G.R. No.

149177, November 23, 2007

FACTS:

Nippon, a Japanese consultancy firm entered into a one-year ICA contract with Kitamura, a Japanese
national permanently residing in the Philippines. On February 2000, Kitamura was informed that Nippon
is no longer renewing his ICA and his services would only be utilized until March 31, 2000. Aggrieved,
Kitamura now filed an action for specific performance and damages with the RTC of Lipa City. Nippon
filed a motion to dismiss. The trial and appellate court ruled in favor of Kitamura, hence this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC of Lipa City has jurisdiction for contracts executed by and between two foreign
nationals in foreign country wholly written in a foreign language?

RULING:

Yes. In the judicial resolution of conflict problems, 3 consecutive phases are involved: jurisdiction, choice
of law, and recognition and enforcement of judgments. Jurisdiction and choice of law are two different
concepts. Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state; choice of
law asks the further question whether the application of a substantive law which will determine the
merits of the case is fair to both parties. The power to exercise jurisdiction does not automatically give a
state a constitutional authority to apply forum law.

The only issue is the jurisdiction, hence, choice of law rules as raised by the petitioner is inapplicable and
not yet called for. The petitioner prematurely invoked the said rules before pointing out any conflict
between the laws of Japan and the Philippines.