewbef orethi
sCour t
,pet i
ti
oner s
droppedt heirotherar gument s,mai ntainedthef orum nonconv eniensdef ense, andi ntr
oduced
theirnewar gumentt hattheappl i
cabl epr i
ncipl
ei sthe[ stat
eoft he]mostsi gnif
icantr el
ationship
rule.51

Bet hatasitmay ,
thi
sCourtisnoti
nclinedtodenyt
hispeti
ti
onmer elyont hebasi
softhe
changei ntheor
y,asexplai
nedinPhil
i
ppi nePor
tsAuthor
it
yv.CityofIloi
l
o.52Weonl ypoi
nted
outpet i
ti
oners'
inconst
ancyinthei
rargumentstoemphasizethei
rincorrectasser
ti
onofconfl
i
ct
oflawspr i
ncipl
es.

Toel ucidate,i
nt hejudi
cialresolut
ionofconf l
i
ctsproblems, t
hreeconsecuti
vephasesare
i
nvolv ed: j
uri
sdicti
on,choiceoflaw, andrecogniti
onandenf orcementofjudgments.
Correspondi ngt othesephasesar et hefol
lowingquestions:(
1)Wherecanorshoul dli
ti
gat
ion
beinitiated?(2)Whi chlawwi ll
thecour tappl
y?and( 3)Wher ecantheresult
ingj
udgmentbe
enf
or ced? 53

Analyt
ical
ly,j
uri
sdictionandchoiceoflawar etwodisti
nctconcept s.54Jurisdicti
onconsider
s
whetheritisfai
rtocauseadef endanttotr
aveltothi
sstate;choiceofl awaskst hefur
ther
questi
onwhet hertheappl i
cati
onofasubst anti
velawwhichwi lldeterminet hemer i
tsofthe
caseisfairtobothpar ti
es.Thepowert oexerci
sejur
isdi
ctiondoesnotaut omat ical
l
ygivea
stat
econst i
tuti
onal author
it
ytoapplyforum law.Whil
ejuri
sdicti
onandt hechoi ceofthelexfor
i
will
oftencoincide,t
he" minimum contact
s"foronedonotal wayspr ovi
dethenecessar y
"si
gnif
icantcontacts"fortheother.
55Thequest i
onofwhet herthel awofast atecanbeapplied
t
oat r
ansact
ioni
sdi
ff
erentf
rom t
hequest
ionofwhet
hert
hecour
tsoft
hatst
atehav
e
j
uri
sdi
cti
ontoent
erajudgment
.56

I
nthi
scase,
onl
ythef
ir
stphasei
sati
ssuej
uri
sdi
cti
on.
ςηαñr
οbl
εšν
ιr†υαl
lαωl
ιbr
αrÿ

Juri
sdicti
on,howev er
,hasvar i
ousaspect s.Foracour ttovali
dlyexerci
seitspowert oadj udicat
e
acontroversy,i
tmusthav ejuri
sdict
ionov ertheplainti
fforthepetit
ioner
,overthedef endantor
therespondent,overthesubjectmat t
er,overtheissuesoft hecaseand, i
ncasesi nvol v
ing
propert
y,overtheresorthet hi
ngwhi chist hesubjectofthelit
igati
on.57Inassail
ingt hetrial
court'
sjuri
sdict
ionherei
n,petit
ioner
sar eact ual
l
yr eferr
ingtosubjectmatterj
urisdict
ion.

Juri
sdicti
onoverthesubjectmatterinaj udicialproceedingisconferr
edbyt hesoverei
gn
authori
tywhichestabli
shesandor ganizest hecour t
.Itisgivenonlybylawandi nthemanner
prescri
bedbylaw.58Itisfurt
herdetermi nedbyt heal l
egat i
onsofthecomplaintir
respect
iveof
whethertheplai
nti
ffisenti
tl
edtoal lorsomeoft heclaimsasser t
edtherei
n.59Tosucceedi ni
ts
mot i
onforthedismissalofanactionforl ackofj uri
sdicti
onov ert
hesubjectmat t
erofthe
cl
aim,60themov antmustshowt hatt hecour tort ri
bunal cannotactonthemat t
ersubmittedt
o
i
tbecausenol awgr antsi
tthepowert oadj udicatethecl aims.61

