3B 2019-2020
Doctrines for Conflicts
D. CHOICE, ASCERTAINMENT
AND APPLICATION OF FOREIGN
LAW
1. HASEGAWA V. KITAMURA
 Jurisdiction and choice of law are two
distinct 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 constitutional authority to apply
forum law. While jurisdiction and the
choice of the lexfori will often coincide,
the "minimum contacts" for one do not
always provide the necessary
"significant contacts" for the other. The
question of whether the law of a state
can be applied to a transaction is
different from the question of whether
the courts of that state have jurisdiction
to enter a judgment.
 Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a
judicial proceeding is conferred by the
sovereign authority which establishes
and organizes the court. It is given only
by law and in the manner prescribed by
law. It is further determined by the
allegations of the complaint irrespective
of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all
or some of the claims asserted therein.
To succeed in its motion for the
dismissal of an action for lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
claim, the movant must show that the
Page 1 of 11
court or tribunal cannot act on the matter
submitted to it because no law grants it
the power to adjudicate the claims. In the
instant case, petitioners, in their motion
to dismiss, do not claim that the trial
court is not properly vested by law with
jurisdiction to hear the subject
controversy for, indeed, the case for
specific performance and damages is one
not capable of pecuniary estimation and
is properly cognizable by the RTC of
Lipa City. What they rather raise as
grounds to question subject matter
jurisdiction are the principles of lex loci
celebrationis and lexcontractus, and the
"state of the most significant relationship
rule."
 Lex loci celebrationis relates to the "law
of the place of the ceremony" or the law
of the place where a contract is
made.,The doctrine of lexcontractus or
lex loci contractus means the "law of the
place where a contract is executed or to
be performed." It controls the nature,
construction, and validity of the contract
and it may pertain to the law voluntarily
agreed upon by the parties or the law
intended by them either expressly or
implicitly. Under the "state of the most
significant relationship rule," to ascertain
what state law to apply to a dispute, the
court should determine which state has
the most substantial connection to the
occurrence and the parties. In a case
involving a contract, the court should
consider where the contract was made,
was negotiated, was to be performed,
and the domicile, place of business, or
place of incorporation of the parties.
This rule takes into account several

contacts and evaluates them according to
their relative importance with respect to
the particular issue to be resolved.
 Before determining which law should
apply, first there should exist a conflict
of laws situation requiring the
application of the conflict of laws rules.
Also, when the law of a foreign country
is invoked to provide the proper rules for
the solution of a case, the existence of
such law must be pleaded and proved.
 It should be noted that when a conflicts
case, one involving a foreign element, is
brought before a court or administrative
agency, there are three alternatives open
to the latter in disposing of it: (1) dismiss
the case, either because of lack of
jurisdiction or refusal to assume
jurisdiction over the case; (2) assume
jurisdiction over the case and apply the
internal law of the forum; or (3) assume
jurisdiction over the case and take into
account or apply the law of some other
State or States. The court’s power to
hear cases and controversies is derived
from the Constitution and the laws.
While it may choose to recognize laws
of foreign nations, the court is not
limited by foreign sovereign law short of
treaties or other formal agreements, even
in matters regarding rights provided by
foreign sovereigns.
2. NORSE MANAGEMENT CO. (PTE) V.
NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD
 The "Employment Agreement" between
Norse and the late Abordo states that
compensation shall be paid under
Philippine Law or the law of registry of
Page 2 of 11
3B 2019-2020
Doctrines for Conflicts
petitioners' vessel, whichever is greater.
Since RestitutaAbordo was offered P30k
only by the petitioners, Singapore law
was properly applied in this case.
 The "Employment Agreement" is
attached to the Supplemental Complaint
of Restituta and, therefore, it forms part
thereof. As it is familiar with Singapore
Law, the National Seamen Board is
justified in taking judicial notice of and
in applying that law.
 Article 20, Labor Code of the
Philippines, provides that the National
Seamen Board has original and
exclusive jurisdiction over all matters or
cases including money claims, involving
er-ee relations, arising out of or by virtue
of any law or contracts involving
Filipino seamen for overseas
employment. Thus, it is safe to assume
that the Board is familiar with pertinent
Singapore maritime laws relative to
workmen's compensation. Moreover, the
Board may apply the rule on judicial
notice and, "in administrative
proceedings, the technical rules of
procedure — particularly of evidence —
applied in judicial trials, do not strictly
apply."
 Finally, Article IV of the Labor Code
provides that "all doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of the
provisions of this code, including its
implementing rules and resolved in favor
of labor.
3. EDI-STAFFBUILDERS INTERNATIONAL,
INC. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION

