CONFLICT OF LAWS

CSPCERCADO 2020
REBESENCIO V. CA
 Forum Non Conveniens

•Forum non conveniens literally

translates to "the forum is
inconvenient."
• It is a concept in private international law and was
devised to combat the "less than honorable" reasons
and excuses that litigants use to secure procedural
advantages, annoy and harass defendants, avoid
overcrowded dockets, and select a "friendlier"
venue. Thus, the doctrine of forum non
conveniens addresses the same rationale that the rule
against forum shopping does, albeit on a
multijurisdictional scale.
 CONTRACTS
Extrinsic Validity- Lex Loci Celebrationis
The first paragraph of Article 17 of the Civil Code provides that "[t]he forms
and solemnities of contracts . . . shall be governed by the laws of the country
in which they are executed"(i.e., lex loci celebrationis).
 Intrinsic Validity

• Article 1306. The contracting parties may

establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and
conditions as they may deem convenient,
provided they are not contrary to law, morals,
good customs, public order, or public policy.
 Claim of SAUDIA

• It claims that the difficulty of ascertaining foreign law calls

into operation the principle of forum non conveniens,
thereby rendering improper the exercise of jurisdiction by
Philippine tribunals. A choice of law governing the validity
of contracts or the interpretation of its provisions does not
necessarily imply forum non conveniens.
•Choice of law and forum
non conveniens are
entirely different matters.
• Analytically, 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 lex fori 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.
•
Forum non conveniens, like the rules of forum
shopping, litis pendentia, and res judicata, is a means
of addressing the problem of parallel litigation. While
the rules of forum shopping, litis pendentia, and res
judicata are designed to address the problem of parallel
litigation within a single jurisdiction, forum non
conveniens is a means devised to address parallel
litigation arising in multiple jurisdictions.
•No Provisions in our law or
Rules regarding Forum Non
Conveniens, this is grounded
on Case Law.
 Procedural Aspect

•1.Presence of An Actual
Case in a Foreign Tribunal
• We deem it more appropriate and in the
greater interest of prudence that a defendant
not only allege supposed dangerous
tendencies in litigating in this jurisdiction;
the defendant must also show that such
danger is real and present in that litigation
or dispute resolution has commenced in
another jurisdiction and that a foreign
tribunal has chosen to exercise jurisdiction.
 Must be raised at the Earliest Possible
Opportunity

• Forum non conveniens must not only be

clearly pleaded as a ground for
dismissal; it must be pleaded as such at
the earliest possible opportunity.
Otherwise, it shall be deemed waived.
 When?

•Before Answer or as an
Affirmative Defense in an
Answer
 Substantive Aspect

Any evaluation of the propriety of contracting parties'

choice of a forum and its incidents must grapple with two
(2) considerations: first, the availability and adequacy of
recourse to a foreign tribunal; and second, the question
of where, as between the forum court and a foreign court,
the balance of interests inhering in a dispute weighs
more heavily.
 Public Interest

• first, the vinculum which the parties and

their relation have to a given jurisdiction
• The first is more concerned with the parties,
their personal circumstances, and private
interests
• In considering the vinculum, a court must
look into the preponderance of linkages
which the parties and their transaction may
have to either jurisdiction. In this respect,
factors, such as the parties' respective
nationalities and places of negotiation,
execution, performance, engagement or
deployment, come into play.
 The second concerns itself with the state and
the greater social order.

