GARCIA, HANNAH LANE S.

2018020768

Conflicts of Law
October 18, 2020 Activity

A. Under Philippine law, how is proper venue determined? Explain in your own words and cite legal
basis.

Answer:
In civil action, venue relates only to the place of trial or the geographical location in which an action or
proceeding should be brought. It is intended to accord convenience to the parties and does not equate
to the jurisdiction of the court (Dolot v. Paje, G.R. 199199)

The venue in civil actions is divided into three parts: 1) Venue of real actions; 2) Venue of personal
actions; and 3) Venue of actions against nonresidents (Rule 4, Section 1 to 4 of the Rules of Court)

In determining the venue for real actions - the location where the real property or the portion thereof
is situated is material in determining which court shall try and decide on the merits of the case, while
in a personal action - all actions may be commenced and tried at the plaintiff's election, viz; a) Where
the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs reside; b) Where the defendant or any of the principal
defendants resides; or c) In case of a non-resident defendant, where he may be found. [Sec. 2, Rule 4]

The determination of proper venue in cases of action against non-residents - if the defendant is not
found in the Philippines and the actions affects the personal status of plaintiff - the residence of the
plaintiff is material; when the action affects the property of the defendant in the Philippines - the
location where the real property or the portion thereof is situated is material in determining which
court shall try and decide on the merits of the case [Sec.3, Rule 4]

In criminal action, venue is jurisdictional and in determining the former – the place where the
commission of the offense or any of the essential ingredients occurred is material. The action must be
action must be instituted and tried in the courts of the municipality or territory where: a) The offense
was committed; or b) Any of its essential ingredients occurred [Rule 110, Section 10 of the Rules of
Court]

B. What is the concept of Forum non Conveniens? Explain in your own words and cite legal basis.

Answer:

The concept of the legal doctrine of forum non conveniens which literally means “the forum is
inconvenient” is that it allows the court to refuse or decline a case in which it has jurisdiction in favor
of another court for purposes of convenience.

Some of the indicators that would permit the refusal of a court to take cognizance of a certain cases
and would allow the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens are the following: a) the
witnesses and evidence is not readily available in that jurisdiction; b) To permit the docketing of
additional cases would inevitably hamper the speedy disposition of and/or administration of justice, in
cases of congested court dockets; and c) The refusing-court is certain that other court having
jurisdiction of the same may suitably tried the same.

In case of conflict-of-laws, Philippine court may assume jurisdiction provided that the following are
met: (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. (Continental Micronesia, Inc.,
v. Joseph Basco, G.R. Nos. 178382-83).

C. Read the following cases very carefully to understand the concept of forum non conveniens. Based
on the following, when can a court qualified to try a case may refuse to entertain it?

1. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION vs. ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M)

BERHAD, G.R. No. 172301, August 19, 2015

Answer:

Here, the court enumerated practical reasons when courts may refuse to entertain a case even though
the exercise of jurisdiction is authorized by law, viz: 1) The belief that the matter ca be better tried and
decided elsewhere, either because the main aspects of the case transpired in a foreign jurisdiction or
the material witnesses have their residence there; 2) The belief that the nonresident plaintiff sought
the forum (practice known as forum shopping) merely to secure procedural advantages or to convey
or harass the defendant; 3) The unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to nonresidents or aliens
when the docket may already be overcrowded; 4) The inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for
effectuating the right sought to be maintained; and lastly 5) The difficulty of ascertaining foreign law.

The determination of whether to entertain a case is addressed to the sound discretion of the court,
which must carefully consider the facts of the particular case. A mere invocation of the doctrine of
forum non conveniens or an easy averment that foreign elements exist cannot operate to automatically
divest a court of its jurisdiction. It is crucial for courts to determine first if facts were established such
that special circumstances exist to warrant its desistance from assuming jurisdiction.

2. SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES (SAUDIA) AND BRENDA J. BETIA v. MA. JOPETTE M. REBESENCIO,
MONTASSAH B. SACAR-ADIONG, ROUEN RUTH A. CRISTOBAL AND LORAINE S. SCHNEIDER-CRUZ, G.R.
No. 198587, January 14, 2015

Answer:

Here, two (2) factors weigh into a court’s appraisal of the balance of interests inhering in a dispute:
first, the vinculum which the parties and their relation have to a given jurisdiction; and second, the
public interest that must animate a tribunal, in its capacity as an agent of the sovereign, in choosing to
assume or decline jurisdiction. The first is more concerned with the parties, their personal
circumstances, and private interests; the second concerns itself with the state and the greater social
order.

In considering the vinculum, a court must look into the preponderance of linkages which the parties
and their transaction may have to either jurisdiction. In this respect, factors, such as the parties’
respective nationalities and places of negotiation, execution, performance, engagement or
deployment, come into play.

In considering public interest, a court proceeds with a consciousness that it is an organ of the state. It
must, thus, determine if he interests of the sovereign (which acts through it) are outweighed by those
of the alternative jurisdiction. In this respect, the court delves into a consideration of public policy.
Should it find that public interest weighs more heavily in favor of its assumption of jurisdiction, it should
proceed in adjudicating the dispute, any doubt or contrary view arising from the preponderance of
linkages notwithstanding.

3. GIL MIGUEL T. PUYAT v. RON ZABARTE, G.R. No. 141536. February 26, 200

Answer:

Here, under the principle of forum non conveniens, even if the exercise of jurisdiction is authorized by
law, courts may nonetheless refuse to entertain a case for any of the following practical reasons:

1) The belief that the matter can be better tried and decided elsewhere, either because the main
aspects of the case transpired in a foreign jurisdiction or the material witnesses have their residence
there; The belief that the non-resident plaintiff sought the forum[,] a practice known as forum
shopping[,] merely to secure procedural advantages or to convey or harass the defendant; The
unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to nonresidents or aliens when the docket may already
be overcrowded; The inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for effectuating the right sought to be
maintained: and The difficulty of ascertaining foreign law.

Authorities agree that the issue of whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of
the abovementioned principle depends largely upon the facts of each case and on the sound discretion
of the trial court.

4. FIRST PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL BANK (Formerly Producers Bank of the Philippines) and
MERCURIO RIVERA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CARLOS EJERCITO, in substitution of DEMETRIO DEMETRIA,
and JOSE JANOLO, G.R. No. 115849, January 24, 1996

Answer:

To prevent the act of forum-shopping, 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.

Forum-shopping originated as a concept in private international law, 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 friendlier venue.