Intheinst
antcase,petit
ioners,i
ntheirmot i
ont odi
smiss,donotcl ai
mthatt hetr
ialcourtisnot
properl
yvestedbylawwi thjuri
sdicti
ontoheart hesubj
ectcont r
oversyfor,
indeed,Civil
CaseNo.
00-0264forspecifi
cperformanceanddamagesi sonenotcapabl eofpecuniaryesti
mat i
onand
i
spr operl
ycognizablebytheRTCofLi paCi t
y.62Whattheyratherrai
seasgr oundstoquest i
on
subjectmatt
erjuri
sdicti
onaret heprinci
plesoflexl
ocicelebrati
onisandlexcontractus,andthe
"st
ateofthemostsi gnif
icantrelat
ionshi
pr ul
e."

TheCour
tfi
ndst
hei
nvocat
ionoft
hesegr
oundsunsound.

Lexlocicelebrati
onisrelatest othe"l
awoft heplaceoftheceremony "63ort helawoft hepl ace
whereacont ractismade. 64Thedoct r
ineoflexcont
ractusorlexlocicontractusmeanst he
"l
awoft heplacewher eacont racti
sexecutedortobeper for
med."65I tcontrol
sthenat ure,
constr
uction,andv al
idityoft hecontract66anditmayper t
aintothelawv oluntari
lyagreedupon
bythepartiesort helawi ntendedbyt hem eit
herexpr
esslyorimplici
tl
y .
67Undert he" st
at eof
themostsi gnifi
cantrelati
onshi prul
e,"toascert
ainwhatstatelawtoappl ytoadi spute,the
courtshoulddeterminewhi chst
atehast hemostsubstant
ialconnectiontotheoccur renceand
theparti
es.Inacasei nvolvi
ngacontract,t
hecourtshoul
dconsiderwher ethecont ractwas
made, wasnegot i
ated,wast obeperformed,andthedomicil
e,pl
aceofbusi ness,orpl aceof
i
ncorporati
onoft heparties.
68Thisruletakesint
oaccountseveralcontact
sandev aluatesthem
accordi
ngt othei
rrelati
veimportancewithrespectt
otheparti
cularissuetober esolved.69

Sincetheset hr
eepr i
nci
plesi
nconf l
i
ctofl awsmaker ef
erencetothelawapplicabletoadispute,
theyarerulesproperforthesecondphase, thechoiceoflaw.70Theydet ermi
newhi chstat
e's
l
awi stobeappl iedinresol
vi
ngt hesubstantiv
eissuesofaconf l
ictsproblem.
71Necessar i
ly,as
theonlyissueint hi
scaseisthatofjur
isdict
ion,choice-
of-
lawrulesarenotonlyinappli
cabl
ebut
alsonoty etcal
ledfor.

Furt
her,peti
ti
oners'pr
emat ur
ei nvocati
onofchoi
ce-of
-l
awr ulesi
sexposedbyt hefactthatthey
havenoty etpoint
edoutanyconf li
ctbetweenthel
awsofJapanandour s.Beforedeter
mi ni
ng
whichlawshoul dapply,f
ir
stthereshouldexi
staconfl
ictoflawssit
uati
onr equi
ri
ngthe
appli
cati
onoft heconfl
ictoflawsr ul
es.72Al
so,whenthelawofaf orei
gncountryisinvokedto
provi
dethepr operrul
esforthesol ut
ionofacase,t
heexistenceofsuchlawmustbepl eaded
andproved.73