• Labor Contracts are imbued with

public policy
• Constitutional Issue, equality of men
and women
• As the present dispute relates to (what the respondents
allege to be) the illegal termination of respondents'
employment, this case is immutably a matter of public
interest and public policy. Consistent with clear
pronouncements in law and jurisprudence, Philippine
laws properly find application in and govern this case.
'Moreover, as this premise for Saudia's insistence on the
application forum non conveniens has been shattered, it
follows that Philippine tribunals may properly assume
jurisdiction over the present controversy.
The belief that the matter can
be better tried and decided
elsewhere, either because the
main aspects of the case
transpired in a foreign
jurisdiction or the material
witnesses have their residence
there;
First, there is no basis for concluding
that the case can be more conveniently
tried elsewhere. As established earlier,
Saudia is doing business in the
Philippines. For their part, all four (4)
respondents are Filipino citizens
maintaining residence in the Philippines
and, apart from their previous
employment with Saudia, have no other
connection to the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia. It would even be to respondents'
inconvenience if this case were to be tried
elsewhere.
The belief that the non- Second, the records are
resident plaintiff sought bereft of any indication
the forum[,] a practice that respondents filed
known as forum their Complaint in an
shopping[,] merely to effort to engage in forum
secure procedural shopping or to vex and
advantages or to convey inconvenience Saudia.
or harass the defendant;
The unwillingness to Third, there is no
extend local judicial indication of
"unwillingness to extend
facilities to non­ local judicial facilities to
residents or aliens non-residents or
when the docket may aliens."93 That Saudia has
already be managed to bring the
present controversy all the
overcrowded; way to this court proves
this.
The inadequacy of the Fourth, it cannot be said
local judicial machinery that the local judicial
for effectuating the right machinery is inadequate
sought to be maintained; for effectuating the right
sought to be maintained.
Summons was properly
served on Saudia and
jurisdiction over its
person was validly
acquired.
The difficulty of Lastly, there is not even
ascertaining foreign law. room for considering
foreign law. Philippine law
properly governs the
present dispute.
It is not so much the mere
applicability of foreign law
which calls into
operation forum non
conveniens.
• Rather, what justifies a court's desistance
from exercising jurisdiction is
"[t]he difficulty of ascertaining foreign
law" or the inability of a "Philippine Court
to make an intelligent decision as to the
law[.]"
• "An employer may not terminate the
employment of a female worker or give
her a warning of the same while on
maternity leave." (Article 155, Labor
Law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
Royal Decree No. M/51.)
 The Manila Hotel Corp. v. National Labor
Relations Commission
• Marcelo G. Santos was working in the Sultanate of Oman when
he received a letter from Palace Hotel recruiting him for
employment in Beijing, China. Santos accepted the offer.
Subsequently, however, he was released from employment
supposedly due to business reverses arising from political
upheavals in China (i.e., the Tiananmen Square incidents of
1989). 
•  Santos later filed a Complaint for illegal
dismissal impleading Palace Hotel's General
Manager, Mr. Gerhard Schmidt, the Manila Hotel
International Company Ltd. (which was,
responsible for training Palace Hotel's personnel
and staff), and the Manila Hotel Corporation
(which owned 50% of Manila Hotel International
Company Ltd.'s capital stock).
• In ruling against the National Labor Relations
Commission's exercise of jurisdiction, this court
noted that the main aspects of the case transpired
in two (2) foreign jurisdictions, Oman and China,
and that the case involved purely foreign
elements. Specifically, Santos was directly hired
by a foreign employer through correspondence
sent to Oman. 
• Also, the proper defendants were
neither Philippine nationals nor
engaged in business in the
Philippines, while the main
witnesses were not residents of the
Philippines.
•  National
Labor Relations Commission
was in no position to conduct :

• 1. Determine the law governing the

employment contract, as it was entered
into in foreign soil
• second, determine the facts, as Santos' employment was
terminated in Beijing; and third, enforce its judgment,
since Santos' employer, Palace Hotel, was incorporated
under the laws of China and was not even served with
summons.
• Third, erce its judgment, since Santos' employer, Palace
Hotel, was incorporated under the laws of China and
was not even served with summons.
• We note that the main aspects of the case
transpired in two foreign jurisdictions and the
case involves purely foreign elements. The
only link that the Philippines has with the
case is that respondent Santos is a Filipino
citizen. The Palace Hotel and MHICL are
foreign corporations. Not all cases involving
our citizens can be tried here.
 CHOICE OF LAW

•  the court that exercises jurisdiction

determines which law to apply to a case that
involves foreign parties, foreign
transactions, or a number of foreign
elements.
 Local Law

