Tanada vs Tuvera – Publication

Facts:
 Lorenzo Tanadaet al demanded the disclosure of a number of presidential issuances which they claimed had
not been published as required by law. This includes presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general
orders, proclamations, executive orders, letters of implementations, and administrative orders.
 The case dismissed on the ground that petitioners have no legal personality or standing to bring the instant
petition through the Solicitor General.
 Petitioners maintain that since the subject of the petition concerns a public right, and its object is to compel
the performance of public duty, they need not show any specific interest for their petition to be given due
course.
 Respondents further contend that publication in the Official Gazette is not a requirement for the effectivity of
laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates.
 It is thus submitted that since the presidential issuances in question contain special provisions as to the date
they are to take effect; publication in the Official Gazette is not indispensable for their effectivity.
Issues:
 Whether or not publication in the Official Gazette is required before any law or statue becomes valid and
enforceable
Ruling:
 Petition is GRANTED. The phrase “unless it is otherwise provided” in article 2 of the civil code refers to the date
of effectivity, not the publication requirement itself which cannot be in any event be omitted. The purpose of
the publication is to inform the public of the contents of the laws. The term laws should refer to all laws and
not only to those of general application, because all laws relate to the people in general although some do not
apply to them directly. This includes presidential decrees, and executive orders, administrative rules and
regulations, and circulars.

Philippine international trading corporation vs judge zosimo angeles

Facts:
 Philippine international trading corporation, a government owned and controlled corporation, issued
Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01 under which applications to the PITC for importation from the
People’s Republic of China (PROC) must be accompanied by a viable and confirmed Export Program of the
Philippine Products to China carried out by the importer himself through a tie-up with a legitimate importer
from PROC in an amount equivalent to the value of importation from PROC being applied for, or one is to one
ratio.
  Remington and Firestone both domestic corporations, applied for authority to import from PROC which were
granted after satisfying the requirements for importers.
 After being allowed to import goods, they were subsequently withheld by PITC for failure to comply with the
required one is to one ratio.
 Remington filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus, while Firestone joined petitioner in its charges
against PITC.
 RTC ruled that the Administrative Order was null and void as it was unconstitutional (as it was not concurred by
2/3 of the Senate as required in Article VII section 21 of the 1987 Constitution.) and was not published contrary
to Article 2 of the Civil Code.
 PITC elevated the case to the SC.
Issue:
 Whether or not Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01 is valid.
Ruling:
 Decision of the lower court is AFFIRMED. The Administrative Order issued by PITC was not published in Official
Gazette or in a newspaper of general Circulation, contrary to Article 2 of Civil Code. The Administrative Order is
one of those issuances which should be published for its effectivity.

Farinas et al vs Executive secretary et al – effectivity date of laws

Facts:
 Petitioners come to court alleging that Section 14 of Republic Act 9006 (An Act to Enhance Holding of Free,
Orderly, Honest, Peaceful, and Credible Elections through Fair Election Practices) repeals Section 67 of the
Omnibus Election Code is unconstitutional for being violation of Section 26(1) Article VI of the Constitution,
requiring every law to have only one subject which should be expressed in its title.
 They also assert that the law is null and void in its entirety as irregularities attend its enactment to law. Section
16 even provides that the Act shall take effect upon its approval, is a violation of due process of constitution
and jurisprudence which require publication before it becomes effective.
 Respondents contend that section 14 is not a proscribed rider nor is unconstitutional. Also section 16 is not a
violation of due process, as it doesn’t entail arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty and property.
Issue:
 Whether or not Section 16 is in violation of due process and jurisprudence which require publication before it
becomes effective
Ruling:
  Petitions DISMISSED. The effectivity clause of Section 16 of Republic Act 9006 which provides that it “shall take
effect immediately upon its approval” is defective, but does not render the law invalid. Notwithstanding the
express statement of the law, it should be construed that it took effect fifteen days after its publication in the
Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation.

