CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018

based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano

IV MANRESA 2018-2019
PART I. INTRODUCTION; BASIC PRINCIPLES On November 23, 1993, Morada filed a Complaint for damages
1) Conflict of Laws, Defined; Elements in the definition against SAUDIA, and Khaled Al-Balawi ("Al-Balawi"), its country
SAUDI ARABIA AIRLINES VS CA 1998 manager. SAUDIA filed an Omnibus Motion To Dismiss, which was
HASEGAWA VS KITAMURA 2007 denied, by the trial court. Consequently, SAUDIA filed its Petition
CONTINENTAL MICRONISEA VS BASSO 2015 for Certiorari and Prohibition xxx. The Court of Appeals ruled
that the Philippines is an appropriate forum considering that the
2) Distinguished from Public International Law;
Amended Complaint's basis for recovery of damages is Article 21
3) Sources of Conflict of Laws
of the Civil Code, and thus, clearly within the jurisdiction of
PART II. PHASES IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION respondent Court.
1) JURISDICTION
SAUDIA claimed: that the trial court has no jurisdiction to hear
SAUDI ARABIA AIRLINES VS CA 1998 and try based on Article 21 of the New Civil Code since the proper
law applicable is the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia inasmuch
FACTS: On January 21, 1988, SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES or as this case involves what is known in private international law as
SAUDIA (foreign airlines corporation doing business in the a "conflicts problem". Otherwise, the Republic of the Philippines
Philippines) hired MORADA as a Flight Attendant for its airlines will sit in judgment of the acts done by another sovereign state,
based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. On April 27, 1990, while on a lay- which is abhorred. That this is a conflict of laws, which must be
over in Jakarta, Indonesia, Morada went to a disco dance with settled at the outset. That Morada’s claim for alleged abuse of
fellow crewmembers Thamer Al-Gazzawi and Allah Al-Gazzawi, rights occurred in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The existence of a
both Saudi nationals. Because it was almost morning when they foreign element qualifies the instant case for the application of the
returned to their hotels, they agreed to have breakfast together at law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by virtue of the  lex loci
the room of Thamer. After Allah left, Thamer attempted to rape delicticommissi rule. 
Morada. A roomboy and several security personnel heard Morada’s
cries for help and rescued her. The Indonesian police came and
arrested Thamer and Allah Al-Gazzawi, the latter as an accomplice. ISSUES:
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE PROBLEM HEREIN PRESENTS A
In September 1990, defendant SAUDIA transferred Morada to “CONFLICTS” CASE. YES
Manila.On January 14, 1992, her superiors requested her to see 2. WHETHER OR NOT REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON
Mr. Ali Meniewy, Chief Legal Officer of SAUDIA, in Jeddah, Saudi CITY HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND TRY THE CIVIL
Arabia. When she saw him, he brought her to the police station. CASE ENTITLED "MILAGROS P. MORADA V. SAUDI
ARABIAN AIRLINES". YES
The police put pressure on her to make a statement dropping the
3. WHETHER OR NOT PHILIPPINE LAW SHOULD GOVERN IN
case against Thamer and Allah. She agreed so the police returned
THIS CASE. YES
her passport and allowed her to catch the afternoon flight out of
Jeddah.
HELD (1): YES. Where the factual antecedents satisfactorily
establish the existence of a foreign element, the problem herein
On June 16, 1993, Morada was ordered to take a later flight to could present a "conflicts" case. A factual situation that cuts
Jeddah. When she did, a certain Khalid of the SAUDIA office across territorial lines and is affected by the diverse laws of two or
brought her to a Saudi court where she was asked to sign a more states is said to contain a "foreign element".
document written in Arabic purportedly to close the case against
Thamer and Allah. As it turned out, plaintiff signed a notice to her
to appear before the court on June 27, 1993. Morada then The foreign element may simply consist in the fact that one of the
returned to Manila. parties to a contract is an alien or has a foreign domicile, or that a
contract between nationals of one State involves properties
situated in another State. In other cases, the foreign element may
On June 28, 1993, a Saudi judge interrogated Morada for 1 hour assume a complex form. 
through an interpreter about the Jakarta incident. At the airport,
the airline had forbidden her to take flight, her passport was taken
away and told her to remain in Jeddah. In the instant case, the foreign element consisted in the fact that
private respondent Morada is a resident Philippine national, and
that petitioner SAUDIA is a resident foreign corporation. Also, by
On July 3, 1993 a SAUDIA legal officer again escorted plaintiff to virtue of the employment of Morada with the petitioner Saudia as
the same court where the judge, to her astonishment and shock, a flight stewardess, events did transpire during her many
rendered a decision sentencing her to five months imprisonment occasions of travel across national borders, particularly from
and to 286 lashes. The court found plaintiff guilty of (1) adultery; Manila, Philippines to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and vice versa, that
(2) going to a disco, dancing and listening to the music in caused a "conflicts" situation to arise.
violation of Islamic laws; and (3) socializing with the male crew, in
contravention of Islamic tradition. Because she was wrongfully
convicted, the Prince of Makkah dismissed the case against her HELD (2): YES. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City
and allowed her to leave Saudi Arabia. Shortly before her return to possesses jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. 
Manila, she was terminated from the service by SAUDIA, without
her being informed of the cause. Morada predicated her cause of action on Articles 19 and 21 of the
New Civil Code.

1
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
The RTC’s authority to try and hear the case is provided for under An essential element of conflict rules is the indication of a "test"
Section 1 of Republic Act No. 7691 which amended Sec. 1. Section or "connecting factor" or "point of contact". Choice-of-law
19 of Batas PambansaBlg. 129, otherwise known as the "Judiciary rules invariably consist of a factual relationship (such as property
Reorganization Act of 1980”, to wit: Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in Civil right, contract claim) and a connecting factor or point of contact,
Cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction: such as the situs of the res, the place of celebration, the place of
x xx           x xx          x xx performance, or the place of wrongdoing. 58
(8) In all other cases in which demand, exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind , attorney's fees, litigation expenses, These "test factors" or "points of contact" or "connecting factors"
and cots or the value of the property in controversy exceeds One could be any of the following:
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in such other cases
in Metro Manila, where the demand, exclusive of the above-
1. The nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, his
mentioned items exceeds Two hundred Thousand pesos
place of sojourn, or his origin;
(P200,000.00). (Emphasis ours) x xx           x xx          x xx
2. the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a
corporation;
Section 2 (b), Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court — the venue, 3. the situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is
Quezon City, is appropriate: Sec. 2 xxx. (b) Personal actions. deemed to be situated. In particular, the  lex situs is
— All other actions may be commenced and tried where the decisive when real rights are involved;
defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or 4. the place where an act has been done, the locus
where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiff resides, at the election of actus, such as the place where a contract has been made,
the plaintiff. a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort committed.
The lex loci actus is particularly important in contracts and
torts;
Pragmatic considerations, including the convenience of the 5. the place where an act is intended to come into effect,
parties, also weigh heavily in favor of the RTC Quezon City e.g., the place of performance of contractual duties xxx.
assuming jurisdiction. Paramount is the private interest of the 6. the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that
litigant. Enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained is quite should govern their agreement, the lex loci intentionis;
obvious. Relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial are 7. the place where judicial or administrative proceedings are
equally important. instituted or done. The lexfori  — the law of the forum xxx.
8. the flag of a ship, which in many cases is decisive of
practically all legal relationships of the ship and of its
The court  a quo found it best to hear the case in the Philippines. master or owner as such. Xxx.
Otherwise, it would be forcing Morada to seek remedial action
elsewhere,  i.e. in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia where she no
Although Morada was already working in Manila, SAUDIA brought
longer maintains substantial connections. That would have caused
her to Jeddah on the pretense that she would merely testify in an
a fundamental unfairness to her. Moreover, by hearing the case in
investigation of the charges against her SAUDIA crewmembers. As
the Philippines, no unnecessary difficulties and inconvenience have
it turned out, she was the one made to face trial for very serious
been shown by either of the parties.
charges, including adultery and violation of Islamic laws and
tradition.
Similarly, the trial court also possesses jurisdiction over the
persons of the parties herein. By filing her Complaint and
Considering that the complaint in the court  a quo is one involving
Amended Complaint with the trial court, Morada has
torts, the "connecting factor" or "point of contact" could be the
voluntary submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the
place or places where the tortious conduct or   lex loci
court. The records show that petitioner SAUDIA has filed several
actus occurred. And applying the torts principle in a conflicts case,
motions 50 praying for the dismissal of Morada's Amended
we find that the Philippines could be said as a situs of the tort (the
Complaint. SAUDIA prayed for other reliefs under the premises.
place where the alleged tortious conduct took place). This is
Undeniably, petitioner SAUDIA has effectively submitted to
because it is in the Philippines where SAUDIA allegedly
the trial court's jurisdiction by praying for the dismissal of
deceived Morada, a Filipina residing and working here.
the Amended Complaint on grounds other than lack of
jurisdiction.
In applying the State of the most significant relationship
rule to determine the State, which has the most significant
HELD (3): YES. As to the choice of applicable law, there are two
relationship, the following contacts are to be taken into account
important questions: (1) What legal system should control a given
and evaluated according to their relative importance with respect
situation where some of the significant facts occurred in two or
to the particular issue:
more states; and (2) to what extent should the chosen legal
(a) the place where the injury occurred;
system regulate the situation. 
(b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred;
(c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation
Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us to determine and place of business of the parties, and
under what category a certain set of facts or rules fall. This (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the
process is known as "characterization", or the "doctrine of parties is centered. 62
qualification". It is the "process of deciding whether or not the
facts relate to the kind of question specified in a conflicts rule."  As already discussed, there is basis for the claim that over-all
The purpose of "characterization" is to enable the forum to select injury occurred and lodged in the Philippines. Also, Morada is a
the proper law. Our starting point of analysis here is not a legal resident Filipina national, working with SAUDIA, a resident foreign
relation, but a factual situation, event, or operative fact. 
2
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
corporation engaged here in the business of international air on the principles of lex loci celebrationis, lexcontractus, “the state
carriage. Thus, the "relationship" between the parties was of the most significant relationship rule,” or forum non conveniens.
centered here, although it should be stressed that this suit is not
based on mere labor law violations. HELD:
NO. The SC held that the RTC has jurisdiction to entertain and
hear the civil case filed by respondent and the grounds raised by
Philippine law on tort liability should have paramount application petitioners to assail that jurisdiction are inappropriate.
to and control in the resolution of the legal issues arising out of
this case. Further, the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over
the parties and the subject matter of the complaint; the The SC held that in the judicial resolution of conflicts problems,
appropriate venue is in Quezon City, which could properly apply three consecutive phases are involved: jurisdiction, choice of law,
Philippine law. and recognition and enforcement of judgments.