Itshouldbenot edthatwhenaconf lictscase,onei nvolvi

ngaf orei
gnel ement,isbroughtbef ore
acour toradmi nistr
ativeagency ,ther earethreeal t
ernati
v esopent othel at
terindisposingofi t
:
(1)dismisst hecase, eitherbecauseofl ackofj uri
sdict
ionorr efusaltoassumej ur
isdicti
onov er
thecase; (2)assumej urisdi
ctionov erthecaseandappl yt heinternall
awoft heforum; or(3)
assumej uri
sdicti
onov ert hecaseandt akei
ntoaccountorappl ythelawofsomeot herStateor
St at
es.74Thecour t
'spowert ohearcasesandcont r
oversiesisder i
vedf rom theConst i
tut
ion
andt helaws.Whi l
eitmaychooset or ecognizel awsoff oreignnat i
ons, t
hecour ti
snotl i
mi t
ed
byf orei
gnsov ereignlawshor toftreatiesorot herformal agreement s,eveninmat tersregarding
rightsprovidedbyf oreignsov erei
gns. 75

Neithercant heothergroundr aised,forum nonconveniens,76beusedt odepri

vethetri
alcourt
ofit
sj uri
sdi cti
onherein.Fir
st,itisnotapr operbasi
sf oramot iontodismi ssbecauseSection1,
Rule16oft heRulesofCour tdoesnoti ncludeitasagr ound.77Second, whetherasuitshould
beent ertainedordismi ssedont hebasi softhesaiddoct r
inedependsl argel
yupont hefactsof
thepar t
icularcaseandi saddressedt ot hesounddiscreti
onoft hetri
alcourt.
78Inthiscase,the
RTCdeci dedt oassumej ur
isdi
ct i
on.Third,t
heproprietyofdismissingacasebasedont his
pri
ncipler equiresafactualdetermi nati
on;hence,t
hisconf l
ict
spr i
ncipl
eismor eproperl
y
consi
der
edamat
terofdef
ense.
79

Accor
dingly,si
ncetheRTCisvestedbylawwit
hthepowertoentert
ainandheartheciv
ilcase
fi
l
edbyr espondentandthegr
oundsr ai
sedbypeti
ti
oner
stoassail
thatj
urisdi
cti
onare
i
nappropri
ate,t
hetrial
andappel
latecourt
scor
rectl
ydeni
edthepeti
ti
oners'moti
ontodismiss.

WHEREFORE,
premi
sesconsi
der
ed,
thePet
it
ionf
orRev
iewonCer
ti
orar
iisDENI
ED.

SOORDERED.

Endnot
es:

1PennedbyAssoci
ateJusti
ceBi
enveni
doL.Reyes,
wit
hthelat
eAssociateJust
iceEubul
oG.
Ver
zolaandAssoci
ateJust
iceMar
inaL.Buzon,
concur
ri
ng;
roll
o,pp.37-
44.

2I
d.at46-
47.

3CAr
oll
o(CA-
G.R.SPNo.60827)
,p.84.

4I
d.at116-
120.

5I
d.at32-
36.

6I
d.at85.

7I
d.at121-
148.
8I
d.at166-
171.

9I
d.at38.

10I
d.at39-
41.

11I
d.at109.

12I
d.at53-
57.

13I
d.at42-
43.

1413Phi
l
.236(
1909)
.

15I
nsul
arGov
ernmentv
.Fr
ank,
id.at240.

16CAr
oll
o(CA-
G.R.SPNo.60827)
,pp.25-
26.

17I
d.at27-
28.

18CAr
oll
o(CA-
G.R.SPNo.60205)
,pp.2-
42.

19Id.at44.TheAugust23,2000Resoluti
onpennedbyAssociat
eJusti
ceDeli
lahVidal
lon-
Magtoli
s(ret
ir
ed),
withtheconcur
renceofAssociateJusti
cesEl
oyR.Bel
lo,
Jr.(r
eti
red)andEl
vi
JohnS.Asuncion(di
smissed)per
ti
nentlyprov
idesasfoll
ows:
"Acur soryr
eadingoft hepetit
ionindicatesnost at
ementastothedatewhent hepet iti
oner
s
fi
ledtheirmotionf orreconsiderat
ionandwhent heyr
ecei
vedtheorderofdenialthereof,as
requiredinSection3, paragraph2, Rule46oft he1997RulesofCivi
lProcedureasamendedby
CircularNo.39-98dat edAugust18, 1998oft heSupremeCour t
.Moreover,t
hev eri
fi
cat i
onand
certi
ficat
ionofnon- forum shoppingwasexecut edbypeti
ti
onerKazuhir
oHasegawaf orboth
petit
ionerswithoutanyi ndicati
onthatt helat
terhadauthori
zedhimtof i
l
ethesame.