 The "Employment Agreement" between
Norse and the late Abordo states that
compensation shall be paid under
Philippine Law or the law of registry of
petitioners' vessel, whichever is greater.
Since RestitutaAbordo was offered P30k
only by the petitioners, Singapore law
was properly applied in this case.
 The "Employment Agreement" is
attached to the Supplemental Complaint
of Restituta and, therefore, it forms part
thereof. As it is familiar with Singapore
Law, the National Seamen Board is
justified in taking judicial notice of and
in applying that law.
 Article 20, Labor Code of the
Philippines, provides that the National
Seamen Board has original and
exclusive jurisdiction over all matters or
cases including money claims, involving
er-ee relations, arising out of or by virtue
of any law or contracts involving
Filipino seamen for overseas
employment. Thus, it is safe to assume
that the Board is familiar with pertinent
Singapore maritime laws relative to
workmen's compensation. Moreover, the
Board may apply the rule on judicial
notice and, "in administrative
proceedings, the technical rules of
procedure — particularly of evidence —
applied in judicial trials, do not strictly
apply."
 Finally, Article IV of the Labor Code
provides that "all doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of the
provisions of this code, including its
implementing rules and resolved in favor
of labor.
 corresponding administrative and
criminal actions. If the acts of the party
or his counsel clearly constitute willful
and deliberate forum shopping, the same
shall be ground for summary dismissal
with prejudice and shall constitute direct
Page 3 of 11
3B 2019-2020
Doctrines for Conflicts
contempt as well as a cause for
administrative sanctions.
 Circular No. 28-91, w/c originally
required the certification of non-forum
shopping for petitions filed with the SC
and the CA; and SC Administrative
Circular No. 04-94, w/c extended the
certification requirement for civil
complaints and other initiatory pleadings
filed in all courts and other agencies.
 However, it is equally settled that
litigation is not merely a game of
technicalities. Rules of procedure should
be viewed as mere tools designed to
facilitate the attainment of justice. Their
strict and rigid application, which would
result in technicalities that tend to
frustrate rather than promote substantial
justice, must always be eschewed.
Moreover, the emerging trend in our
jurisprudence is to afford every party-
litigant the amplest opportunity for the
proper and just determination of his
cause free from the constraints of
technicalities.
 In the instant case, the Court finds that
the lower courts did not commit any
error in proceeding to decide the case on
the merits, as herein respondent was able
to submit a certification of non-forum
shopping. More importantly, the
apparent merit of the substantive aspect
of the petition for land registration filed
by respondent with the MTC coupled
with the showing that she had no
intention to violate the Rules with
impunity, as she was the one who invited
the attention of the court to the
inadvertence committed by her counsel,
should be deemed as special
circumstances/compelling reasons to
decide the case on the merits.
 Section 25, Rule 132, to wit: “Proof of
public or official record – An official
record or an entry therein, when
admissible for any purpose, may be