1. Jurisdiction – Where should litigation be

Lastly, Morada has "no obligation to plead and prove the law of initiated?  Court must have jurisdiction over the subject
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia since her cause of action is based on matter, the parties, the issues, the property, the res.
Articles 19 and 21" of the Civil Code of the Philippines and never Also considers, whether it is fair to cause a defendant to
alleged that Saudi law should govern this case.  And as correctly travel to this state; choice of law asks the further
held by the respondent appellate court, "considering that it was question whether the application of a substantive law
SAUDIA who was invoking the applicability of the law of Saudi which will determine the merits of the case is fair to both
parties.
Arabia, then the burden was on it to plead and to establish what
2. Choice of Law – Which law will the court apply?  Once
the law of Saudi Arabia is". 
a local court takes cognizance, it does not mean that the
local laws must automatically apply. The court must
determine which substantive law when applied to the
HASEGAWA VS KITAMURA 2007
merits will be fair to both parties.
G.R. No. 149177 November 23, 2007
3. Recognition and Enforcement of Judgment  –
Where can the resulting judgment be enforced?
FACTS:
Nippon is a Japanese consultancy firm providing technical and In the instant case, petitioners, in their motion to dismiss, do not
management support in the infrastructure projects of foreign claim that the trial court is not properly vested by law with
governments. jurisdiction to hear the subject controversy for, indeed, the case at
bar for specific performance and damages is one not capable of
Nippon entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA) pecuniary estimation and is properly cognizable by the RTC of Lipa
with respondent Kitamura, a Japanese national permanently City. What they rather raise as grounds to question subject matter
residing in the Philippines. jurisdiction are the principles of lex loci celebrationis and
lexcontractus, and the "state of the most significant relationship
The agreement provides that Kitamura was to extend professional rule."
services to Nippon for a year. Nippon assigned Kitamura to work
as the project manager of the Southern Tagalog Access Road Lex loci celebrationis relates to the "law of the place of the
(STAR) project. When the STAR project was near completion, ceremony" or the law of the place where a contract is made. The
DPWH engaged the consultancy services of Nippon, this time for doctrine of lexcontractus or lex loci contractus means the "law of
the Bongabon-Baler Road Improvement (BBRI) Project. Kitamura the place where a contract is executed or to be performed."
was named as the project manager in the contract.
It controls the nature, construction, and validity of the contract
However, Hasegawa (Nippon’s general manager), informed and it may pertain to the law voluntarily agreed upon by the
Kitamura that the company had no more intention parties or the law intended by them either expressly or implicitly.
of automatically renewing his ICA. His services would be engaged Under the "state of the most significant relationship rule," to
by the company only up to the substantial completion of the STAR ascertain what state law to apply to a dispute, the court should
Project. determine which state has the most substantial connection to the
occurrence and the parties. In a case involving a contract, the
Kitamura demanded that he be assigned to the BBRI project. court should consider where the contract was made, was
Nippon insisted that Kitamura’s contract was for a fixed term that negotiated, was to be performed, and the domicile, place of
had expired. Kitamura then filed for specific performance & business, or place of incorporation of the parties. This rule takes
damages w/ the RTC of Lipa City. Nippon filed a MTD. into account several contacts and evaluates them according to
their relative importance with respect to the particular issue to be
Nippon’s contention: They question jurisdiction of RTC Lipa City resolved.
because they say the ICA subject of the litigation was entered into
and perfected in Tokyo, Japan, by Japanese nationals, and written Since these three principles in conflict of laws make reference to
wholly in the Japanese language. Thus, the claim for improper the law applicable to a dispute, they are rules proper for the
pre-termination of Kitamura’s ICA could only be heard & ventilated second phase, the choice of law. They determine which state's
in the proper courts of Japan following the principles of lex loci law is to be applied in resolving the substantive issues of a
celebrationis&lexcontractus. conflicts problem. Since in this case, the only issue is that of
jurisdiction, choice-of-law rules are not only inapplicable but also
not yet called for.
ISSUE:Whether or not the jurisdiction of Philippine courts in civil
Additional issue, in case ma’am asks:
cases for specific performance and damages involving contracts
executed outside the country by foreign nationals may be assailed WON the rules on conflict of laws can be applied to the case at
bar.
3
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
Held: No. SC held that there is a premature invocation of choice- support of the legality of its acts, and praying for reliefs on the
of-law rules, exposed by the fact that they have not yet pointed merits of the case.
out any conflict between the laws of Japan and ours. Before
determining which law should apply, first there should exist a NLRC agreed with the LA that Basso was dismissed for just
conflict of laws situation requiring the application of the conflict of and valid causes on the ground of breach of trust and loss of
laws rules. Also, when the law of a foreign country is invoked to confidence; but that CMI denied Basso the required due
provide the proper rules for the solution of a case, the existence of process notice in his dismissal.
such law must be pleaded and proved.
CA’s Decision
When a conflicts case, one involving a foreign element, is brought LA and the NLRC hadjurisdiction over thesubject matter of
before a court, there are three alternatives open to the latter in the case and over the parties. It explained that jurisdiction over
disposing of it: (1) dismiss the case, either because of lack of
the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of
jurisdiction or refusal to assume jurisdiction over the case; (2)
the complaint and the law. Since the case filed by Basso is a
assume jurisdiction over the case and apply the internal law of the
forum; or (3) assume jurisdiction over the case and take into termination dispute that is "undoubtedly cognizable by the labor
account or apply the law of some other State or States. tribunals", the LA and the NLRC had jurisdiction to rule on the
merits of the case.

On the issue of jurisdiction over the person of the parties, who are
CONTINENTAL MICRONISA VS BASSO 2015 foreigners, the CA ruled that jurisdiction over the person of
Basso was acquired when he filed the complaint for illegal
FACTS: This illegal dismissal case involves foreign parties. Basso dismissal, while jurisdiction over the person of CMI was
is a US citizen, who resided in the Philippines. Continental acquired through coercive process of service of summons
Micronesia, Inc. (CMI) is a foreign corporation organized under to its agent in the Philippines. The CA also agreed that the
the laws of and domiciled in the US, and is licensed to do business active participation of CMI in the case rendered moot the issue on
in the Philippines. jurisdiction.
In 1990, Continental’s Managing Director for Asia offered Basso On the merits of the case, the CA declared that CMI illegally
the position of General Manager for the Continental’s Philippine dismissed Basso.
Branch. Basso accepted the offer, but the employment contract Both parties appealed the NLRC’s decision to the SC. CMI
was sent to him from the US later on February 1991. After signing maintains that:
it, Basso sent the document back to the US as he was instructed.
1. There is a conflict-of-laws issues that must be settled to
In 1992, CMI took over the Philippine operations of Continental, determine proper jurisdiction over the parties and
with Basso retaining his position as General Manager. But he later subject matter:
received a letter from CMI’s Vice President of Marketing and Sales, 2. The existence of foreign elements calls for the
informing him that he has agreed to work in CMI as a consultant application of US laws and the doctrines of lex loci
on an “as needed basis.” Basso wrote a counter-proposal celebrationis, lex loci contractus, and lex loci inentionis;
regarding his employment status but was rejected by CMI. 3. The rule on forum non convenience should be applied to
determine the propriety of the assumption of jurisdiction
Basso then filed before the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal by the labor tribunals; and that
dismissal against CMI. CMI alleged the presence of foreign 4. The US law on labor relations (the US Railway Labor
elements and filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of Act), which sanctions termination-at-will provisions in an
jurisdiction over the person of CMI and the subject matter of the employment contract, applies in their employment
controversy. contract with Basso

Labor Arbiter’s DecisionHe dismissed the case for lack of ISSUE: W/N the labor tribunals have jurisdiction over the foreign
jurisdiction and merit. US laws apply in the case, applying the parties and the subject matter of the case
doctrine of lex loci celebrationis because the employment contract
was executed in the US: “since the letter-offer was under the
Texas letterhead and the acceptance of Complainant was returned HELD: YES, the labor tribunals had jurisdiction over the parties
there.” Also, applying lex loci contractus, the Labor Arbiter ruled and the subject matter of the case.
that the parties did not intend to apply Philippine laws.
There is a conflict-of-laws issue.The SC agrees with CMI that there
He also agreed that Basso was terminated for a valid is a conflict-of-laws issue that needs to be resolved firs. Where the
cause based on CMI’s allegations of breach of trust and loss of facts establish the existence of foreign elements, the case presents
confidence. a conflicts-of-laws issue. The foreign element in a case may
However, he ruled that CMI voluntarily submitted to his appear in different forms such as in this case, where one of the
office’s jurisdiction by participating in the proceedings and parties is an alien and the other is domiciled in another state.
seeking affirmative relief. Citing Hasegawa vs. Kitamura , the Court said that 3 consecutive
NLRC’s Decision phases are involved in the judicial resolution of conflict-of-laws
cases: jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement
The NLRC ruled that the LA acquired jurisdiction over the of judgments. It also enumerated the questions that the courts
case when CMI voluntarily submitted to his office’s should ask in resolving the conflicts problem (See digest for
jurisdiction by presenting evidence, advancing arguments in Hasegawa).