•Default Law.
•In our case PH Laws.
 Article 15 NCC

• Laws relating to family rights and duties, or

to the status, condition and legal capacity
of persons are binding upon citizens of the
Philippines, even though living abroad.
 Your Classic
Saan Ka Man Naroroon
 Article 16
• ART. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law
of the country where it is situated.
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the
order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the
intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the
national law of the person whose succession is under consideration,
whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country
where said property may be found.
What are governed by National Law of the Decedent?
OAI

• Order of Succession
• Amount of Successional Rights
• Intrinsic Validity of Testamentary Provisions
 Bellis v. Bellis
• Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the Philippines, in which he directed that after all taxes,
obligations, and expenses of administration are paid for, his distributable estate should be
divided, in trust, in the following order and manner:
• $240,000.00 to his first wife, Mary E. Mallen;
• P120,000.00 to his three illegitimate children, Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis, Miriam
Palma Bellis, or P40,000.00 each and
• after the foregoing two items have been satisfied, the remainder shall go to his seven surviving
children by his first and second wives, namely: Edward A. Bellis, Henry A. Bellis, Alexander
Bellis and Anna Bellis Allsman, Edwin G. Bellis, Walter S. Bellis, and Dorothy E. Bellis, in
equal shares
• Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis
filed their respective oppositions to the project of
partition on the ground that they were deprived of
their legitimes as illegitimate children and,
therefore, compulsory heirs of the deceased.
• Relying upon Art. 16 of the Civil Code, it applied
the national law of the decedent, which in this case
is Texas law, which did not provide for legitimes.
 ISSUE:

• Whether or not the Texas Law, the

national law of Amos Bellis, should
apply
• Article 16, par. 2, and Art. 1039 of the Civil Code, render
applicable the national law of the decedent, in intestate or
testamentary successions, with regard to four items: (a) the
order of succession; (b) the amount of successional rights; (c)
the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will; and (d) the
capacity to succeed.
 The claim of the Heirs who were not given
full share.
• Appellants would however counter that Art. 17, paragraph three, of the
Civil Code, stating that —
Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those
which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs
shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or
by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.
prevails as the exception to Art. 16, par. 2 of the Civil Code afore-quoted.
• It is therefore evident that whatever public policy or
good customs may be involved in our System of
legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the
same to the succession of foreign nationals. For it has
specifically chosen to leave, inter alia, the amount of
successional rights, to the decedent's national law.
Specific provisions must prevail over general ones.
 Aznar v. Garcia
• Mr. Edward E. Christensen, the deceased, was a US Citizen at the time of his
death. In his will, he left his only daughter, Maria Lucy Christensen residing in
California all the residue of his estate and a sum of Three Thousand Six Hundred
pesos only (3,600.00) to Maria Helen Christensen (Helen). Helen opposed the
project of partition as it deprives her (Helen) of her legitime as an acknowledged
natural child,. The legal grounds of opposition are (a) that the distribution should
be governed by the laws of the Philippines, and (b) that said order of distribution
is contrary thereto insofar as it denies to Helen Christensen, one of two
acknowledged natural children, one-half of the estate in full ownership
• The court ruled that Edward E. Christensen was a
citizen of the United States and of the State of
California at the time of his death, the successional
rights and intrinsic validity of the provisions in his
will are to be governed by the law of California, in
accordance with which a testator has the right to
dispose of his property in the way he desires,
because the right of absolute dominion over his
property is sacred and inviolable
 ISSUE:

• Whether or not, by recognizing the Renvoi

Doctrine, the Philippine Laws should govern
the partition of the Estate of Mr.
Christensen.
• The recognition of the renvoi theory implies that
the rules of the conflict of laws are to be
understood as incorporating not only the ordinary
or internal law of the foreign state or country, but
its rules of the conflict of laws as well. According
to this theory 'the law of a country' means the
whole of its law. The laws of California posit two
sets of laws for its citizens, one for its residents and
another for those domiciled in other jurisdictions.
• Appellees argue that what Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
pointed out as the national law is the internal law of California. But as
above explained the laws of California have prescribed two sets of laws
for its citizens, one for residents therein and another for those domiciled in
other jurisdictions. Reason demands that We should enforce the California
internal law prescribed for its citizens residing therein, and enforce the
conflict of laws rules for the citizens domiciled abroad. If we must enforce
the law of California as in comity we are bound to go, as so declared in
Article 16 of our Civil Code, then we must enforce the law of California
in accordance with the express mandate thereof and as above explained,
i.e., apply the internal law for residents therein, and its conflict-of-laws
rule for those domiciled abroad.
 California Law

