1. a.

Conflicts of law is defined as the branch of municipal law that deals with
factual situations involving a foreign element and decides whether a foreign
law shall be applied in that foreign element.
b. Processual Presumption of the Law provides that when a foreign law is
not proven, it is presumed that the foreign law is that same as the national
law.
c. Theory of Comity
d. Vested Right Theory
e. Characterization
f. Most Significant provides that in determining which laws of the 2 states
shall apply, the question to be asked is which of the states has the most
substantial connection on the occurrence and on the parties.
g. Principle of Forum non Conveniens provides that by invoking this
principle, a forum may refuse to exercise its jurisdiction if it believes that it
is not the proper forum to handle the case.
h. The Act of State doctrine provides that the act of a sovereign entity even
if it disregards the laws of another state, so long as the act is for a lawful
purpose, must be respected. In other words, if an act is an act of state, the
course of the courts is to respect the act of the sovereign.

2. a. Lex situs –

b. Lex fori – The law of the forum or the positive law of the state

c. Lex loci

d. Lex loci actus

e. Lex loci voluntatis

f. Lex loci intentionis provides that the law intended by the parties will be
the proper law of the contract

g. Lex loci celebrationis means the law of the place where the contract is
made

h. Lex loci contractus means the law of the place where the contract is to be
performed.

3. Public International law deals with the relationship of states, Conflicts of

law, on the other hand, deals with private individuals with an involvement of
a foreign element. Public international law is international in nature,
Conflicts of laws, on the other hand, are municipal in nature.
4. Jurisdiction is the power to hear and decide cases, choice of law, on the
other hand is the power of the courts to effectively choose a law, whether
foreign or national for a proper disposition of a case. They are different in
the sense that Jurisdiction answers the question what court should be the
proper forum in deciding this case. Choice of law, on the other hand,
answers the question of is it proper to apply this law to the parties of the
case.

5. The Court can determine if it has jurisdiction over the case when it has
already acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter, the person, or the res.

6. a. When the subject of a case is a real property situated in the Philippines.

b. In terms of property relations, it is provided that when there is no

stipulation between the two married couple as to which law shall apply to
them, the Philippine law shall govern.

c. When a Filipino father has sons who are foreign nationals, the national
law of the of the father shall apply in terms of succession.

7. a. when it is contrary to public policy

b. when it is contrary to customs

8. The court that has jurisdiction over the case is the US court and not the
Philippine court. It is provided in the most significant relationship rule that
in determining which of the court has jurisdiction over the case, it is
important to determine which of the state has the most substantial
connection to the occurrence of the event and as well to the parties. In this
case, there is a more substantial connection in US than it is in the Philippines
because it is the US where the contract was made and negotiated. Therefore,
the answer is the US court.

9. The court that has jurisdiction over the case would be the courts of Australia.
According the rules on Conflicts of Laws, the state that has the most
substantial connection between the states has the jurisdiction over the case.
In this case, it was the state of Australia where the contract of X and Y was
made and negotiated. While it is true that in the contract, the obligations
were to be performed in the Philippines and the United States, it is still the
state of Australia that has the most significant connection because again, it is
where the contract of X and Y was made. Thus the answer is the courts of
Australia

10. No. Felipe cannot file the case in Manila and that the Manila Court cannot
exercise jurisdiction over the case. The case filed shall be dismissed by
reason of forum non conveniens. According to the doctrine of forum non
conveniens, a forum may desist from exercising jurisdiction even if it is
authorized to take cognizance of the case if there is an inadequacy on the
 part of the local judicial methods in effectuating the right sought to be
maintained. This reason is applicable when a forum is presented with a case
where a party to a case does not do business in the state of the forum. In this
case, it was mentioned that Felipe filed a suit against Coals and Energy.
However, it was also mentioned that Coals and Energy were not doing
business in the Philippines. Clearly, there was no connection between the
Philippines and Coals and Energy that would subject Coals and Energy to
the jurisdiction of Philippine courts. Thus, in applying the doctrine of forum
non conveniens, the Manila court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the case.

11.The following are situations when a court may desist from exercising
jurisdiction over a conflicts of law case even though it is authorized to take
cognizance of the case:

a. When there is a belief that the matter can be better tried in another forum
b. When there is a belief that there exists a forum shopping that will gain
the plaintiff a procedural advantage over the defendant
c. When there is an unwillingness to extend local judicial forums to aliens
d. When there is an inadequacy on the part of local judicial methods in
effectuating the right sought to be maintained.
e. When there is a failure to prove the foreign law.

12. If I were the judge of this case, I will rule in favor of the flight attendants.
The contention of Cathay Pacific that the case should be dismissed based on
the doctrine of forum non conveniens shall be denied. It is provided in the
doctrine of forum non conveniens that the decision is left to the sound
discretion of the courts. It is also provided that there are several instances
wherein a forum may resist from exercising jurisdiction over the case even
though it has the authority to do so. According to the doctrine, a forum may
desist from exercising jurisdiction over a conflicts of law case even though it
is authorized to take cognizance of the case in the following instances:

a. When there is a belief that the matter can be better tried in another forum
b. When there is a belief that there exists a forum shopping that will gain
the plaintiff a procedural advantage over the defendant
c. When there is an unwillingness to extend local judicial forums to aliens
d. When there is an inadequacy on the part of local judicial methods in
effectuating the right sought to be maintained.
e. When there is a failure to prove the foreign law.

Based on the problem given, it is clear that the scenario does not fall on any
of the following instances mentioned. Even though Cathay Pacific is a
foreign corporation, there is still an existing connection between the courts
of the Philippines and Cathay Pacific because the flight attendants were
hired here in the Philippines. Thus, the motion to dismiss on the ground of
forum non conveniens shall not be granted.