4
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019

Clearly, the Philippines is the state with the most significant

The LA and NLRC have jurisdiction over the subject matter. relationship to the problem The Court held that CMI and Basso
That the employment contract of Basso was replete with intended Philippine law to govern, notwithstanding some
references to US laws, and that it originated from and was references made to US laws and the fact that this intention was
returned to the US, do not automatically preclude our labor not expressly stated in the contract. Citing a case, the court
tribunals from exercising jurisdiction to hear and try this case. explained that the law selected may be implied from such
Since this case stemmed from an illegal dismissal complaint, the factors as substantial connection with the transaction, or
Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have jurisdiction over the subject the nationality or domicile of the parties. The selection is,
matter of the case, pursuant to Art. 217 of the Labor Code. however, subject to the limitation that it is not against the
law, morals, or public policy of the forum.
The labor tribunals acquired jurisdiction over the parties.
On the other hand, jurisdiction over the person of CMI was Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when its application
acquired through the coercive process of service of would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the
summons. CMI never denied that it was served with summons. forum. Termination-at-will is contrary to the public policies on the
CMI has, in fact, voluntarily appeared and participated in the protection of labor espoused by our lawx and the Constitution.
proceedings before the courts. Though a foreign corporation, CMI Hence, the US Railway Labor Act should not be applied in this
is licensed to do business in the Philippines and has a local case. Moreover the Court also said that the said foreign law, while
business address here. The purpose of the law in requiring that properly pleaded, was not proved in the labor tribunals.
foreign corporations doing business in the country be licensed to
do so, is to subject the foreign corporations to the jurisdiction of
our courts. NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, INC. VS CA
G.R. No. 112573 February 9, 1995
The local forum is the convenient forum, based on the facts of this
case.
Under the DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, a FACTS: Petitioner Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. ( NORTHWEST),
Philippine court in a conflict-of-laws case may assume jurisdiction a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota,
if it chooses to do so, provided, that the following requisites are U.S.A., sought to enforce in RTC Manila, a judgment rendered in
met: its favor by a Japanese court against private respondent C.F.
Sharp & Company, Inc., (SHARP), a corporation incorporated
1. That the Philippine Court is one to which the
under Philippine laws. An International Passenger Sales Agency
parties may conveniently resort to; Basso may
Agreement was entered into by the parties whereby NORTHWEST
conveniently resort to our labor tribunals as he and CMI authorized SHARP to sell its air transportation tickets. Upon the
had physical presence in the Philippines during the latter’s failure to remit the proceeds of the ticket sales,
duration of the trial. CMI has a Philippine branch, while NORTHWEST sued SHARP in Tokyo, Japan, for its collection.
Basso, before his death, was residing here.
2. That the Philippine Court is in a position to make Two attempts at service were made at SHARP's Yokohama branch.
an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; Both were unsuccessful. On the first attempt, Mr. Dinozo, who was
and The labor tribunals can make an intelligent decision believed to be the person authorized to accept court process, was
as to the law and facts because the dismissal of Basso in Manila. On the second, Mr. Dinozo was present, but refused to
happened in the Philippines, and the acts that allegedly accept the summons because, according to him, he was no longer
led to the loss of trust and confidence also happened an employee of SHARP.After the two attempts of service were
unsuccessful, the judge of the Tokyo District Court decided to
here.
have the complaint and the writs of summons served at the head
office of the defendant in Manila. On July 11, 1980, the Director of
3. That the Philippine Court has or is likely to have the Tokyo District Court requested the Supreme Court of Japan to
serve the summons through diplomatic channels upon the
power to enforce its decision. The labor tribunals
defendant’s head office in Manila. Despite receipt of the same,
have the power to enforce their judgments because they
defendant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, thus the
acquired jurisdiction over the persons of both parties. Tokyo court rendered a judgment adverse to it. Since plaintiff was
unable to execute the decision in Japan, it filed a suit for
Thus, all the 3 requisites are present in this case.
enforcement of the judgment in Manila.
The Philippine law is the applicable law
Applying the “test factors,” ”points of contact” or “connecting SHARPaverred in its answer and in a demurrerthat the
(1) the foreign judgment sought to be enforced is null and void
factors” that were used in Saudi Arabia Airlines vs. CA, the Court
for want of jurisdiction and
concluded that the Philippine law is the applicable law. Basso,
(2) the said judgment is contrary to Philippine law and public
although a US citizen, was a resident of the Philippines when he policy and rendered without due process of law.
was hired by CMI until his death during the pendency of the trial;
CMI, while a foreign corporation, has a license to do business in NORTHWESTcontends that the Japanese Court acquired
the Philippines and has a branch here where Basso was hired to jurisdiction because the defendant is a resident of Japan, having
work; the employment contract was negotiated in the Philippines four (4) branches doing business therein and in fact had a permit
and was perfected here upon acceptance by Basso. Basso’s duties from the Japanese government to conduct business in Japan. It
relative to the contract, were to be performed in the Philippines; maintains that a distinction must be made between an action in
and the alleged acts which led to the loss of trust and confidence personam against a resident defendant and an action in
as well as the dismissal were committed here. personam  against a non-resident defendant. Jurisdiction is
acquired over a non-resident defendant only if he is served
5
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
personally within the jurisdiction of the court and over a resident DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION APPLIED. In
defendant if by personal, substituted or constructive service the absence of proof regarding Japanese law, their law on the
conformably to statutory authorization. It argues that since the matter is presumed to be similar with the Philippine law on service
SHARP maintains branches in Japan, it is considered a resident of summons on a private foreign corporation doing business in the
defendant. Corollarily, personal, substituted or constructive service Philippines. Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that
of summons when made in compliance with the procedural rules is if the defendant is a foreign corporation doing business in the
sufficient to give the court jurisdiction to render judgment in Philippines, service may be made:
personam (1) on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for
that purpose, or,
RTC ruled in favor of SHARP holding that considering that this is (2) if there is no such resident agent, on the government official
an action in personam; the Japanese Court failed to acquire designated by law to that effect; or
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant because (3) on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.
jurisprudence requires that the defendant be served with
summons in Japan in order for the Japanese Court to acquire If the foreign corporation has designated an agent to receive
jurisdiction over it, the process of the Court in Japan sent to the summons, the designation is exclusive, and service of summons is
Philippines which is outside Japanese jurisdiction cannot confer without force and gives the court no jurisdiction unless made upon
jurisdiction over the defendant in the case before the Japanese himWhere the corporation has no such agent, service shall be
Court of the case at bar. Boudard versus Tait 67 Phil. 170. made on the government official designated by law, like the
Essentially, the RTC explains that if the defendant in a foreign Securities and Exchange Commission (among others), in the case
court is a resident in the court of that foreign court such court of other foreign corporations duly licensed to do business in the
could acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant but it Philippines. Whenever service of process is so made, the
must be served upon the defendant in the territorial jurisdiction of government office or official served shall transmit by mail a copy
the foreign court. Such is not the case here because the defendant of the summons or other legal proccess to the corporation at its
was served with summons in the Philippines and not in Japan.CA home or principal office. The sending of such copy is a necessary
sustained this decision part of the service. 

ISSUE: whether a Japanese court can acquire jurisdiction over a SHARP contends that the laws authorizing service of process
Philippine corporation doing business in Japan by serving upon the SEC, presuppose a situation wherein the foreign
summons through diplomatic channels on the Philippine corporation doing business in the country no longer has any
corporation at its principal office in Manila after prior attempts to branches or offices within the Philippines. The applicable laws
serve summons in Japan had failed? clearly contemplate two situations: (1) if the corporation had left
the Philippines or had ceased to transact business therein, and (2)
RULING: YES. if the corporation has no designated agent. Nowhere in its
pleadings did SHARP profess to having had a resident agent
The extraterritorial service of summons on SHARP by the Japanese authorized to receive court processes in Japan. This silence could
Court was valid not only under the processual presumption but only mean, or least create an impression, that it had none.
also because of the presumption of regularity of performance of Hence, service on the designated government official or on
official duty. any of SHARP's officers or agents in Japan could be
availed of. The respondent, however, insists that only service of
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY any of its officers or employees in its branches in Japan could be
A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the resorted to.
country from which it comes, until the contrary is shown. It is also
proper to presume the regularity of the proceedings and the giving We do not agree. While it may be true that service could have
of due notice therein. Consequently, the party attacking a foreign been made upon any of the officers or agents of SHARP at its
judgment has the burden of overcoming the presumption of its three other branches in Japan, the availability of such a
validity.In this case, SHARP failed to successfully demonstrate the recourse would not preclude service upon the proper
invalidity of such judgment. In an attempt to discharge that government official, as stated above.In this case, the service is
burden, it contends that the extraterritorial service of summons equivalent to service on the proper government official under
effected at its home office in the Philippines was not only Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section
ineffectual but also void, and the Japanese Court did not, 128 of the Corporation Code. Hence, SHARP's contention that such
therefore acquire jurisdiction over it. manner of service is not valid under Philippine laws holds no
water.
PROCEDURAL LAW OF JAPAN IS A QUESTION OF FACT
THAT MUST BE PLEADED AND PROVED. It is settled that CA’s decision examined.
matters of remedy and procedure such as those relating to the The lower court anchored its decision on the following cases, but
service of process upon a defendant are governed by the lexfori  or SC ruled that these are inapplicable in the instant case.
the internal law of the forum (Japan). In this case, the  Boudard  involved the enforcement of a judgment of the
procedural law of Japan determines the validity of the civil division of the Court of First Instance of Hanoi,
extraterritorial service of process on SHARP. This is a question of French Indo-China. The trial court dismissed the case
fact that must be pleaded and proved by an official publication or because the Hanoi court never acquired jurisdiction over
by a duly attested or authenticated copy thereof. It was thenupon the person of the defendant considering that "[t]he,
SHARP to show that under Japanese procedural laws, the assailed evidence adduced at the trial conclusively proves that
extraterritorial service is invalid. It did not. Accordingly, the neither the appellee [the defendant] nor his agent or
presumption of validity and regularity of the service of summons employees were ever in Hanoi, French Indo-China; and
and the decision thereafter rendered by the Japanese court must that the deceased Marie Theodore Jerome Boudard had
stand. never, at any time, been his employee."