evidenced by an official publication
thereof or by a copy attested by the
officer having the legal custody of the
record, or by his deputy, and
accompanied, if the record is not kept in
the Philippines, with a certificate that
such officer has the custody. If the office
in which the record is kept is in a foreign
country, the certificate may be made by
a secretary of embassy or legation,
consul general, consul, vice consul, or
consular agent or by any officer in the
foreign service of the Philippines
stationed in the foreign country in which
the record is kept, and authenticated by
the seal of his office.”
 It cannot be overemphasized that the
required certification of an officer in the
foreign service under Section 24 refers
only to the documents enumerated in
Section 19(a), to wit: written official acts
or records of the official acts of the
sovereign authority, official bodies and
tribunals, and public officers of the
Philippines or of a foreign country. The
SC agrees w/ the CA that had the Court
intended to include notarial documents
as one of the public documents
contemplated by the provisions of
Section 24, it should not have specified
only the documents referred to under
paragraph (a) of Section 19.
4. HEIRS OF THE DECEASED SPOUSES
VICENTE S. ARCILLA AND JOSEFA
ASUNCION ARCILLA V. TEODORO
 It cannot be overemphasized that the
required certification of an officer in the
foreign service under Rule 132, Section
24 refers only to the documents
enumerated in Section 19(a), to wit:
written official acts or records of the
official acts of the sovereign authority,
Page 4 of 11
3B 2019-2020
Doctrines for Conflicts
official bodies and tribunals, and public
officers of the Philippines or of a foreign
country.
5. WILDVALLEY SHIPPING CO., LTD. V.
COURT OF APPEALS
 It is well-settled that foreign laws do not
prove themselves in our jurisdiction and
our courts are not authorized to take
judicial notice of them. Like any other
fact, they must be alleged and proved.
 A distinction is to be made as to the
manner of proving a written and an
unwritten law. The former falls under
Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court, as amended, the entire provision
of which is quoted hereunder. Where the
foreign law sought to be proved is
"unwritten," the oral testimony of expert
witnesses is admissible, as are printed
and published books of reports of
decisions of the courts of the country
concerned if proved to be commonly
admitted in such courts.
 The two Venezuelan Laws were not duly
proven as fact before the court. Only
mere photocopies of the laws were
presented as evidence. For a copy of a
foreign public document to be
admissible, the following requisites are
mandatory:
 It must be attested by the officer having
legal custody of the records or by his
deputy; and
 It must be accompanied by a certificate
by a secretary of the embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice
consular or consular agent or foreign
service officer, and with the seal of his
office.
 And in case of unwritten foreign laws,
the oral testimony of expert witnesses is
admissible, as are printed and published

books of reports of decisions of the
courts of the country concerned if
proved to be commonly admitted in such
courts.
6. DEUTSCHE GESELLSCHAFT FUR
TECHNISCHE ZUSAMMERNARBEIT (GTZ) V.
COURT OF APPEALS
 The principle of state immunity from
suit, whether a local state or a foreign
state, is reflected in Section 9, Article
XVI of the Constitution, which states
that "the State may not be sued without
its consent." If the instant suit had been
brought directly against the Federal
Republic of Germany, there would be no
doubt that it is a suit brought against a
State, and the only necessary inquiry is
whether said State had consented to be
sued. However, the present suit was
brought against GTZ. It is necessary for
us to understand what precisely are the
parameters of the legal personality of
GTZ.
 Where suit is filed not against the
government itself or its officials but
against one of its entities, it must be
ascertained whether or not the State, as
the principal that may ultimately be held
liable, has given its consent to be sued.
This ascertainment will depend in the
first instance on whether the government
agency impleaded is incorporated or
unincorporated.
 If the agency is incorporated, the test of
its suability is found in its charter. The
simple rule is that it is suable if its
charter says so, and this is true
regardless of the functions it is
Page 5 of 11
3B 2019-2020
Doctrines for Conflicts
performing. Municipal corporations, for
example, like provinces and cities, are
agencies of the State when they are
engaged in governmental functions and
therefore should enjoy the sovereign
immunity from suit.
 A corporation organized under the
Corporation Code but owned by the
Philippine government, or a
government-owned or controlled
corporation without original charter.
And it bears notice that Section 36 of the
Corporate Code states that "[e]very
corporation incorporated under this Code
has the power and capacity x xx to sue
and be sued in its corporate name."
 GTZ has failed to establish that under
German law, it has not consented to be
sued despite it being owned by the
Federal Republic of Germany. We
adhere to the rule that in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, foreign laws on
a particular subject are presumed to be
the same as those of the Philippines, and
following the most intelligent
assumption we can gather, GTZ is akin
to a governmental owned or controlled
corporation without original charter
which, by virtue of the Corporation
Code, has expressly consented to be
sued.
 Had GTZ obtained such certification
from the DFA, it would have provided
factual basis for its claim of immunity
that would, at the very least, establish a
disputable evidentiary presumption that
the foreign party is indeed immune
which the opposing party will have to
overcome with its own factual evidence.