Systems factors vs National Labor Relations Commission

Facts:
 System Factors Corporation is engaged in the business of installing electrical system in buildings and
infrastructures, employing electricians, engineers and other personnel. Lazaga and Luis were employed by the
corp in one of its projects. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of backwages,
separation pay and other allowances. Labor arbiter rendered judgment ordering the laborers reinstatement
and pay them backwages. NLRC affirmed the decision.
 Judgment was received on Aug 10, 1999, and system factors filed a motion for reconsideration on Aug 20,
1999. On November 25, 1999 petitioners received NLRC resolution dated November 11, denying their motion
of reconsideration. On January 24, 2000 system factors filed a petition for certiorari with the court of appeals.
On Feb 15, 2000 the court of appeals issued a resolution denying the petition, stating that it was filed out of
time. CA in its resolution in June 22, 2000 denied the motion for reconsideration.
 Petitioners stated AM No. 00-2-03-SC which took effect on September 1, 2000. Thus, the filing of petition for
certiorari with the CA on January 24, 2000 is within the reglementary period since the resolution denying the
motion for reconsideration was received on November 25, 1999. Hence the petition. (For review on certiorari
of the resolution of the CA)
Issue:
 Whether or not the amendment can be applied retroactively
Ruling:
 Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and
undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent.
The retroactive application of procedural laws is not violative of any right of any person who may feel that he is
adversely affected. The reason is that as a general rule, no vested right may attach nor arise from procedural
laws. Petition GRANTED resolutions SET ASIDE.
People vs Bagares – retroactivity of laws

Facts:
 A phone call of unidentified party was received by Sgt. Navarro, officer in charge of Marikina Police Station
regarding a shabu pusher. A team was composed for surveillance which lasted 3 days. On January 15, 1990, the
team conducted a buy-bust operation. 2 packets of shabu, were handed to the police pretending to be a
buyer, resulting to arrest of one Rafael Bagares.
 He was brought to the headquarters for investigation naming Imelda Santos as his source of shabu. They
proceeded to the residence of Santos, arresting her and surrendering bags of shabu.
 The trial court rendered its judgment acquitting Imelda but convicting Bagares, finding him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of illegally selling/or dispensing shabu, in violation of Section 15 of the Dangerous Drugs Act,
imposing the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay 20,000 as well as to pay the costs. Hence, the appeal.
Issues:
 Whether or not RA 7659 amending RA 6424 can be applied retroactively
Ruling:
 Yes, since the amendment is favorable to the accused. Penal laws shall have retroactive effect insofar as they
favor the persons guilty of a felony who is not a habitual criminal. According to the trial court, appellant was
caught selling .16 grams of shabu. Considering the small quantity, a penalty of prision coreccional shall be
imposed, pursuant to RA 7659. Decision is AFFIRMED, penalty MODIFIED.
Municipal Government of Coron vs Carino – retroactivity not applicable

Facts:
 In 1976, an action was filed by Municipality of Coron seeking the authority from court to demolish the
structures built by private respondents alongside the rock causeway of the petitioner’s wharf. After a series of
postponements the trial court reset the hearing of the case for the last time for 3 consecutive dates.
Respondents failed to appear and the court rendered a decision to allow the municipality to demolish the
respondent’s structures.
 Defendants appealed, and were required to submit 40 copies of their record on appeal together with proof of
service of 15 copies thereof upon appellee within 15 days. An extension of 60 days was given, but the
defendants failed and the appeal was dismissed. The dismissal was final and executory.
 On January 1983, the interim rules of court was promulgated to implement the provisions of Batas Pambansa
Bilang 129, which provides that no record on appeal shall be required to take an appeal. On April 12, 1983 the
respondents asked the appellate court that the records of the case be recalled from the court origin. As a
consequence, a temporary restraining order was issued preventing the execution of the October 10, 1980
decision. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
 Whether or not the retroactivity of the law can be applied to the case despite the court’s decision being final
and executory
Ruling:
 No. To revive or recall a case whose decision has become final and executory would be an injustice to those
whose favor the case has been decided. Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as
applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retrospective
in that sense and that extent. Petition GRANTED.

BP Blg 129 – Judiciary Reorganization Act

People vs Que Po Lay – effect of non-publishing

Facts:
 Que Po Lay was convicted at the Court of First Instance of Manila for violating Central Bank Circular No. 20 in
connection with Section 34 of Republic No. 265. The appellant was in possession of foreign exchange consisting
of U.S dollars, checks and money orders amounting to about $ 7,000.
 He failed to sell the said currency to the Central Bank through its agents within one day following the receipt of
such currency as required by Circular No.20. The appellant was sentenced to six months imprisonment and a
fine of Php 1, 000.
 The appellant based the appeal on the claim that said circular was not published on the Official Gazette prior to
the act of omission of the appellant, thus, said circular has no force and effect.
Circular No. 20 of the Central Bank was issued in the year 1949. It was not published until November 1951, or
after three months after appelant’s conviction of its violation.