6
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
 Magdalena Estate, Inc. vs. Nieto what was declared of Manila,Branch 48. The subject of the action is a three-door
invalid resulting in the failure of the court to acquire apartment located in Paco, Manila.
jurisdiction over the person of the defendants in an The complaint stated that:
action in personam was the service of summons “The plaintiff is of legal age, a widow and is at present a
through publication against non-appearing resident resident of 14823 Conway Road, Chesterfield, Missouri,
defendants. It was claimed that the latter concealed U.S.A., while the defendants are spouses, of legal age
themselves to avoid personal service of summons upon and at present residents of 90222 Carkeek Drive, South
them. Seattle, Washington, U.S.A., but, for purposes of this
complaint may be served with summons at Gedisco
 Dial Corp. vs. Soriano, the defendants were foreign Center, Unit 304, 1564 A. Mabini St., Ermita, Manila
corporations which were not, domiciled and licensed to where defendant Alfredo D. Valmonte as defendant
engage in business in the Philippines and which did not Lourdes Arreola Valmontes spouse holds office and
have officers or agents, places of business, or properties where he can be found.”
here. On the other hand, in the instant case, SHARP was
doing business in Japan and was maintaining four The foregoing averments were made on the basis of a letter
branches therein. previously sent by Lourdes to Rosita’s counsel in which, in regard
to the partition of the property in question, she referred Rosita’s
 Raher vs. Raher. Insofar as to the Philippines is counsel to her husband as the party to whom all communications
concerned, Raher is a thing of the past. In that case, a intended for her should be sent. The letter reads:
divided Supreme Court of Iowa declared that the July 4, 1991
principle that there can be no jurisdiction in a court of a Dear Atty. Balgos:
territory to render a personal judgment against anyone This is in response to your letter, dated 20 June 1991,
upon service made outside its limits was applicable alike which I received on 3 July 1991. Please address all
to cases of residents and non-residents. The principle communications to my lawyer, Atty. Alfredo D. Valmonte,
was put at rest by the United States Supreme Court whose address, telephone and fax numbers appear
when it ruled in the 1940 case of Milliken below.
vs. Meyer  22 that domicile in the state is alone sufficient c/o Prime Marine
to bring an absent defendant within the reach of the Gedisco Center, Unit 304
state's jurisdiction for purposes of a personal judgment 1564 A. Mabini, Ermita
by means of appropriate substituted service or personal Metro Manila
service without the state. This principle is embodied in Telephone: 521-1736
section 18, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court which allows Fax: 21-2095
service of summons on residents temporarily out of the
Philippines to be made out of the country. Service of summons was then made to Alfredo, who at the time,
was at his office in Manila. Alfredo accepted the summons, insofar
The domicile of a corporation belongs to the state where it was as he was concerned, but refused to accept the summons for his
incorporated. Nonetheless, a corporation formed in one-state may, wifeon the ground that he was not authorized to accept the
for certain purposes, be regarded a resident in another state in process on her behalf. The process server left without leaving a
which it has offices and transacts business. This is the rule in our copy of the summons and complaint for Lourdes.
jurisdiction
Alfredo filed his Answer with Counterclaim.Lourdes, however, did
In as much as SHARP was admittedly doing business in Japan not file her Answer. Rosita moved to declare her in default. Alfredo
through its four duly registered branches at the time the collection entered a special appearance in behalf of his wife and opposed
suit against it was filed, then in the light of the processual Rosita’s motion.
presumption, SHARP may be deemed a resident of Japan, and, as
such, was amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts therein and On July 3, 1992, the trial court, denied Rosita’s motion to declare
may be deemed to have assented to the said courts' lawful Lourdes in default. A motion for reconsideration was similarly
methods of serving process. 27 denied on September 23, 1992.

C.F. SHARP L COMPANY, INC. was ordered to pay NORTHWEST Rosita filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
the amounts adjudged in the foreign judgment subject of said with the Court of Appeals.On December 29, 1992, the Court of
case, with interest thereon at the legal rate from the filing of the Appeals rendered a decision granting the petition and declaring
complaint therein until the said foreign judgment is fully satisfied. Lourdes in default. Hence, this petition.

VALMONTE VS CA 1996 ISSUE:Whether Lourdes was validly served with summons.