7. CADALIN V. POEA’S ADMINISTRATOR
 NLRC applied the Amiri Deere, No. 23
of 1976, which provides for greater
benefits than those stipulated in the
overseas-employment contracts of the
claimants. It was of the belief that where
the laws of the host country are more
favorable and beneficial to the workers,
then the laws of the host country shall
form part of the overseas employment
contract. It approved the observation of
the POEA Administrator that in labor
proceedings, all doubts in the
implementation of the provisions of the
Labor Code and its implementing
regulations shall be resolved in favor of
labor.
 The overseas-employment contracts,
which were prepared by AIBC and BRII
themselves, provided that the laws of the
host country became applicable to said
contracts if they offer terms and
conditions more favorable than those
stipulated therein.
 Adopting the provisions of the Amiri
Decree No. 23 of 1976 as part and parcel
thereof. The parties to a contract may
select the law by which it is to be
governed. In such a case, the foreign law
is adopted as a “system” to regulate the
relations of the parties, including
questions of their capacity to enter into
the contract, the formalities to be
observed by them, matters of
performance, and so forth. Instead of
adopting the entire mass of the foreign
law, the parties may just agree that
specific provisions of a foreign statute
shall be deemed incorporated into their
contract “as a set of terms.” By such
reference to the provisions of the foreign
law, the contract does not become a
foreign contract to be governed by the
Page 6 of 11
3B 2019-2020
Doctrines for Conflicts
foreign law. The said law does not
operate as a statute but as a set of
contractual terms deemed written in the
contract. A basic policy of contract is to
protect the expectation of the parties.
Such party expectation is protected by
giving effect to the parties’ own choice
of the applicable law. The choice of law
must, however, bear some relationship
the parties or their transaction. There is
no question that the contracts sought to
be enforced by claimants have a direct
connection with the Bahrain law because
the services were rendered in that
country.
 As a general rule, a foreign procedural
law will not be applied in the forum
(local court), Procedural matters, such as
service of process, joinder of actions,
period and requisites for appeal, and so
forth, are governed by the laws of the
forum. This is true even if the action is
based upon a foreign substantive law. A
law on prescription of actions is sui
generis in Conflict of Laws in the sense
that it may be viewed either as
procedural or substantive, depending on
the characterization given such a law.
 However the characterization of a statute
into a procedural or substantive law
becomes irrelevant when the country of
the forum (local Court) has a “borrowing
statute.” Said statute has the practical
effect of treating the foreign statute of
limitation as one of substance. A
“borrowing statute” directs the state of
the forum (local Court) to apply the
foreign statute of limitations to the
pending claims based on a foreign law.
While there are several kinds of
“borrowing statutes,” one form provides
that an action barred by the laws of the
place where it accrued will not be
enforced in the forum even though the
local statute was not run against it.

 The courts of the forum (local Court)
will not enforce any foreign claim
obnoxious to the forum’s public policy.
To enforce the one-year prescriptive
period of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of
1976 as regards the claims in question
would contravene the public policy on
the protection to labor.
 In the Declaration of Principles and State
Policies, the 1987 Constitution
emphasized that:“The state shall
promote social justice in all phases of
national development” (Sec. 10).
 ‘The state affirms labor as a primary
social economic force. It shall protect
the rights of workers and promote their
welfare” (Sec. 18).
 In Article XIII on Social Justice and
Human Rights, the 1987 Constitution
provides: “Sec. 3. The State shall afford
full protection to labor, local and
overseas, organized and unorganized,
and promote full employment and
equality of employment opportunities for
all.”
8. HOME INS. CO. V. DICK
 Doubtless a state may prohibit the
enjoyment by persons within its borders
of rights acquired elsewhere which
violate its laws or public policy, and,
under some circumstances, it may refuse
to aid in the enforcement of such rights.
But the Mexican corporation never was
in Texas, and neither it nor the
garnishees invoked the aid of the Texas
courts or the Texas laws.
 And, in the absence of a contractual
provision, the local statute of limitation
may be applied to a right created in
another jurisdiction even where the
remedy in the latter is barred. In such
cases, the rights and obligations of the
parties are not varied. When, however,
Page 7 of 11
3B 2019-2020
Doctrines for Conflicts
the parties have expressly agreed upon a
time limit on their obligation, a statute
which invalidates the agreement and
directs enforcement of the contract after
the time has expired increases their
obligation and imposes a burden not
contracted for.
 The Texas statute as here construed and
applied deprives the garnishees of
property without due process of law. A
state may prohibit and declare invalid
the making of certain contracts within its
borders. It may prohibit performance
within its borders. Even of contracts
validly made elsewhere, if they are
required to be performed within the state
and their performance would violate its
laws. But, in the case at bar, nothing in
any way relating to the policy sued on,
or to the contracts of reinsurance, was
ever done or required to be done in
Texas. All acts relating to the making of
the policy and contracts of reinsurance
were done in Mexico or in New York.
9. ALLSTATE INS. CO. V. HAGUE
 The decedent was a member of
Minnesota's workforce. The State of
employment has police power
responsibilities towards non-resident
employees that are analogous to those it
has towards residents; as such
employees use state services and
amenities and may call upon state
facilities in appropriate circumstances.
Also, the State's interest in its
commuting non-resident employees,
such as respondent's decedent, reflects a
state concern for the safety and
wellbeing of its workforce and the
concomitant effect on Minnesota
employers. That the decedent was not
killed while commuting to work or while
in Minnesota does not dictate a different