Issues:
 Whether or not Circular no 20 should be published as a requirement in Article 2 of Civil Code
 Whether or not Appellant is liable of the law if it was published only 3 months after his conviction
Ruling:
 Circular No. 20 is being issued for the implementation of the law authorizing its issuance, therefore it has the
force and effect of the law. Circulars and regulations which prescribe a penalty for its violation should be
published before becoming effective. It is based on the general principle that before the public is bound by penal
provisions, the people should be officially informed of its contents and penalties.
 Appellant could not be held liable for the violation of Circular No. 20 for it was not binding at the time he was
found to have failed to sell the foreign exchange.
 Decision REVERSED appellant ACQUITTED.
Cui vs arellano university –

Facts:

 Emeterio Cui was a law student in Arellano University up to and including the first semester of his fourth year.
 During his stay there, Cui received a scholarship from the university for scholastic merit.
o Before Arellano University gave Cui the scholarship, however, the he was made to sign and waive his
right to transfer to another school.
“In consideration of the scholarship granted to me by the University, I hereby waive my right to transfer
to another school without having refunded to the University the equivalent of my scholarship cash.”
 Director of Private Schools issued a Memorandum which states that scholarships given to students should be
given because of the merits of said students and not merely to keep them in the school.
 In Cui’s last semester because the dean of the college of law of Arellano University, the brother of Cui’s
mother transferred to the College of Law of Abad Santos University
o Cui also left Arellano and enrolled in Abad Santos University.
 When he was about to take the bar exam, Cui needed the transcripts from Arellano, but would not give it to
him unless he paid the amount he got as scholarship during his enrolment there.
 Cui had no choice but to pay so he could take the bar exam
 He appeals the decision of the trial court of first instance of manila which absolves Arellano University from
Cui’s complaints (costs against the plaintiff dismissing the defendant’s counterclaim for insufficiency of proof
thereon)

Issues:

 Whether or not the provision of the contract between Cui and Arellano University waiving the former’s right
to transfer to another school valid
Ruling:
 No, it is invalid because the contract was “repugnant to sound morality and civic honesty.” 
 The policy given by the memorandum is a sound policy. The waiver of the right to transfer to another school
by a scholar was contrary to public policy.
 The Court said that “in order to declare a contract void as against public policy, a court must find that the
contract as to consideration or the thing to be done contravenes some established interest of society or is
inconsistent with sound policy and good morals.”
 Article 6 provides that rights may be waived unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy,
morals or good customs xxx
 The court REVERSED the decision
SANCHEZ V CA
Facts:
 Rosalia Lugod is the only child of Juan Sanchez and Maria Villafranca. Her father had illegitimate children, herein
petitioners. When Maria Villafranca died, Rosalia petitioned for letters of administration over the estate of her
mother and father. Before the proceedings could be closed, Juan Sanchez died. His illegitimate children filed a
petition for letters of administration of Sanchez’s properties , which was opposed by Rosalia.

 On October 30, 1969, Rosalia and the illegitimate children of her father executed a compromise agreement,
assisted by their counsels, wherein they agreed to divide the properties. They did so after four drafts. However,
on January 19, 1970, petitioners required Rosalia to deliver a deficiency of 24 hectares and/or to set aside the
compromise agreement. They contended that the agreement was invalid because it had not been approved by
the court. Later, on April 13, 1970, the parties entered into a memorandum of agreement.

Issue:
 Was the compromise agreement valid even without the approval of the court?
Ruling:
 Yes. A compromise agreement is defined by Article 2028 of the Civil Code as a contract whereby the parties
avoid litigation or end one that has already been commenced by making reciprocal concessions. Since it is a
consensual contract, it is perfected upon the meeting of the minds of the parties, and judicial approval is not
needed for its perfection. The parties clearly knowingly entered into the contract, it having been signed only
after four drafts. In addition, they even entered into a memorandum of agreement that amended the
compromise agreement when they realized there were errors in the latter. This clearly shows that they entered
into the contract voluntarily.
Floresca vs Philex Mining

FACTS:

 Several miners while working at the copper mines underground operations died as a result of the cave-in that
buried them in the tunnels of the mine. T
 The heirs of the deceased claimed their benefits pursuant to the Workmen’s Compensation Act before the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission.
 They also petitioned before the regular courts and sue Philex for additional damages, pointing out in the
complaint 'gross and brazen negligence on the part of Philex in failing to take necessary security for the
protection of the lives of its employees working underground'.
 Philex invoked that they can no longer be sued because the petitioners have already claimed benefits under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, which, Philex insists, holds jurisdiction over provisions for remedies.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not the heirs of the deceased have a right of selection between availing themselves of the worker’s right
under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and suing in the regular courts under the Civil Code for higher damages (actual,
moral and exemplary) from the employers by virtue of that negligence or fault of the employers or whether they may
avail themselves cumulatively of both actions. 