FACTS: RULING OF THE CA (Not so important but just to be safe in case

Lourdes A. Valmonte and Alfredo D. Valmonte are husband and asked by Atty.):
wife. They are both residents of 90222 Carkeek Drive South CA held that Lourdes was properly served with summons.
Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. Alfredo, who is a member of the “In her above-quoted reply, Mrs. Valmonte clearly and
Philippine bar, however, practices his profession in the Philippines, unequivocally directed the aforementioned counsel of Dimalanta to
commuting for this purpose between his residence in the state of address all communications  (evidently referring to her controversy
Washington and Manila, where he holds office at S-304 Gedisco with her sister Mrs. Dimalanta over the Paco property, now the
Centre, 1564 A. Mabini, Ermita, Manila. subject of the instant case) to her lawyer who happens also to be
her husband. Such directive was made without any qualification
On March 9, 1992, Rosita Dimalanta, who is the sister of Lourdes, just as was her choice/designation of her husband Atty. Valmonte
filed a complaint for partition of real property and accounting of as her lawyer likewise made without any qualification or
rentals against Lourdes and Alfredo before the Regional Trial Court reservation. Any disclaimer therefore on the part of Atty. Valmonte
7
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
as to his being his wife’s attorney (at least with regard to the 17. Extraterritorial service.  - When the defendant does not
dispute vis-a-vis [sic] the Paco property) would appear to be reside and is not found in the Philippines and the action
feeble or trifling, if not incredible.” affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the
subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which
“This view is bolstered by Atty. Valmontes subsequent alleged the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or
special appearance made on behalf of his wife. Whereas Mrs. contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly
Valmonte had manifestly authorized her husband to serve as her or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest
lawyer relative to her dispute with her sister over the Paco therein, or the property of the defendant has been attached
property and to receive all communications regarding the same within the Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be
and subsequently to appear on her behalf by way of a so-called effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under
special appearance, she would nonetheless now insist that the Section 7; or by publication in a newspaper of general
same husband would nonetheless had absolutely no authority to circulation in such places and for such time as the court may
receive summons on her behalf. In effect, she is asserting that order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the
representation by her lawyer (who is also her husband) as far as court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known
the Paco property controversy is concerned, should only be made address of the defendant, or in any other manner the court
by him when such representation would be favorable to her but may deem sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall
not otherwise. It would obviously be inequitable for this Court to specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty
allow private respondent Lourdes A. Valmonte to hold that her (60) days after notice, within which the defendant must
husband has the authority to represent her when an advantage is answer.
to be obtained by her and to deny such authority when it would
turn out to be her disadvantage. If this be allowed, Our Rules of In such cases, what gives the court jurisdiction in an
Court, instead of being an instrument to promote justice would be action in rem or quasi in rem  is that it has jurisdiction over
made use of to thwart or frustrate the same.” the res, i.e.  the personal status of the plaintiff who is domiciled in
xxx xxx xxx the Philippines or the property litigated or attached. Service of
“Turning to another point, it would not do for Us to overlook the summons in the manner provided in 17 is not for the purpose of
fact that the disputed summons was served not upon just an vesting it with jurisdiction but for complying with the requirements
ordinary lawyer of private respondent Lourdes A. Valmonte, but of fair play or due process, so that he will be informed of the
upon her lawyer husband. But that is not all, the same pendency of the action against him and the possibility that
lawyer/husband happens to be also her co-defendant in the property in the Philippines belonging to him or in which he has an
instant case which involves real property which, according to her interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff
lawyer/husband/ co-defendant, belongs to the conjugal and he can thereby take steps to protect his interest if he is so
partnership of the defendants (the spouses Valmonte). It is highly minded.
inconceivable and certainly it would be contrary to human nature Applying the foregoing rules to the case at bar, private
for the lawyer/husband/co-defendant to keep to himself the fact respondents action, which is for partition and accounting under
that they (the spouses Valmonte) had been sued with regard to a Rule 69, is in the nature of an action quasi in rem.  Such an action
property which he claims to be conjugal. Parenthetically, there is is essentially for the purpose of affecting the defendants interest in
nothing in the records of the case before Us regarding any a specific property and not to render a judgment against him. As
manifestation by private respondent Lourdes A. Valmonte about explained in the leading case of Banco Espaol Filipino v. Palanca :
her lack of knowledge about the case instituted against her and
her lawyer/husband/co-defendant by her sister Rosita.” DEFINITION OF ACTION QUASI IN REM:[An action quasi in
rem  is] an action which while not strictly speaking an action in
RULING OF THE SC: rem  partakes of that nature and is substantially such. . . . The
We hold that there was no valid service of process on action quasi in rem  differs from the true action in rem  in the
Lourdes A. Valmonte. circumstance that in the former an individual is named as
defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his
RULES IN ACTION IN PERSONAM: In an action in interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property. All
personam,  personal service of summons or, if this is not possible proceedings having for their sole object the sale or other
and he cannot be personally served, substituted service, as disposition of the property of the defendant, whether by
provided in Rule 14, 7-8 is essential for the acquisition by the attachment, foreclosure, or other form of remedy, are in a general
court of jurisdiction over the person of a defendant who does not way thus designated. The judgment entered in these proceedings
voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court. If is conclusive only between the parties.
defendant cannot be served with summons because he is
temporarily abroad, but otherwise he is a Philippine resident, PROPER WAY TO SERVE SUMMONS ON LOURDES: As
service of summons may, by leave of court, be made by Lourdes is a nonresident who is not found in the Philippines,
publication.Otherwise stated, a resident defendant in an service of summons on her must be in accordance with Rule 14,
action in personam,  who cannot be personally served with 17. Such service, to be effective outside the Philippines, must be
summons, may be summoned either by means of substituted made either (1) by personal service; (2) by publication in a
service in accordance with Rule 14, 8 or by publication as provided newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time
in 17 and 18 of the same Rule. as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and
order of the court should be sent by registered mail to the last
RULES IN ACTION IN REM OR QUASI IN REM: If the action known address of the defendant; or (3) in any other manner
is in rem  or quasi in rem,  jurisdiction over the person of the which the court may deem sufficient.
defendant is not essential for giving the court jurisdiction so long
as the court acquires jurisdiction over the res.  If the defendant is Since in the case at bar, the service of summons upon Lourdes
a nonresident and he is not found in the country, summons may was not done by means of any of the first two modes, the
be served extraterritorially in accordance with Rule 14, 17, which question is whether the service on her attorney, petitioner Alfredo
provides: D. Valmonte, can be justified under the third mode, namely, in any
. . . manner the court may deem sufficient.
8
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
he had earlier filed against William Gemperle. In fact Gemperles
We hold it cannot. This mode of service, like the first two, must be action was for damages arising from allegedly derogatory
made outside the Philippines, such as through the Philippine statements contained in the complaint filed in the first case. As
Embassy in the foreign country where the defendant this Court said, i]n other words, Mrs. Schenker had authority to
resides. Moreover, there are several reasons why the service of sue, and had actually sued, on behalf of her husband, so that she
summons on Atty. Alfredo cannot be considered a valid service of was, also, empowered to represent him in suits filed against him,
summons on Lourdes. particularly in a case, like the one at bar, which is a consequence
of the action brought by her on his behalf. Indeed, if instead of
REASONS WHY SERVICE OF SUMMONS TO ALFREDO NOT filing an independent action Gemperle filed a counterclaim in the
SUFFICIENT: action brought by Mr. Schenker against him, there would have
In the first place, service of summons on Alfredo was not made been no doubt that the trial court could have acquired jurisdiction
upon the order of the court as required by Rule 14, 17 and over Mr. Schenker through his agent and attorney-in-fact, Mrs.
certainly was not a mode deemed sufficient by the court which in Schenker.
fact refused to consider the service to be valid and on that basis
declare Lourdesin default for her failure to file an answer. In contrast, in the case at bar, Lourdes did not appoint her
husband as her attorney-in-fact. Although she wrote private
In the second place, service in the attempted manner on petitioner respondent s attorney that all communications intended for her
was not made upon prior leave of the trial court as required also in should be addressed to her husband who is also her lawyer at the
Rule 14, 17. As provided in 19, such leave must be applied for by latters address in Manila, no power of attorney to receive
motion in writing, supported by affidavit of the plaintiff or some summons for her can be inferred therefrom. In fact the letter was
person on his behalf and setting forth the grounds for the written seven months before the filing of this case below, and it
application. appears that it was written in connection with the negotiations
between her and her sister, respondent Rosita Dimalanta,
Finally, and most importantly, because there was no order concerning the partition of the property in question. As is usual in
granting such leave, Lourdes was not given ample time to file her negotiations of this kind, the exchange of correspondence was
Answer which, according to the rules, shall be not less than sixty carried on by counsel for the parties. But the authority given to
(60) days after notice. It must be noted that the period to file an petitioners husband in these negotiations certainly cannot be
Answer in an action against a resident defendant differs from the construed as also including an authority to represent her in
period given in an action filed against a nonresident defendant any litigation.
who is not found in the Philippines. In the former, the period is
fifteen (15)  days from service of summons, while in the latter, it is For the foregoing reasons, we hold that there was no valid
at least sixty (60) days from notice. service on petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte in this case.
Strict compliance with these requirements alone can assure WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from
observance of due process. That is why in one case,  although the is REVERSED and the orders dated July 3, 1992 and September
Court considered publication in the Philippines of the summons 23, 1992 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 48
(against the contention that it should be made in the foreign state are REINSTATED.
where defendant was residing) sufficient, nonetheless the service SO ORDERED.
was considered insufficient because no copy of the summons was
sent to the last known correct address in the Philippines.
GOMEZ VS CA 2004
THIS CASE COMPARED TO DE LEON VS. HONTANOSAS (Not G.R. No. 127692 March 10, 2004
so important but just to be safe in case asked by Atty.): FACTS:
Private respondent cites the ruling in De Leon v. Sps. Jesus and Caridad Trocino mortgaged two parcels of land to
Hontanosas,  67 SCRA 458,462-463 (1975), in which it was held Dr. Clarence Yujuico. However, it was subsequently foreclosed
that service of summons upon the defendants husband was and the properties sold at public auction. Before the expiry of the
binding on her. But the ruling in that case is justified because redemption period, the spouses Trocino sold the property to Sps.
summons were served upon defendants husband in their conjugal Gomez, who in turn, redeemed the same from Dr. Yujuico.
home in Cebu City and the wife was only temporarily absent, However, Sps. Trocino refused to convey ownership of the
having gone to Dumaguete City for a vacation. The action was for properties to Sps. Gomez. Thus, a case for an action for specific
collection of a sum of money. In accordance with Rule 14, 8, performance and/or rescission was thus filed by Sps. Gomez the
substituted service could be made on any person of sufficient heirs of Jesus Trocino, Sr., which include the surviving spouse,
discretion in the dwelling place of the defendant, and certainly Caridad Trocino.
defendants husband, who was there, was competent to receive
the summons on her behalf. In any event, it appears that The RTC rendered its decision against the heirs of Trocino
defendant in that case submitted to the jurisdiction of the court by declaring the latter’s titles null and void, and ordering the Register
instructing her husband to move for the dissolution of the writ of of Deeds to issue new titles to Sps. Gomez.
attachment issued in that case.
However, Adolfo and Mariano Trocino (heirs of Trocino) filed a
THIS CASE COMPARED TO GEMPERIE VS. SCHENKER (Not petition for the annulment of the judgment rendered by the RTC
so important but just to be safe in case asked by Atty.): alleging that they were not validly served with a copy of the
On the other hand, in the case of Gemperle v. summons and the complaint, thus the RTC did not aqcuire
Schenker,it was held that service on the wife of a nonresident jurisdiction over them. During the service of the summons,
defendant was found sufficient because the defendant had Trocino was already in Ohio, U.S.A., and has been residing there
appointed his wife as his attorney-in-fact. It was held that for 25 years, while Mariano was in Talibon, Bohol, and has been
although defendant Paul Schenker was a Swiss citizen and resident residing there since 1986. They also refuted the receipt of the
of Switzerland, service of summons upon his wife Helen Schenker summons by their mother Caridad and the representation made by
who was in the Philippines was sufficient because she was her Atty. Bugarin in their behalf.
husbands representative and attorney-in-fact in a civil case, which
9
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
ISSUE: defendants is essential in order for the court to acquire of
WON the RTC had validly acquired jurisdiction over the persons of jurisdiction over their persons.
Adolfo and Mariano.
SERVICE OF SUMMONS ON ADOLFO TROCINO
HELD: No. Adolfo is already a resident of Ohio, U.S.A. for 25 years. Being a
non-resident, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person
Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action and validly try and decide the case against him.
brought against him. Service of such writ is the means by which
the court acquires jurisdiction over his person. Any judgment SERVICE OF SUMMONS ON ADOLFO TROCINO
without such service in the absence of a valid waiver is null and Mariano has been in Talibon, Bohol since 1986. To validly acquire
void. jurisdiction over his person, summons must be served on him
personally, or through substituted service, upon showing of
ACTIONS IN PERSONAM impossibility of personal service. The circumstances attendant to
In actions in personam, summons on the defendant must be the service of summons must be stated in the Officer’s Return.
served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if Failure to do so would invalidate all subsequent proceedings on
he refuses to receive it, by tendering it to him. If efforts to find jurisdictional grounds.
defendant personally makes prompt service impossible, substituted
service may be effected by leaving copies of the summons at the In the present case, the process server served the summons and
defendant's dwelling house or residence with some person of copies of the complaint on the heirs through their mother. The
suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or by leaving the return did not contain any particulars as to the impossibility of
copies at the defendant's office or regular place of business with personal service on Mariano within a reasonable time. Such
some competent person in charge thereof. In substituted service, improper service renders the same ineffective.
it is mandated that the fact of impossibility of personal service
should be explained in the proof of service.
Consequently, the judgment sought to be executed against
When the defendant in an action in personam is a non-resident respondents were rendered without jurisdiction as there was
who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the neither a proper service of summons nor was there any waiver or
court, personal service of summons within the State is essential to voluntary submission to the trial court’s jurisdiction. When the
the acquisition of jurisdiction over his person. This cannot be done process server personally served the summons on Caridad, the
if the defendant is not physically present in the country, and thus, trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over her person alone.
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and therefore Hence, the trial court’s decision is valid and binding with regard to
cannot validly try and decide the case against him. her, but only in proportion to Caridad’s share.