result, since vindication of the rights of
the estate of a Minnesota employee is an
important state concern. Nor does the
decedent's residence in Wisconsin
constitutionally mandate application of
Wisconsin law to the exclusion of forum
law. Employment status is not a
sufficiently less important status than
residence, when combined with the
decedent's daily commute across state
lines and the other Minnesota contacts
present, to prohibit the choice of law
result in this case on constitutional
grounds.
 Petitioner was at all times present and
doing business in Minnesota. By virtue
of such presence, petitioner can hardly
claim unfamiliarity with the laws of the
host jurisdiction and surprise that the
state courts might apply forum law to
litigation in which the company is
involved. Moreover, such presence gave
Minnesota an interest in regulating the
company's insurance obligations insofar
as they affected both a Minnesota
resident and court-appointed
representative (respondent) and a
longstanding member of Minnesota's
workforce (respondent's decedent).
 In addition to the other contacts,
respondent became a Minnesota resident
prior to institution of the instant
litigation. She subsequently
10. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. V. SHUTTS
 Although some of the class members
were non-residents who had no contacts
with the forum state, the class members
were plaintiffs, and therefore the
traditional minimum contacts test for
personal jurisdiction was not applicable.
The Shutts Court also concluded that due
process considerations were afforded to
Page 8 of 11
3B 2019-2020
Doctrines for Conflicts
absent class members because each class
member was provided with notice of the
action, an opportunity to appear in
person or through counsel, an
opportunity to opt out, and adequate
legal representation. The Supreme
Court's analysis centered on
distinguishing among the different
burdens of litigation placed upon class
action plaintiffs as opposed to those
placed upon a defendant in a non-class
suit.
 state court may exercise personal
jurisdiction over the claims of
nonresident class members constituted a
vital step in the process of ensuring the
full and fair litigation of multistate class
actions. A decision otherwise would
have denied judicial access to multistate
class action plaintiffs with small
monetary claims, thus contradicting the
explicit purpose of class action
adjudications. Although precedent
supports the Court's conclusion, the
Court's analysis in reaching this
conclusion was inadequate. Generally,
restrictions are placed upon a state
court's exercise of personal jurisdiction
for two reasons: first, to guarantee
protection of the personal liberty
interests of the parties to the
litigation;second, to protect state
sovereignty concerns. The Shutts Court,
however, based its decision primarily on
matters of convenience,'" rather than
conducting a complete analysis of the
controversial aspects of personal
jurisdiction.
 The minimum contacts test is premised
on the theory that due process permits
state courts to exercise personal
jurisdiction over nonresident defendants
who have certain contacts with the
forum state. Thus, the minimum contacts
requirement ensures that the
maintenance of the action in a forum