"
WHEREFORE,
the[
pet
it
ion]i
sDENI
EDduecour
seandDI
SMI
SSEDout
ri
ght
.

"
SOORDERED.
"

20I
d.at45.

21CAr
oll
o(CA-
G.R.SPNo.60827)
,pp.2-
24.

22Supr
anot
e1.

23I
d.at222.

24Supr
anot
e2.

25Rol
l
o,pp.3-
35.

26I
d.at15.

27SeeSpousesMel ov.CourtofAppeals,376Phil
.204, 213-214(1999),
inwhichtheSupr eme
Cour
truledthatcompli
ancewiththecerti
fi
cati
onagai nstfor
um shoppingisseparatefr
om, and
i
ndependentof,theav
oidanceofforum shoppingi
tself.Thus,t
hereisadiff
erenceinthe
tr
eat
menti nter
msofi mposabl
esanctions'bet
weenf ail
uretocompl ywit
hthecertif
icat
ion
requirementandv iol
ati
onoft heprohi bi
ti
onagainstfor um shoppi ng.Thef ormerismer elya
causef orthedismissal,wi
thoutprejudice,oft
hecompl aintorinit
iatorypleading,whilethelat
ter
i
sagr oundf orsummar ydi
smi ssalthereofandconst it
ut esdirectcont empt .SeealsoPhi l
ippi
ne
RadiantPr oducts,
Inc.v.Metropoli
tanBank&Tr ustCompany ,Inc.
, G.R.No.163569, December9,
2005, 477SCRA299, 314,i
nwhi cht heCour tr
uledthatt hedi smissal duet ofail
uretoappendt o
thepet i
ti
ont heboardresolut
ionaut hori
zingacorpor ateof fi
certof il
et hesamef orandinbehalf
ofthecor porati
oniswithoutprejudice.Soisthedismi ssal ofthepet iti
onf orfai
lureofthe
peti
tionertoappendt heret
other equisit
ecopiesoft heassai l
edor der/s.

28SeeTor r
esv.Speci
ali
zedPackagingDev elopmentCorporati
on,G.R.No.149634,July6,2004,
433SCRA455, 463-
464,inwhichtheCour tmadet hepronouncementthattherequir
ementof
ver
if
icat
ionissi
mplyacondit
ionaffecti
ngt heform ofpl
eadings,andnoncompliancether
ewith
doesnotnecessar
il
yrenderi
tfatal
lydefecti
ve.

29Sect
ion3,Rule46oft heRul esofCourtpert
inentl
ystatesthat"
xxx[ i
]nact
ionsf i
ledunder
Rul
e65,thepetit
ionshallf
urtherindi
catethemat er
ialdat
esshowingwhennot iceoft he
j
udgmentorfinalorderorresol
ut i
onsubjectt
hereofwasr ecei
ved,whenamot i
onf ornewt r
ial
orr
econsider
ati
on,ifany,wasf il
edandwhennot iceofthedenialt
hereofwasreceived.xxx"

30Estrer
av.CourtofAppeal
s,G.
R.NOS.154235-
36,August16,
2006,
499SCRA86,
95;
and
SpousesMelov.CourtofAppeal
s,supr
anot
e27,at214.

31TheRul esofCourtper
ti
nentlyprovi
desinSecti
on4, Rule65that"[t
]hepetit
ionmaybefi
led
notlatert
hansixty(
60)daysfrom noti
ceofthejudgment,orderorresoluti
on.I
ncaseamotion
forreconsi
derat
ionornewtri
al i
stimel
yfi
led,whethersuchmot i
onisr equi
redornot,
thesi
xty
(60)dayperiodshal
lbecountedfrom not
iceofthedenialofsaidmot i
on.xxx"

32Del
gadov
.Cour
tofAppeal
s,G.
R.No.137881,
December21,
2004,
447SCRA402,
415.