An exception was accorded in Gemperle vs. Schenker wherein

service of summons through the non-resident’s wife, who was a MANOTOC VS CA 2006
resident of the Philippines, was held valid, as the latter was his
representative and attorney-in-fact in a prior civil case filed by the DOCTRINE: The court’s jurisdiction over a defendant is founded
non-resident, and the second case was merely an offshoot of the on a valid service of summons. Without a valid service, the court
first case. cannot acquire jurisdiction over the defendant, unless the
defendant voluntarily submits to it. The defendant must be
ACTIONS IN REM OR QUASI IN REM properly apprised of a pending action against him and assured of
In actions in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the opportunity to present his defenses to the suit. Proper service
the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the of summons is used to protect one’s right to due process.
court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res,
although summons must be served upon the defendant in order to FACTS:
satisfy the due process requirements. Thus, where the defendant
is a non-resident who is not found in the Philippines, and Respondent Trajano seeks the enforcement of a foreign court’s
1. the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff; judgment rendered by the United States District Court of Honolulu,
2. the action relates to, or the subject matter of which is Hawaii, in a case entitled AgapitaTrajano, et al. v. Imee Marcos-
property in the Philippines in which the defendant has or Manotoc, for wrongful death of deceased Archimedes Trajano
claims a lien or interest; committed by military intelligence officials of the Philippines
3. the action seeks the exclusion of the defendant from any allegedly under the command, direction, authority, supervision,
interest in the property located in the Philippines; or tolerance, sufferance and/or influence of defendant Manotoc.
4. the property of the defendant has been attached in the
Philippines The trial court issued a Summons addressed to petitioner at
Alexandra Condominium Corporation or Alexandra Homes, E2
..Summons may be served extraterritorially by: Room 104, at No. 29 Meralco Avenue, Pasig City. The Summons
a. personal service out of the country, with leave of court; and a copy of the Complaint were allegedly served upon Mr.
b. publication, also with leave of court; or Macky de la Cruz, an alleged caretaker of petitioner at the
c. any other manner the court may deem sufficient. condominium unit. When petitioner failed to file her Answer, the
trial court declared her in default.
THE COMPLAINT FILED IS AN ACTION IN PERSONAM
The case is an action in personam because it is an action against Petitioner, by special appearance of counsel, filed a Motion to
persons, namely on the basis of their personal liability. The Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the trial court over
objective sought in petitioners’ complaint was to establish a claim her person due to an invalid substituted service of summons on
against respondents for their alleged refusal to convey to them the the grounds that:
title to the two parcels of land that they inherited from their (1) The address of defendant indicated in the Complaint
father. As such, personal service of summons upon the (Alexandra Homes) was not her dwelling, residence, or
10
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
regular place of business as provided in Section 8, Rule excusable reasons, cannot be served with the summons within a
14 of the Rules of Court; reasonable period, then substituted service can be resorted to.
(2) The party (de la Cruz), who was found in the unit, was While substituted service of summons is permitted, "it is
neither a representative, employee, nor a resident of the extraordinary in character and in derogation of the usual method
place; of service." Hence, it must faithfully and strictly comply with the
(3) The procedure prescribed by the Rules on personal and prescribed requirements and circumstances authorized by the
substituted service of summons was ignored; rules. Indeed, "compliance with the rules regarding the service of
(4) Defendant was a resident of Singapore; and summons is as much important as the issue of due process as of
(5) Whatever judgment rendered in this case would be jurisdiction."
ineffective and futile.
Requirements for substituted service of summons (Sec 7,
The Sheriff’s Return provides: R14)

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on many occasions (1) Impossibility of Prompt Personal Service
several attempts were made to serve the
summons with complaint and annexes issued by The party relying on substituted service or the sheriff must show
this Honorable Court in the above entitled case, that defendant cannot be served promptly or there is impossibility
personally upon the defendant IMELDA ‘IMEE’ of prompt service.
MARCOS-MANOTOC located at Alexandra
Condominium Corpration [sic] or Alexandra Homes Reasonable time
E-2 Room 104 No. 29 Merlaco [sic] Ave., Pasig, Reasonable time is defined as "so much time as is necessary
Metro-Manila at reasonable hours of the day but under the circumstances for a reasonably prudent and diligent
to no avail for the reason that said defendant is man to do, conveniently, what the contract or duty requires that
usually out of her place and/or residence or should be done, having a regard for the rights and possibility of
premises. That on the 15th day of July, 1993, loss, if any, to the other party."
substituted service of summons was resorted to in Under Section 8, Rule 14, the service of summons has no set
accordance with the Rules of Court in the period. However, when the court, clerk of court, or the plaintiff
Philippines leaving copy of said summons with asks the sheriff to make the return of the summons and the latter
complaint and annexes thru [sic] (Mr) Macky de la submits the return of summons, then the validity of the summons
Cruz, caretaker of the said defendant, according lapses. The plaintiff may then ask for an alias summons if the
to (Ms) Lyn Jacinto, Receptionist and Telephone service of summons has failed.
Operator of the said building, a person of suitable
age and discretion, living with the said defendant What then is a reasonable time for the sheriff to effect a
at the given address who acknowledged the personal service in order to demonstrate impossibility of
receipt thereof of said processes but he refused to prompt service?
sign (emphases supplied).  To the plaintiff, "reasonable time" means no more than
seven (7) days since an expeditious processing of a
WHEREFORE, said summons is hereby returned to complaint is what a plaintiff wants.
this Honorable Court of origin, duly served for its  To the sheriff, "reasonable time" means 15 to 30 days
record and information. because at the end of the month, it is a practice for the
branch clerk of court to require the sheriff to submit a
Pasig, Metro-Manila July 15, 1993. return of the summons assigned to the sheriff for
service. The Sheriff’s Return provides data to the Clerk of
The trial court rejected Manotoc’s Motion to Dismiss relying on the Court, which the clerk uses in the Monthly Report of
presumption that the sheriff’s substituted service was made in the Cases to be submitted to the Office of the Court
regular performance of official duty, and such presumption stood Administrator within the first ten (10) days of the
in the absence of proof to the contrary. The decision was affirmed succeeding month. Thus, one month from the issuance
by the CA. of summons can be considered "reasonable time" with
regard to personal service on the defendant.
ISSUE: W/N there was a valid substituted service of summons on
the petitioner for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over the Responsibility of the sheriff
person of Manotoc. Sheriffs are asked to discharge their duties on the service of
summons with due care, utmost diligence, and reasonable
RULING: NO promptness and speed so as not to prejudice the expeditious
dispensation of justice. Thus, they are enjoined to try their best
How jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is efforts to accomplish personal service on defendant.
acquired For substituted service of summons to be available, there must
Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid be several attempts by the sheriff to personally serve the
service of summons or the defendant’s voluntary appearance in summons within a reasonable period [of one month] which
court. When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the eventually resulted in failure to prove impossibility of prompt
court’s jurisdiction or when there is no valid service of summons, service. "Several attempts" means at least three (3) tries,
"any judgment of the court which has no jurisdiction over the preferably on at least two different dates. In addition, the sheriff
person of the defendant is null and void." must cite why such efforts were unsuccessful. It is only then that
impossibility of service can be confirmed or accepted.
Personal service vs. Substituted service
In an action strictly in personam, personal service on the (2) Specific Details in the Return
defendant is the preferred mode of service, that is, by handing a
copy of the summons to the defendant in person. If defendant, for
11
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
The sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the facts and in the Return why those efforts proved inadequate, to reach the
circumstances surrounding the attempted personal service. conclusion that personal service has become impossible or
 The efforts made to find the defendant and the reasons unattainable.
behind the failure must be clearly narrated in detail in
the Return. apart from the allegation of petitioner’s address in the Complaint,
 The date and time of the attempts on personal service, it has not been shown that respondent Trajano or Sheriff Cañelas
 The inquiries made to locate the defendant, exerted extraordinary efforts to locate petitioner. Before resorting
 The name/s of the occupants of the alleged residence or to substituted service, a plaintiff must demonstrate an effort in
house of defendant and good faith to locate the defendant through more direct means.
 All other acts done, though futile, to serve the summons More so, in the case in hand, when the alleged petitioner’s
on defendant (as required on Sheriff’s Return of residence or house is doubtful or has not been clearly ascertained,
Summons on Substituted Service prescribed in the it would have been better for personal service to have been
Handbook for Sheriffs published by the Philippine Judicial pursued persistently.
Academy and Supreme Court Administrative Circular No.
5 dated November 9, 1989). Seriouss nonconformity from the requirement that the
summons must be left with a "person of suitable age and
(3) A Person of Suitable Age and Discretion discretion" residing in defendant’s house or residence
The Rule requires that:
Person of "suitable age and discretion then residing (1) Recipient must be a person of suitable age and discretion;
therein” and
If the substituted service will be effected at defendant’s house (2) Recipient must reside in the house or residence of
or residence, it should be left with a person of "suitable age and defendant.
discretion then residing therein."
 One who has attained the age of full legal capacity (18 Both requirements were not met. the Sheriff’s Return lacks
years old) and information as to residence, age, and discretion of Mr. Macky de la
 Is considered to have enough discernment to understand Cruz, aside from the sheriff’s general assertion that de la Cruz is
the importance of a summons. the "resident caretaker" of petitioner as pointed out by a certain
Ms. Lyn Jacinto, alleged receptionist and telephone operator of
Sufficient discretion Alexandra Homes.
"Discretion" is defined as "the ability to make decisions which . Besides, Mr. Macky de la Cruz’s refusal to sign the Receipt for
represent a responsible choice and for which an understanding of the summons is a strong indication that he did not have the
what is lawful, right or wise may be presupposed". necessary "relation of confidence" with petitioner. To protect
 Such person must know how to read and understand petitioner’s right to due process by being accorded proper notice
English to comprehend the import of the summons, and of a case against her, the substituted service of summons must be
 Fully realize the need to deliver the summons and shown to clearly comply with the rules.
complaint to the defendant at the earliest possible time
for the person to take appropriate action. American law
 The person must have the "relation of The procedure prescribed by a statute or rule for substituted
confidence" to the defendant, ensuring that the or constructive service must be strictly pursued. 35 There must be
latter would receive or at least be notified of strict compliance with the requirements of statutes authorizing
the receipt of the summons. substituted or constructive service