does not offend the "traditional notions
of fair play and substantial justice.
Included in these notions of fair play and
substantial justice is the principle of
interstate federalism embodied in the
Constitution." Accordingly, the
minimum contacts requirement limits a
state court's jurisdictional powers in
order to protect the personal liberty
interests of nonresident parties in
obtaining a fair adjudication of their
claims. In addition, the minimum
contacts requirement guarantees the
concept of state sovereignty"
11. SAUDI ARABIA AIRLINES V. COURT OF
APPEALS
 Before a choice can be made, it is
necessary for us to determine under what
category a certain set of facts or rules
fall. This process is known as
characterization, or the doctrine of
qualification. It is the process of
deciding whether or not the facts relate
to the kind of question specified in a
conflicts rule. The purpose of
characterization is to enable the forum to
select the proper law.
 Our starting point of analysis here is not
a legal relation, but a factual situation,
event, or operative fact. An essential
element of conflict rules is the indication
of a test or connecting factor or point of
contact. Choice-of-law rules invariably
consist of a factual relationship (such as
property right, contract claim) and a
connecting factor or point of contact,
such as the situs of the res, the place of
celebration, the place of performance, or
the place of wrongdoing.
 Note that one or more circumstances
may be present to serve as the possible
test for the determination of the
applicable law. These test factors or
Page 9 of 11
3B 2019-2020
Doctrines for Conflicts
points of contact or connecting factors
could be any of the following: (1) The
nationality of a person, his domicile, his
residence, his place of sojourn, or his
origin;(2) the seat of a legal or juridical
person, such as a corporation;(3) the
situs of a thing, that is, the place where a
thing is, or is deemed to be situated. In
particular, the lexsitus is decisive when
real rights are involved;(4) the place
where an act has been done, the locus
actus, such as the place where a contract
has been made, a marriage celebrated, a
will signed or a tort committed. The lex
loci actus is particularly important in
contracts and torts;(5) the place where an
act is intended to come into effect, e.g.,
the place of performance of contractual
duties, or the place where a power of
attorney is to be exercised;(6) the
intention of the contracting parties as to
the law that should govern their
agreement, the lex loci intentionis;(7) the
place where judicial or administrative
proceedings are instituted or done. The
lexforithe law of the forumis particularly
important because, as we have seen
earlier, matters of procedure not going to
the substance of the claim involved are
governed by it; and because the lexfori
applies whenever the content of the
otherwise applicable foreign law is
excluded from application in a given
case for the reason that it falls under one
of the exceptions to the applications of
foreign law; and (8) the flag of a ship,
which in many cases is decisive of
practically all legal relationships of the
ship and of its master or owner as such.
It also covers contractual relationships
particularly contracts of affreightment.
 Considering that the complaint in the
court a quo is one involving torts, the
connecting factor or point of contact
could be the place or places where the
tortious conduct or lex loci actus

occurred. And applying the torts
principle in a conflicts case, we find that
the Philippines could be said as a situs of
the tort (the place where the alleged
tortious conduct took place). This is
because it is in the Philippines where
petitioner allegedly deceived private
respondent, a Filipina residing and
working here. According to her, she had
honestly believed that petitioner would,
in the exercise of its rights and in the
performance of its duties, act with
justice, give her her due and observe
honesty and good faith.
 Considering that it was the petitioner
who was invoking the applicability of
the law of Saudi Arabia, thus the burden
was on it [petitioner] to plead and to
establish what the law of Saudi Arabia
is.
12. CONTINENTAK MICRONESIA, INC. VS.
BASSO
Under the doctrine of forum non
conveniens, a Philippine court in a
conflict-of-laws case may assume
jurisdiction 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; (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. All these requisites
are present here. Basso may
conveniently resort to our labor tribunals
as he and CMI had physical presence in
the Philippines during the duration of the
trial. CMI has a Philippine branch, while
Page 10 of 11
3B 2019-2020
Doctrines for Conflicts
Basso, before his death, was residing
here. Thus, it could be reasonably
expected that no extraordinary measures
were needed for the parties to make
arrangements in advocating their
respective cases.
 The choice-of-law issue in a conflict-of-
laws case seeks to answer the following
important questions: (1) What legal
system should control a given situation
where some of the significant facts
occurred in two or more states; and (2)
to what extent should the chosen legal
system regulate the situation. These
questions are entirely different from the
question of jurisdiction that only seeks to
answer whether the courts of a state
where the case is initiated have
jurisdiction to enter a judgment. As such,
the power to exercise jurisdiction does
not automatically give a state
constitutional authority to apply forum
law.
 The rule is that there is no judicial notice
of any foreign law. As any other fact, it
must be alleged and proved. If the
foreign law is not properly pleaded or
proved, the presumption of identity or
similarity of the foreign law to our own
laws, otherwise known as processual
presumption, applies. Here, US law may
have been properly pleaded but it was
not proved in the labor tribunals.
13. INDUSTRIAL PERSONNEL &
MANAGEMENT SERVICES
 The general rule is that Philippine laws
apply even to overseas employment
contracts. This rule is rooted in the
constitutional provision of Section 3,
 3B 2019-2020
Doctrines for Conflicts

Article XIII that the State shall afford

full protection to labor, whether local or
overseas. Hence, even if the OFW has
his employment abroad, it does not strip
him of his rights to security of tenure,
humane conditions of work and a living
wage under our Constitution. As an
exception, the parties may agree that a
foreign law shall govern the employment
contract.
 If no foreign law was expressly
stipulated in the employment contract
which was executed in the Philippines,
then the domestic labor laws shall apply
in accordance with the principle of lex
loci contractus.

Page 11 of 11