RULING: 
 It should be underscored that petitioners' complaint is not for compensation based on the Workmen's
Compensation Act but a complaint for damages (actual, exemplary and moral) in the total amount of eight
hundred twenty-five thousand (P825.000.00) pesos. Petitioners did not... invoke the provisions of the
Workmen's Compensation Act to entitle them to compensation thereunder. In fact, no allegation appeared in
the complaint that the employees died from accident arising out of and in the course of their employments. The
complaint instead alleges gross... and reckless negligence and deliberate failure on the part of Philex to protect
the lives of its workers as a consequence of which a cave-in occurred resulting in the death of the employees
working underground. Settled is the rule that in ascertaining whether or not the cause of... action is in the
nature of workmen's compensation claim or a claim for damages pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Code,
the test is the averments or allegations in the complaint... recovery under the New Civil Code for damages
arising from negligence, is not barred by Article 173 of the New Labor Code. And the damages recoverable under
the New Civil Code are not administered by the System provided for by the New Labor Code,... which defines the
"System" as referring to the Government Service Insurance System or the Social Security System (Art. 167 [c],
[d], and [e] of the New Labor Code).
 Furthermore, under Article 8 of the New Civil Code, decisions of the Supreme Court form part of the law of the
land.
 Article 8 of the New Civil Code provides:
"Art. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the
Philippines."
The Court, through the late Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, in People vs. Licera, ruled:
"Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines decrees that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the
Constitution form part of this jurisdiction's legal system. These decisions, although in themselves not laws, constitute
evidence of what the laws... mean. The application or interpretation placed by the Court upon a law is part of the law as
of the date of the enactment of the said law since the Court's application or interpretation merely establishes the
contemporaneous legislative intent that the construed law purports to... carry into effect" (65 SCRA 270,  272-273,
[1975]).
WE ruled that judicial decisions of the Supreme Court assume the same authority as the statute itself
Miciano vs Brimo – testate

Facts:
 The testator in this case is Joseph Brimo, a Turkish citizen who made a will expressly stating his desire to
dispose his estate in accordance with the Philippine Law and that whoever from his relatives fails to
comply with such request shall be deprived of his inheritance.
 The Miciano, as a judicial administrator of such estate, filed a scheme of partition but was opposed by
the appellant Andre Brimo, who is one of the brothers of the testator, assailing that the Turkish Law
should be followed when it comes to the distribution of the latter’s estate and not the Philippine Law.
Issues:

Whether the Turkish Law or Philippine Law

be the basis on the distribution of
Joseph Brimo's estates. Will Andre Brimo
forfeit his inheritance?
Whether the Turkish Law or Philippine Law
be the basis on the distribution of
Joseph Brimo's estates. Will Andre Brimo
forfeit his inheritance?
Whether the Turkish Law or Philippine Law
be the basis on the distribution of
Joseph Brimo's estates. Will Andre Brimo
forfeit his inheritance?
 Whether or not the Turkish law or Philippine law be the basis on the distribution of Joseph Brimo’s estates
 Whether or not Andre Brimo forfeit his inheritance

Ruling:
 Joseph Brimo, a Turkish citizen, though he declared in his will that Philippine laws must govern the disposition
of his estate; however, it must not prejudice the heir or legatee of the testator. Therefore, the testator‘s
national law must govern in accordance with Article 16 of the Civil Code.
 Though the last part of the second clause of the will expressly said that ―it be made and disposed of in
accordance with the laws in force in the Philippine Islands, this condition, described as impossible conditions,
 shall be considered as not imposed and shall not prejudice the heir or legatee in any manner whatsoever, even
should the testator otherwise provide. 
 Impossible conditions are further defined as those contrary to law or good morals.  Thus, national law of the
testator shall govern in his testamentary dispositions. 
 The court approved the scheme of partition submitted by the judicial administrator, in such manner as to
include Andre Brimo, as one of the legatees. 