The sheriff must therefore determine if the person found in the Local law
alleged dwelling or residence of defendant is of legal age, what Where, by the local law, substituted or constructive service is
the recipient’s relationship with the defendant is, and whether said in certain situations authorized in the place of personal service
person comprehends the significance of the receipt of the when the latter is inconvenient or impossible, a strict and literal
summons and his duty to immediately deliver it to the defendant compliance with the provisions of the law must be shown in order
or at least notify the defendant of said receipt of summons. These to support the judgment based on such substituted or constructive
matters must be clearly and specifically described in the Return of service.
Summons. Jurisdiction is not to be assumed and exercised on the general
ground that the subject matter of the suit is within the power of
(4) A Competent Person in Charge the court. The inquiry must be as to whether the requisites of the
statute have been complied with, and such compliance must
If the substituted service will be done at defendant’s office or appear on the record.
regular place of business, then it should be served on a competent The fact that the defendant had actual knowledge of
person in charge of the place. attempted service does not render the service effectual if in fact
 Must be the one managing the office or business of the process was not served in accordance with the requirements
defendant, such as the president or manager; and of the statute.
 Such individual must have sufficient knowledge to Respondent Trajano failed to demonstrate that there was strict
understand the obligation of the defendant in the compliance with the requirements of the then Section 8, Rule 14
summons, its importance, and the prejudicial effects (now Section 7, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).
arising from inaction on the summons. Again, these Due to non-compliance with the prerequisites for valid
details must be contained in the Return. substituted service, the proceedings held before the trial court
perforce must be annulled.
GOING BACK TO THE CASE:
A meticulous scrutiny of the Return readily reveals the absence of As to the presumption of regularity
material data on the serious efforts to serve the Summons on The Court acknowledges that this ruling is still a valid doctrine.
petitioner Manotoc in person. There is no clear valid reason cited However, for the presumption to apply, the Sheriff’s Return must
12
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
show that serious efforts or attempts were exerted to personally HELD: (1) Yes. Generally, matters of remedy and procedure such
serve the summons and that said efforts failed. as those relating to the service of process upon a defendant are
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official governed by the lexfori or the internal law of the forum, 4 which in
functions by the sheriff is not applicable in this case where it is this case is the law of Singapore. Here, petitioner moved for leave
patent that the sheriff’s return is defective ( Venturanza vs. CA). of court to serve a copy of the Writ of Summons outside
The Return of Sheriff Cañelas in the case at bar merely described Singapore. The Singapore High Court granted "leave to serve a
the efforts or attempts in general terms lacking in details as copy of the Writ of Summons on the Defendant by a method of
required. It is as if Cañelas’ Return did not mention any effort to service authorized by the law of the Philippines for service of any
accomplish personal service. Thus, the substituted service is void. originating process issued by the Philippines  at ground floor, APMC
Building, 136 Amorsolo corner Gamboa Street, 1229 Makati
City, or elsewhere in the Philippines ."5 This service of summons
ST. AVIATION VS GRAND AIR 2006 outside Singapore is in accordance with Order 11, r. 4(2) of the
ST. AVIATION SERVICES CO., PTE., LTD. vs. GRAND Rules of Court 19966 of Singapore, which provides.
INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS, INC. (2) Where in accordance with these Rules, an originating
G.R. No. 140288             October 23, 2006 process is to be served on a defendant in any country
with respect to which there does not subsist a Civil
FACTS:St. Aviation Services Co., Pte., Ltd., petitioner, is a foreign Procedure Convention providing for service in that
corporation based in Singapore. It is engaged in the manufacture, country of process of the High Court, the originating
repair, and maintenance of airplanes and aircrafts. Grand process may be served –xxx
International Airways, Inc., respondent, is a domestic corporation c) by a method of service authorized by the law of
engaged in airline operations. that country for service of any originating process
Sometime in 1996, petitioner and respondent executed an issued by that country.
"Agreement for the Maintenance and Modification of Airbus A 300
B4-103 Aircraft Registration No. RP-C8882" (First Agreement). In the Philippines, jurisdiction over a party is acquired by service
Under this stipulation, petitioner agreed: of summons by the sheriff,his deputy or other proper court officer
 to undertake maintenance and modification works on either personally by handing a copy thereof to the defendantor by
respondent's aircraft substituted service.In this case, the Writ of Summons issued by
 on the mode and manner of payment the Singapore High Court was served upon respondent at its office
 that the "construction, validity and performance thereof" located at Mercure Hotel (formerly Village Hotel), MIA Road, Pasay
shall be governed by the laws of Singapore City. The Sheriff's Return shows that it was received on 1998 by
 to submit any suit arising from their agreement to the Joyce T. Austria, Secretary of the General Manager of respondent
non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Singapore courts. company. But respondent completely ignored the summons,
hence, it was declared in default.
The parties verbally agreed that petitioner will repair and Considering that the Writ of Summons was served upon
undertake maintenance works on respondent's other aircraft. respondent in accordance with our Rules, jurisdiction was acquired
Petitioner undertook the contracted works and thereafter promptly by the Singapore High Court over its person. Clearly, the judgment
delivered the aircrafts to respondent. Petitioner billed respondent of default rendered by that court against respondent is valid.
in the total amount of US$303,731.67 or S$452,560.18. But *In case maam asks*
despite petitioner's repeated demands, respondent failed to pay.
ISSUE: (2) WON the judgment by default by the Singapore High
On 1997, petitioner filed with the High Court of the Republic of Court is enforceable in the Philippines.
Singapore an action for the sum of money against respondent.
Upon petitioner's motion, the court issued a Writ of Summons to HELD: Yes. Generally, in the absence of a special contract, no
be served extraterritorially or outside Singapore upon respondent. sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment
The court sought the assistance of the sheriff of Pasay City to rendered by a tribunal of another country; however, under the
effect service of the summons upon respondent. However, despite rules of comity, utility and convenience, nations have established a
receipt of summons, respondent failed to answer the claim. The usage among civilized states by which final judgments of foreign
Singapore High Court rendered a judgment by default against courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and
respondent. rendered efficacious under certain conditions that may vary in
different countries. The conditions for the recognition and
On 1998, petitioner filed with the RTC a Petition for Enforcement enforcement of a foreign judgment in our legal system are
of Judgment. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition. contained in Section 48, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, thus:
On 1999, respondent filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari SEC. 48. Effect of foreign judgments . – The effect of a
assailing the RTC Order denying its motion to dismiss. The Court judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country,
of Appeals issued its Decision granting the petition and setting having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order
aside the Orders of the RTC "without prejudice to the right of is as follows:
private respondent to initiate another proceeding before the (a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a
proper court to enforce its claim." specific thing, the judgment or final order is
conclusive upon the title to the thing; and
Respondent, in assailing the validity of the judgment sought to be (b) In case of a judgment or final order against
enforced, contends that the service of summons is void and that a person, the judgment or final order is
the Singapore court did not acquire jurisdiction over it. presumptive evidence of a right as between the
parties and their successors in interest by a
ISSUES: (1) WON the Singapore High Court has acquired subsequent title;
jurisdiction over the person of respondent by the service of In either case, the judgment or final order may be
summons upon its office in the Philippines. repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of

13
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of Under the circumstances, there is a valid contract entered into
law or fact. between Todaro and the Pioneer Group, whereby, among others,
the Pioneer Group would employ Todaro, on a permanent basis, to
Under the above Rule, a foreign judgment or order against a manage and operate the ready-mix concrete operations, if the
person is merely presumptive evidence of a right as between the Pioneer Group decides to invest in the Philippines. The Pioneer
parties. It may be repelled, among others, by want of jurisdiction Group has decided to invest in the Philippines. The refusal of the
of the issuing authority or by want of notice to the party against defendants to comply with the Pioneer Groups undertaking to
whom it is enforced. The party attacking a foreign judgment has employ [Todaro] to manage their Philippine ready-mix operations,
the burden of overcoming the presumption of its validity. on a permanent basis, is a direct breach of an obligation under a
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. CA decision is set aside. valid and perfected contract.
The RTC is hereby DIRECTED to hear Civil Case.
Therefore, the cause of action does not lie within the jurisdiction
of the NLRC but with the trial court.The trial court also asserted its
jurisdiction over PIL, holding that PIL did business in
PIONEER VS GUADIZ 2007 the Philippines when it entered into a contract with Todaro. 
GR 156848, October 19, 2007
FACTS SC Ruling
Pioneer International, LTD. (PIL) is a corporation duly organized Affirmed RTC Ruling and declare that, based on the allegations
under Australian laws [as alleged by Antonio D. Todaro (Todaro)]. in Todaro’s complaint, PIL was doing business in
PIL is engaged in the ready-mix and concrete aggregates business the Philippines when it negotiated Todaro’s employment with
and has established a presence worldwide. PPHI.

Todaro was contacted by PIL and was asked to join in Section 3(d) of Republic Act No. 7042, Foreign Investments Act of
establishing a pre-mixed concrete plant and in overseeing its 1991, states: The phrase doing business  shall include
operations in the Philippines. Todaro confirmed his availability and soliciting orders, service contracts, xxx and any other act or
expressed interest in joining PIL. Todaro wrote a letter to Max acts that imply a continuity of commercial dealings or
Lindsay (Lindsay) of Pioneer HK and wrote that his aim is to run arrangements and contemplate to that extent the
again a ready-mix concrete company in the Philippines and not to performance of acts or works, or the exercise of some of
be a part-time consultant. Lindsay responded to Todaro and the functions normally incident to, and in progressive
proposed that Todaro join Pioneer on a retainer basis for 2-3 prosecution of commercial gain or of the purpose and
months on the understanding that Todaro would become object of the business organization: xxx
permanent if the entry of PIL (in the Philippines) proceeds. Todaro
sent a letter confirming that he is accepting the proposal of PIL’s alleged acts in actively negotiating to employ Todaro to run
Pioneer International (PIONEER) as a consultant for 3 months and its pre-mixed concrete operations in the Philippines are not mere
that after such period, he should be employed by PIONEER. John acts of a passive investor in a domestic corporation. Such are
G. McDonald, the CEO of PIONEER confirmed the offer on managerial and operational acts in directing and establishing
November 18, 1996. However, on September 18, 1997, Philip commercial operations in the Philippines. 
J. Klepzig, President and Managing Director of Pioneer Philippines
Holdings, Inc. (PPHI) and Pioneer Concrete Philippines, Inc. Other issues:
(PCPI), corporations duly organized under Philippine laws, (1) On the issue of summons - there was improper service of
withdrew the offer of employment with Todaro. summons on PIL.

