Bank of America vs CA

March 31, 2003

Lessons Applicable: forum non conveniens (conflicts of laws)

FACTS:

 Eduardo K. Litonjua, Sr. and Aurelio J. Litonjua (Litonjuas) were engaged in the shipping business
owning 2 vessels: Don Aurelio and El Champion

 Because their business where doing well, Bank of America (BA) offered them to take a loan for
them to increase their ships.  

 BA acquired through them as borrowers four more ships: (a) El Carrier; (b) El General; (c) El
Challenger; and (d) El Conqueror.  The registration, operation, income, funds, possession of the
vessel belonged to the corporation.

 May 10, 1993: Litonjuas filed a complaint to the RTC Pasig claming that during its operations and
the foreclosure sale, BA as trutees failed to fully render an account of the income.  They lost all
their 6 vessels and 10% of their personal funds and they still have an unpaid balance of their
loans.

 BA NT&SA, and BA international filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens

and lack of cause of action against them

 RTC and CA: Dismissed

ISSUE: 
1. W/N there is grounds of forum non conveniens
2. W/N there is litis pendentia

HELD: Denied

1. NO.

 The doctrine of forum non-conveniens, literally meaning 'the forum is inconvenient', emerged in
private international law to deter the practice of global forum shopping

 Under this doctrine, 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.

 Whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of said doctrine depends largely
upon the facts of the particular case and is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.
  Philippine Court may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so; provided, that the
following requisites are met: 

 (1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to; -
present

 (2) that the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law
and the facts; and, - present

 (3) that the Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision -
present

 This Court further ruled that while it is within the discretion of the trial court to abstain from
assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so only after vital facts are established, to
determine whether special circumstances require the court's desistance; and that the propriety
of dismissing a case based on this principle of forum non conveniens requires a factual
determination, hence it is more properly considered a matter of defense

2. NO.

 litis pendentia to be a ground for the dismissal of an action there must be:

 (a) identity of the parties or at least such as to represent the same interest in both
actions -present

 (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same
acts - not shown

 (c) the identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment which may be
rendered in one would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in
the other - not shown

 It merely mentioned that civil cases were filed in Hongkong and England