• If there is no law to the contrary, in the

place where personal property is situated, it
is deemed to follow the person of its owner,
and is governed by the law of his domicile.
• It is argued on appellees' behalf that the clause "if
there is no law to the contrary in the place where
the property is situated" in Sec. 946 of the
California Civil Code refers to Article 16 of the
Civil Code of the Philippines and that the law to
the contrary in the Philippines is the provision in
said Article 16 that the national law of the
deceased should govern. This contention can not
be sustained. 
•  As explained in the various authorities cited above the
national law mentioned in Article 16 of our Civil Code
is the law on conflict of laws in the California Civil
Code, i.e., Article 946, which authorizes the reference
or return of the question to the law of the testator's
domicile. The conflict of laws rule in California, Article
946, Civil Code, precisely refers back the case, when a
decedent is not domiciled in California, to the law of
his domicile, the Philippines in the case at bar. The
court of the domicile can not and should not refer the
case back to California; 
•  As explained in the various authorities cited above the
national law mentioned in Article 16 of our Civil Code is
the law on conflict of laws in the California Civil Code,
i.e., Article 946, which authorizes the reference or return of
the question to the law of the testator's domicile. The
conflict of laws rule in California, Article 946, Civil Code,
precisely refers back the case, when a decedent is not
domiciled in California, to the law of his domicile, the
Philippines in the case at bar. The court of the domicile can
not and should not refer the case back to California; 
 Principle 2

•NEEDS OF THE INTERSTATE

AND INTERNATIONAL
SYSTEM
 Relevant Policies of the Forum

•Values of Highest
Import
Bank of America NT &Asia v. American Realty
Corporation GR 133876 December 29, 1999
Incidentally, BANTSA alleges that under English Law, which according to
petitioner is the governing law with regard to the principal agreements, the
mortgagee does not lose its security interest by simply filing civil actions for
sums of money. xxx
Thus, when the foreign law, judgment or contract is contrary to a sound and
established public policy of the forum, the said foreign law, judgment or
order shall not be applied. 
 What is the Public Policy sought to be
Protected?

•Rule Against Forum

Shopping and Rule Against
Splitting of Cause of Action
 Dacasin v. Dacasin

• In this jurisdiction, parties to a contract are free to

stipulate the terms of agreement subject to the
minimum ban on stipulations contrary to law, morals,
good customs, public order, or public policy. 12
 Otherwise, the contract is denied legal existence,
deemed "inexistent and void from the beginning."
• At the time the parties executed the Agreement on 28
January 2002, two facts are undisputed: (1) Stephanie
was under seven years old (having been born on 21
September 1995); and (2) petitioner and respondent
were no longer married under the laws of the United
States because of the divorce decree. The relevant
Philippine law on child custody for spouses separated
in fact or in law
 What Public Policy?

• “"No child under seven years of age shall be separated

from the mother, unless the court finds compelling
reasons to order otherwise." 
 Petitioners Argument “213 Applies only to
Judicial Compromise”
• To limit this provision’s enforceability to court sanctioned agreements while
placing private agreements beyond its reach is to sanction a double standard
in custody regulation of children under seven years old of separated parents.
This effectively empowers separated parents, by the simple expedient of
avoiding the courts, to subvert a legislative policy vesting to the separated
mother sole custody of her children under seven years of age "to avoid a
tragedy where a mother has seen her baby torn away from her." 23 This
ignores the legislative basis that "[n]o man can sound the deep sorrows of a
mother who is deprived of her child of tender age."
 Principle 4

•Relevant Policies of other

interested States
 Principle 5

•Protection of Justified
Expectations
• Parties are free to stipulate on any law.
• Must be Respected by the Courts
• Provided they are not contrary to law or
public policy
 Principle 6

•Basic Policies
Underlying a Particular
Field of Law
•Reason and objectives of the
laws in question must be
given consideration.
 Principle 7