33CAr
oll
o(CA-
G.R.SPNo.60827)
,p.21.

34Fuent
ebel
lav.Cast
ro,
G.R.No.150865,
June30,
2006,
494SCRA183,
193-
194;
seeRoxasv
.
Cour
tofAppeal
s,415Phil
.430(2001)
.
35Roll
o,p.33;CArol
lo(
CA-
G.R.SPNo.60827)
,p.23.TheAut
hor
izat
iondat
edSept
ember4,
2000pert
inent
lyr
eads:

"I
,KENTAKAGI ,PresidentandChi efExecuti
veOf f
icerofNI PPONENGI NEERI NGCONSULTANTS
CO.,LTD.,acor por ati
ondul yorganizedandexi st
ingi naccordancewitht hecor porati
onlawsof
Japan, wit
hpr i
ncipal addressat3- 23-1Komagome, Toshima-kuTokyo, Japan, herebyauthori
ze
i
tsInternati
onal Div i
sionGeneral Manager ,Mr.KazuhiroHasegawa, tosi gnandactf orandin
behalfofNipponEngi neeri
ngConsul tantsCo.,Lt
d. ,
forpurposesoff i
li
ngaPet i
ti
onf orCert
ior
ari
beforethepr opert ri
bunal i
nthecaseent i
tl
ed:"Kazuhi r
oHasegawaandNi pponEngi neer
ing
ConsultantsCo. ,Ltd.v .Minor
uKi tamur aandHon.Av eli
noC.Demet ri
aoft heRegi onalTri
al
Court,FourthJudi cialRegion-
Br anch85, Li
paCi t
y,"andt odosuchot hert hings,actsanddeals
whichmaybenecessar yandproperf ortheattai
nmentoft hesaidobjectives"[Underscori
ng
ours]
.

36Cf.Orbet
av .Sendiong,
G.R.No.155236,July8,
2005,463SCRA180, 199-200,
inwhichthe
Courtr
uledthattheagent'
ssigni
ngtherei
noftheveri
fi
cati
onandcert
if
icati
onisalreadycover
ed
bytheprovi
sionsofthegeneralpowerofatt
orneyi
ssuedbythepri
nci
pal.

37Bar
cenasv
.Tomas,
G.R.No.150321,
Mar
ch31,
2005,
454SCRA593,
604.

38Dat
edOct
ober11,
2001;
rol
l
o,pp.192-
203.

39Dat
edAugust17,
2001,
id.at202.

40SanPabl
oManufact
uri
ngCorporat
ionv
.Commi ssionerofI
nternalRev
enue,G.
R.No.147749,
June22,
2006,
492SCRA192,197;LDPMar keti
ng,Inc.v.Monter,
G.R.No.159653,Januar
y25,
2006,
480SCRA137,142;
Exper
trav
el&Tour s,
Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,G.
R.No.152392,May26,
2005,
459SCRA147,160.

41392Phi
l
.596,
603-
604(
2000)
.
42Loqui
asv
.Of
fi
ceoft
heOmbudsman,
id.at604.

43Sant
osv
.Cour
tofAppeal
s,413Phi
l
.41,
54(
2001)
.

44Yut
ingcov
.Cour
tofAppeal
s,435Phi
l
.83,
92(
2002)
.

45BankofAmer icaNT&SAv .CourtofAppeals,448Phil.181,193(2003).Asst at

edher ei
n,
undercer t
ainsituati
onsr esorttocerti
orari
isconsideredappropriat
ewhen: (1)thetri
alcourt
i
ssuedt heor derwithoutorinexcessofj ur
isdi
cti
on;(2)thereispatentgraveabuseofdi scr
eti
on
bythet ri
alcourt;or(3)appeal wouldnotpr ovetobeaspeedyandadequat eremedyaswhenan
appeal wouldnotpr ompt l
yrelieveadefendantf r
om theinjur
iouseffectsofthepatentl
y
mistakenor dermai ntai
ningthepl ai
nti
ff'
sbaselessactionandcompel li
ngthedef endants
needlesslytogot hroughapr ot r
actedtri
alandcloggingthecour tdocketswithanotherfuti
l
e
case.