Garcia vs Recio

FACTS:
 March 1, 1987: Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino was married to Editha Samson, an Australian citizen, in Malabon,
Rizal
 May 18, 1989: a decree of divorce, purportedly dissolving the marriage, was issued by an Australian family
court
 June 26, 1992: Recio became an Australian citizen, as shown by a "Certificate of Australian Citizenship" issued
by the Australian government
 January 12, 1994: Recio married Grace Garcia, a Filipino, in Cabanatuan City.  Recio declared himself as
"single" and "Filipino."
 October 22, 1995: After more than a year, Recio and Garcia Recio begun to live separately without prior
judicial dissolution of their marriage
 May 16, 1996: In accordance to the Statutory Declarations secured in Australia, their conjugal assets were
divided
 March 3, 1998: Garcia filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage  on the ground of bigamy
claiming she only learned of the prior marriage in November, 1997
 5 years after the couple’s wedding while the suit was pending, Recio was able to secure a divorce decree from
family court in Sydney Australia.
  Recio prayed in his answer that the Complaint be dismissed for no cause of action
 RTC: marriage dissolved on the ground that the divorce issued in Australia was valid and recognized in the
Philippines not on Recio’s alleged lack of legal capacity to remarry.
 Hence Garcia filed a petition.

ISSUE: 1.) Whether or not the divorce between respondent and Editha Samson was proven.
2. Whether or not his legal capacity to marry was proven

HELD
No, Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it. In mixed marriages involving
a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 26 of the Family Code allows the former to contract a subsequent marriage in case
the divorce is “validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.

Australian divorce decree contains a restriction that reads:

“1. A party to a marriage who marries again before this decree becomes absolute (unless the other party has died)
commits the offence of bigamy.”
The divorce obtained by respondent may have been restricted. It did not absolutely establish his legal capacity to
remarry according to his national law. Hence, the Court find no basis for the ruling of the trial court, which
erroneously assumed that the Australian restored respondent’s capacity to remarry despite the paucity of evidence
on this matter.

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the court a quo for the purpose of receiving evidence. The Court mentioned
that they cannot grant petitioner’s prayer to declare her marriage to respondent null and void because of the question
on latter’s legal capacity to marry.

Bellis vs Bellis

Facts:

 Amos G. Bellis was a citizen and resident of Texas at the time of his death. Before he died, he had made two
wills, one disposing of his Texas properties, the other disposing of his Philippine properties.
 In both wills, his recognized illegitimate children were not given anything. Texas has no conflict rule governing
successional rights. Furthermore, under Texas Law, there are no compulsory heirs and therefore no legitimes.
The illegitimate children opposed the wills on the ground that they have been deprived of their legitimes to
which they should be entitled, if Philippine law were to apply

Issues:

 Whether or not the Philippine law be applied in the case in the determination of the illegitimate children’s
successional rights

Held:
  Court ruled that provision in a foreigner’s will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance
with Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and void, for his national law cannot be ignored in
view of those matters that Article 10 — now Article 16 — of the Civil Code states said national law should
govern.
 Where the testator was a citizen of Texas and domiciled in Texas, the intrinsic validity of his will should be
governed by his national law. Since Texas law does not require legitimes, then his will, which deprived his
illegitimate children of the legitimes, is valid.
 The Supreme Court held that the illegitimate children are not entitled to the legitimes under the texas law,
which is the national law of the deceased.

Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA - Case Digest

Facts:
 Saudi Arabian Airlines (SAUDIA) hired Milagros Morada as a Flight Attendant for its airlines based in Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia. While on a lay-over in Jakarta, Morada went to a disco with fellow crew members Thamer & Allah,
both Saudi nationals. Because it was almost morning when they returned to their hotels, they agreed to have
breakfast together at the room of Thamer. In which Allah left on some pretext. Thamer attempted to rape
Morada but she was rescued by hotel personnel when they heard her cries for help. Indonesian police came and
arrested Thamer and Allah, the latter as an accomplice.

 Morada refused to cooperate when SAUDIA’s Legal Officer and its base manager tried to negotiate the
immediate release of the detained crew members with Jakarta police.
 Through the intercession of Saudi Arabian government, Thamer and Allah were deported and, eventually, again
put in service by SAUDIA. But Morada was transferred to Manila.
  One year and a half year later, Morada was again ordered to see SAUDIA’s Chief Legal Officer. Instead, she was
brought to a Saudi court where she was asked to sign a blank document, which turned out to be a notice to her
to appear in court. Monada returned to Manila.