•Certainty, Predictability
and Uniformity of Result
•Stare Decisis
•Res Judicata
 Principle 8

•Ease in Determination
and Application of the
Law to be applied.
 Presumed Identity Approach Or Doctrine of
Processual Presumption
• For a Foreign law to be appreciated as a basis of a
claim or as a defense, it must be properly pleaded
and proved as a fact. Otherwise, our courts will
presume that foreign law and local laws are the
same, and will proceed to apply local law.
Are Courts supposed to know local laws?
 Section 1 of Rule 129

official acts of the legislative,

executive and judicial
departments of the National
Government of the Philippines
How about Foreign Laws?
 How to Prove Foreign Laws?

• 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 or her 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, which is a contracting party to a treaty or
convention to which the Philippines is also a party, or
considered a public document under such treaty or
convention pursuant to paragraph (c) of Section 19
hereof, the certificate or its equivalent shall be in the
form prescribed by such treaty or convention subject to
reciprocity granted to public documents originating
from the Philippine
 Section 19 (c)

• Documents that are considered public

documents under treaties and conventions
which are in force between the Philippines
and the country of source;
 Apostille Convention

• CONVENTION ABOLISHING THE

REQUIREMENT OF LEGALISATION
FOR FOREIGN PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
• October 1961
• Philippines acceded in May 2019
 Article 1

• The present Convention shall apply to

public documents which have been executed
in the territory of one Contracting State and
which have to be produced in the territory of
another Contracting State.
 Section 2
• Each Contracting State shall exempt from legalisation
documents to which the present Convention applies and which
have to be produced in its territory. For the purposes of the
present Convention, legalisation means only the formality by
which the diplomatic or consular agents of the country in which
the document has to be produced certify the authenticity of the
signature, the capacity in which the person signing the
document has acted and, where appropriate, the identity of the
seal or stamp which it bears.
 DFA Primer on Apostille Convention
• https://
www.dfa.gov.ph/dfa-news/dfa-releasesupdate/22280-question-and-answer
-and-infographics-on-authentication-through-apostille
• The Apostille streamlines the whole authentication procedure of
documents for use abroad resulting to more convenience, less cost and
processing time for the applicants. Before Apostille, a Philippine
document to be used abroad needs a Certification by the relevant
government agency or office, Authentication by the DFA and
Authentication (Legalization) by the Embassy of the country of
destination.
• With the Apostille, the aforementioned document will no longer require
legalization by the Foreign Embassy if the country of destination is
already a Member of the Apostille Convention (or an "Apostille
Country.") Once Apostillized, the document can be validly used in any
and all Apostille Countries.
 What Documents are subject to the
Convention?
• documents emanating from an authority or an
official connected with the courts or tribunals of
the State, including those emanating from a
public prosecutor, a clerk of a court or a process-
server ("huissier de justice");
• b) administrative documents;
• c) notarial acts;
• d) official certificates which are placed on
documents signed by persons in their private
capacity, such as official certificates recording the
registration of a document or the fact that it was
in existence on a certain date and official and
notarial authentications of signatures.
 Countries not Party to Convention
• For documents originating from a foreign country which is not a
contracting party to a treaty or convention referred to in the next
preceding sentence, the certificate may be made by a secretary of
the 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 [or her] office.
 Foreign Documents
• A document that is accompanied by a certificate or its equivalent
may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate
or its equivalent being prima facie evidence of the due execution
and genuineness of the document involved. The certificate shall
not be required when a treaty or convention between a foreign
country and the Philippines has abolished the requirement, or has
exempted the document itself from this formality
What was not accepted
 Wildvalley Shipping v. CA
GR No. 119602 October 6, 2000
• Ship Captain
Testimony
 Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Guererro
GR No. 136804 February 19, 2003
• Lawyers Affidavit
 Exceptions
• Foreign License Attorney who will Testify on the witness stand
 Norse Management Co. v. National Seamen
Board GR No. L-54204 September 30, 1982
• in administrative proceedings, the technical rules of
procedure — particularly of evidence — applied in
judicial trials, do not strictly apply.
Lack of Objection
Official Websites