46Rol
l
o,p.228.

47I
d.at234-
245.

48Dat
edJune5,
2000;
CAr
oll
o(CA-
G.R.SPNo.60827)
,pp.53-
57.

49I
d.at55.

50I
d.at14.

51Rol
l
o,pp.19-
28.
52453Phi
l
.927,
934(
2003)
.

53Scol
es,
Hay
,Bor
cher
s,Sy
meoni
des,
Conf
li
ctofLaws,
3rded.(
2000)
,p.3.

54Coqui
aandAgui
l
ing-
Pangal
angan,
Conf
li
ctofLaws,
1995ed.
,p.64.

55Supranot
e53,at162,ci
ti
ngHay,
TheI
nter
rel
ati
onofJur
isdi
cti
onal
Choi
ceofLawi
nU.
S.
Conf
li
ctsLaw,28I
nt'
l.&Comp.L.
Q.161(
1979).

56Shaf
ferv.Hei
tner
,433U.S.186,215;97S.Ct
.2569,2585(1977)
,cit
ingJusti
ceBlack'
s
Di
ssent
ingOpini
oninHansonv .Denckl
a,357U.S.235,
258;78S.Ct.1228,1242(1958).

57SeeRegal
ado,
Remedi
alLawCompendi
um,
Vol
.1,
8thRev
isedEd.
,pp.7-
8.

58U.
S.v
.DeLaSant
a,9Phi
l
.22,
25-
26(
1907)
.

59Boki
ngov
.Cour
tofAppeal
s,G.R.No.161739,
May4, 2006,489SCRA521,530;
Tomas
Cl
audi
oMemori
alCol
l
ege,I
nc.v.CourtofAppeal
s,374Phil
.859,864(
1999)
.

60SeeRULESOFCOURT,
Rul
e16,
Sec.1.

61SeeI
nRe:
Cal
l
oway
,1Phi
l
.11,
12(
1901)
.

62Bokingov.CourtofAppeal
s,supr
anote59,at531-
533;
Radi
oCommuni
cat
ionsoft
hePhi
l
s.
I
nc.v.CourtofAppeal
s,435Phil
.62,68-
69(2002).

63Gar
ciav
.Reci
o,418Phi
l
.723,
729(
2001)
;Boar
dofCommi
ssi
oner
s(CI
D)v
.Del
aRosa,
G.R.
NOS.95122-
23,
May31,
1991,
197SCRA853,
888.

64
<ht
tp:/
/web2.west
law.com/ search/def
ault.
wl?rs=WLW7. 10&act
ion=Search&f
n=_top&sv=Spl
it&
method=TNC&query=CA( +lex+loci+cel
ebrati
onis+)&db=DIBLACK&utid=%7bD0AE3BEE-91BC-
4B2B-B788-
3FB4D963677B%7d&vr =2.0&r p=%2fsear
ch%2f defaul
t.wl
&mt =WLIGeneral
Subscr
ipti
on>(visi
ted
October22,
2007).

65
<htt
p://web2.
westl
aw. com/ search/default
.wl?rs=WLW7. 10&act
ion=Search&f
n=_top&sv=Spl
it&
met hod=TNC&query=CA( +lex+loci+contractus+)&db=DIBLACK&utid=%7bD0AE3BEE- 91BC-
4B2B
-B788-
3FB4D963677B%7d&v r =2.0&r p=%2fsearch%2f defaul
t.
wl&mt =WLIGeneral
Subscr
ipti
on>(vi
sit
ed
October22,2007).

66I
d.