 The next time she was escorted by SAUDIA’s legal officer to court, the judge rendered a decision against her
sentencing her to five months imprisonment and to 286 lashes. Apparently, she was tried by the court which
found her guilty of (1) adultery; (2) going to a disco, dancing and listening to the music in violation of Islamic
laws; and (3) socializing with the male crew, in contravention of Islamic tradition.

 After denial by SAUDIA, Morada sought help from Philippine Embassy during the appeal.  Prince of Makkah
dismissed the case against her. SAUDIA fired her without notice.

 Morada filed a complaint for damages against SAUDIA, with the RTC of QC.  SAUDIA filed Omnibus Motion to
Dismiss which raised the ground that the court has no jurisdiction, among others which was denied

ISSUE: Whether RTC of QC has jurisdiction to hear and try the case

HELD: 
 YES. The RTC of QC has jurisdiction and Philippine law should govern.Its jurisdiction has basis on Sec. 1 of RA
7691 and Rules of Court on venue. Pragmatic considerations, including the convenience of the parties, also
weigh heavily in favor of the RTC QC assuming jurisdiction. Paramount is the private interest of the
litigant. Weighing the relative claims of the parties, the court a quo found it best to hear the case in the
Philippines. Had it refused to take cognizance of the case, it would be forcing Morada to seek remedial action
elsewhere, i.e. in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia where she no longer maintains substantial connections. That
would have caused a fundamental unfairness to her.

 By filing a complaint, Morada has voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. By filing several motions
and praying for reliefs (such as dismissal), SAUDIA has effectively submitted to the trial court’s jurisdiction.

UNITED AIRLINES VS CA
FACTS:
 Aniceto Fontanilla bought from United Airlines, through the Philippine Travel Bureau in Manila, three “Visit
the U.S.A.” tickets from himself, his wife and his minor son, Mychal, to visit the cities of Washington DC,
Chicago and Los Angeles.
 All flights had been confirmed previously by United Airlines.
 Having used the first coupon to DC and while at the Washington Dulles Airport, Aniceto changed their
itinerary, paid the penalty for rewriting their tickets and was issued tickets with corresponding boarding
passes with the words: “Check-in-required.” They were then set to leave but were denied boarding because
the flight was overbooked.
 Fontanillas filed a case before RTC of Makati, where it rendered the judgment of dismissing the complaint.
 On appeal, the CA ruled in favor of the Fontanillas and appealed judgment is REVERESED and SET ASIDE.
 Hence the United Airlines files a petition.
USA.
ISSUE: WON the CA is correct in applying the laws of USA.
HELD
 No. According to the doctrine of “lex loci contractus”, the law of the place where a contract is made or
entered into governs with respect to its nature and validity, obligation and interpretation shall govern. This
has been said to be the rule even though the place where the contract was made is different from the place
where it is to be performed. Hence, the court should apply the law of the place where the airline ticket was
issued, where the passengers are residents and nationals of the forum and the ticket is issued in such State by
the defendant airline.
 Although, the contract of carriage was to be performed in the United States, the tickets were purchased
through petitioner’s agent in Manila. It is true that the tickets were "rewritten" in D.C., however, such fact did
not change the nature of the original contract of carriage entered into by the parties in Manila.

Article 19
Every person must in the exercise of his rights and peroramce of his duties act with justice give everyone his due and
observe honesty and good faith

Article 20
Every person who contrary to law will fully or negligently causes damge to another, shall imdemnify the latter for the
safe

Article 21
Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy shall compensate the latter for the damage

22
Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any ther means acquires or comes into possession of
something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground shall return the same to him

23
Even when an act or event causing damage to another’s property was not due to the fault or negligence of the
defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited
24
In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral
dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his
protection.

25
Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display a period of acute public want or emergency may be
stopped by order of the courts at the instance of any government or private chartiable institution

26
Every person shall respect the dignity, personality privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. Though
it is not a criminal offense, may produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:
Prying into the privacy of another’s residence, meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of
another, intriguing to cause another to be isolated from his friends, vexing and humiliating another on account of his
religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect or other personal condition.

27
Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just
cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to
any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.

28
Unfair competition in agricultural commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation,
deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive or highlanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the
person who thereby suffers damage

29
When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitter on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a
preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer
for damages in case the complaint should be fouind to be malicious.