67Phi
l
ippi
neExportandForei
gnLoanGuarant
eeCorpor
ati
onv
.V.
P.Eusebi
oConst
ruct
ion,
Inc.
,
G.
R.No.140047,
July13,2004,434SCRA202,214-
215.

68
<ht
tp:
//web2.west
law.com/sear
ch/def
ault.
wl?r
s=WLW7. 10&acti
on=Sear
ch&f
n=_t
op&sv=Spl
it
&
method=TNC&query=CA(+most+si
gnif
icant
+rel
ati
onshi
p+) &db=DI
BLACK&uti
d=%7bD0AE3BEE-
91BC-4B2B-
B788-3FB4D963677B%7d&v r
=2.0&r
p=%2fsearch%2fdef
ault
.wl
&mt=
WLIGeneral
Subscri
pti
on>(vi
sit
edOctober22,2007).

69Saudi ArabianAirl
i
nesv.CourtofAppeals,358Phi l.105,127(1998)
.Thecont act
swhi ch
wer etakenintoaccountinthiscasearethefollowing:(a)theplacewheretheinj
uryoccurred;(
b)
theplacewher etheconductcausingtheinj
uryoccur r
ed; (
c)thedomici
le,r
esidence,nat
ionali
ty,
placeofi ncorporat
ionandplaceofbusinessoft hepar t
ies;and(d)t
heplacewher et
he
relat
ionship,i
fany ,
betweenthepar t
iesi
scent ered.
70SeeAut
env
.Aut
en,
308N.
Y155,
159-
160(
1954)
.

71Supr
anot
e53,
at117-
118;
supr
anot
e54,
at64-
65.

72Laur
elv
.Gar
cia,
G.R.NOS.92013and92047,
Jul
y25,
1990,
187SCRA797,
810-
811.

73Inter
nat
ional
Har
vest
erCompanyi
nRussi
av.Hambur
g-Amer
icanLi
ne,
42Phi
l
.845,
855
(1918).

74Sal
onga,
Pri
vat
eInt
ernat
ional
Law,
1995ed.
,p.44.

75Veit
z,Jr
.v.Uni
sysCorpor
ati
on,
676F.Supp.99,
101(
1987)
,ci
ti
ngRandal
lv.Ar
abi
anAm.Oi
l
.
Co.
,778F.2d1146(1985).

76Undert hisrule,acour t,i

nconf lictscases, mayr efusei mpositionsoni t
sj uri
sdicti
onwher eit
i
snott hemost" conv enient"orav ai l
ablef or
um andt hepar t
iesarenotpr ecludedf rom seeking
remedieselsewher e( BankofAmer icaNT&SAv .Cour tofAppeal s,supr anot e45, at196).The
courtmayr efuset oent ertainacasef oranyoft hef oll
owingpr acticalreasons: (1)thebel i
efthat
themat t
ercanbebet tert r
iedanddeci dedelsewher e,eit
herbecauset hemai naspect soft he
casetranspiredinaf or eignjurisdictionort hemat erialwitnesseshav et heirresidencet here;(2)
thebeli
efthatt henon- residentpl aintif
fsoughtt hef orum, apracticeknownasf orum shopping,
merelytosecur epr ocedur aladv ant agesort oconv eyorhar asst hedef endant ;(3)the
unwill
i
ngnesst oextendl ocaljudicial f
acili
ti
estonon- r
esidentsoral ienswhent hedocketmay
alr
eadybeov ercrowded; (4)theinadequacyoft hel ocal j
udicialmachi ner yf oreffectuatingthe
ri
ghtsoughtt obemai ntained;and( 5)t hedif
fi
cultyofascer taini
ngf orei gnlaw( Puyatv.Zabar te,
405Phi l
.413, 432[2001] ).

77Phi
l
secInv
est
mentCor
por
ati
onv
.Cour
tofAppeal
s,G.
R.No.103493,
June19,
1997,
274
SCRA102,
113.

78BankofAmer
icaNT&SAv
.Cour
tofAppeal
s,supr
anot
e45,
at196.
79BankofAmer
icaNT&SAv
.Cour
tofAppeal
s,supr
anot
e45,
at197.