Todaro filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against When summons is served on a foreign juridical entity, there are
PIL. PIL filed a motion to dismiss Todaro’s complaint on the three prescribed ways: (1) service on its resident agent designated
assertion that the trial court has no jurisdiction over PIL because in accordance with law for that purpose, (2) service on the
PIL is a foreign corporation not doing business in the  Philippines. government official designated by law to receive summons if the
PIL further stated that the National Labor Relations Commission corporation does not have a resident agent, and (3) service on any
(NLRC), and not the trial court, has jurisdiction over the subject of the corporations officers or agents within the Philippines.
matter of the action. It claimed that assuming that the trial court
has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, the In the present case, service of summons on PIL failed to follow
complaint should be dismissed on the ground of forum non- any of the prescribed processes. PIL had no resident agent in
conveniens. the Philippines. Summons was not served on SEC, the designated
government agency, since PIL is not registered with the SEC. 
ISSUE: Whether the trial court cannot acquire jurisdiction over
the person of PIL considering that PILis a foreign corporation not Summons for PIL was served on De Leon, Klepzig’s Executive
doing business in the Philippines. Assistant (EA). Klepzig is PIL’s agen within the Philippines because
PIL authorized Klepzig to notify Todaro of the cessation of his
RULING: RTC Ruling (which was affirmed by SC) consultancy. The authority given by PIL to Klepzig to notify Todaro
The trial court ruled in favor of Todaro. implies that Klepzig was likewise authorized to receive Todaro’s
The trial court found that the allegations in the complaint response to PIL’s notice.
sufficiently establish a cause of action. The trial court declared  
that Todaro’s cause of action is based on an alleged breach of However, summons was not served personally on Klepzig as agent
a contractual obligation and an alleged violation of Articles 19 of PIL. Instead, summons was served on De Leon, Klepzigs EA. In
and 21 of the Civil Code. this instance, De Leon was not PIL’s agent but a mere employee
of Klepzig. In effect, the sheriff resorted to substituted service. For
The summary of Todaros allegations states that PIL, PCPI, PPHI, symmetry, we apply the rule on substituted service of summons
McDonald, and Klepzig did not fulfill their contractual obligation to on a natural person and we find that no reason was given to
employ Todaro on a permanent basis in PILs Philippine office. justify the service of PILs summons on De Leon.
14
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
  RULING: NO.
Thus, we rule that PIL transacted business in In civil cases, the trial court acquires jurisdiction over the person
the Philippines and Klepzig was its agent within of the defendant either by the service of summons or by the
the Philippines. However, there was improper service of summons latter’s voluntary appearance and submission to the authority of
on PIL since summons was not served personally on Klepzig. the former. Private respondent was a Filipino resident who was
temporarily out of the Philippines at the time of the service of
(2) Forum Non-Conveniens - The doctrine of forum non- summons; thus, service of summons on her is governed by
conveniens requires an examination of the truthfulness of the Section 16, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
allegations in the complaint. Procedure does not Sec. 16. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. – When an
mention forum non-conveniens as a ground for filing a motion to action is commenced against a defendant who ordinarily resides
dismiss. The propriety of dismissing a case based on forum non- within the Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it, service
conveniensrequires a factual determination. While it is within the may, by leave of court, be also effected out of the Philippines, as
discretion of the trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction under the preceding section. (Emphasis supplied)
on this ground, the trial court should do so only after vital facts
are established to determine whether special circumstances The preceding section referred to in the above provision is Section
require the courts desistance. 15, which speaks of extraterritorial service, thus:
SEC. 15. Extraterritorial service. ─ When the defendant does not
reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action affects
the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of
PALMA VS JUDGE GALVEZ 2010 which is, property within the Philippines, in which the defendant
FACTS: Petitioner Leah Palma filed with the RTC an action for has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in which
damages against the Philippine Heart Center (PHC), Dr. Danilo the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the
Giron and Dr. Bernadette O. Cruz, alleging that the defendants defendant from any interest therein, or the property of the
committed professional fault, negligence and omission for having defendant has been attached within the Philippines, service may,
removed her right ovary against her will, and losing the same and by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal
the tissues extracted from her during the surgery; and that service as under section 6; or by publication in a newspaper of
although the specimens were subsequently found, petitioner was general circulation in such places and for such time as the court
doubtful and uncertain that the same was hers as the label therein may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the
pertained that of somebody else. Petitioner subsequently filed a court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of
Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Complaint, praying for the the defendant, or in any other manner the court may deem
inclusion of additional defendants who were all nurses at the PHC sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable
including herein private respondent Agudo. Thus, summons were time, which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice,
subsequently issued to within which the defendant must answer.
them.
In Montefalcon v. Vasquez, we said that because Section 16 of
The RTC's process server submitted his return of summons stating Rule 14 uses the words "may" and "also," it is not mandatory.
that the alias summons, together with a copy of the amended Other methods of service of summons allowed under the Rules
complaint and its annexes, were served upon private respondent may also be availed of by the serving officer on a defendant-
thru her husband Alfredo Agudo, who received and signed the resident who is temporarily out of the Philippines. Thus, if a
same as private respondent was out of the country. resident defendant is temporarily out of the country, any of the
Thereafter, the counsel of private respondent filed a Notice of following modes of service may be resorted to: (1) substituted
Appearance and a Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer service set forth in section 7 (formerly Section 8), Rule 14; (2)
stating that he was just engaged by private respondent's husband personal service outside the country, with leave of court; (3)
as she was out of the country and the Answer was already due. service by publication, also with leave of court; or (4) in any other
The private respondent's counsel also filed a Motion for Another manner the court may deem sufficient.
Extension of Time to File Answer,and stating that while the draft
answer was already finished, the same would be sent to private In Montalban v. Maximo, we held that substituted service of
respondent for her clarification/verification before the Philippine summons under the present Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of
Consulate in Ireland. Court in a suit in personam against residents of the Philippines
temporarily absent therefrom is the normal method of service of
The private respondent then filed a Motion to Dismiss on the summons that will confer jurisdiction on the court over such
ground that the RTC had not acquired jurisdiction over her as she defendant. In the same case, we expounded on the rationale in
was not properly served with summons, since she was temporarily providing for substituted service as the normal mode of service for
out of the country; that service of summons on her should residents temporarily out of the Philippines.
conform to Section 16, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner Considering that private respondent was temporarily out of the
filed her Opposition to the motion to dismiss, arguing that a country, the summons and complaint may be validly served on her
substituted service of summons on private respondent's husband through substituted service under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules
was valid and binding on her; that service of summons under of Court which reads:
Section 16, Rule 14 was not exclusive and may be effected by SEC. 7. Substituted service. — If, for justifiable causes,
other modes of service, i.e., by personal or substituted service. the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time
Petitioner further argues that in filing two motions for extension of as provided in the preceding section, service may be
time to file answer, private respondent voluntarily submitted to the effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the
jurisdiction of the court. The RTC issued its assailed Order defendant’s residence with some person of suitable age
granting private respondent's motion to dismiss. and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the
copies at defendant’s office or regular place of business
ISSUE: WON Section 16, Rule 14 is the only applicable mode of with some competent person in charge thereof.
service.

15
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
Section 7 also designates the persons with whom copies of the The trial court denied the Motion to Dismiss and disallowed the
process may be left. The rule presupposes that such a relation of twin Motions for Leave to take deposition and serve written
confidence exists between the person with whom the copy is left interrogatories. Thus, petitioner sought redress via a Petition for
and the defendant and, therefore, assumes that such person will Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging that the RTC
deliver the process to defendant or in some way give him notice committed grave abuse of discretion in denying its Motion to
thereof. Dismiss. The CA dismissed the petition and ruled that since the
In this case, the Sheriff's Return stated that private respondent denial of a Motion to Dismiss is an interlocutory order, it cannot be
was out of the country; thus, the service of summons was made at the subject of a Petition for Certiorari, and may only be reviewed
her residence with her husband, Alfredo P. Agudo, acknowledging in the ordinary course of law by an appeal from the judgment after
receipt thereof. Alfredo was presumably of suitable age and trial.
discretion, who was residing in that place and, therefore, was
competent to receive the summons on private respondent's behalf. Meanwhile, on December 28, 2006, the RTC issued an Order
directing respondent to answer some of the questions in
In addition, we agree with petitioner that the RTC had indeed petitioner’s Interrogatories to Lepanto.
acquired jurisdiction over the person of private respondent when Notwithstanding the foregoing, petitioner filed the present Petition
the latter's counsel entered his appearance on private for Review assailing the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals.
respondent's behalf, without qualification and without questioning Petitioner insists that (a) an order denying a motion to dismiss
the propriety of the service of summons, and even filed two may be the proper subject of a petition for certiorari; and (b) the
Motions for Extension of Time to File Answer. In effect, private trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in not finding that
respondent, through counsel, had already invoked the RTC’s it had not validly acquired jurisdiction over petitioner and that the
jurisdiction over her person by praying that the motions for plaintiff had no cause of action.
extension of time to file answer be granted. We have held that the
filing of motions seeking affirmative relief, such as, to admit ISSUES:
answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a 1. Whether or not petitioner is a real party in interest;
default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for 2. Whether or not the Petition for Certiorari is a proper
reconsideration, are considered voluntary submission to the remedy for the denial of petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss;
jurisdiction of the court. When private respondent earlier invoked 3. Whether or not the Motion to Dismiss is proper;
the jurisdiction of the RTC to secure affirmative relief in her 4. Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over
motions for additional time to file answer, she voluntarily the petitioner.
submitted to the jurisdiction of the RTC and is thereby estopped
from asserting otherwise. RULING:
1. Yes. We find the submissions of petitioner on the change of
its corporate name satisfactory and resolve not to dismiss the
N.M. ROTHSCHILD AND SONS (AUSTRALIA) present Petition for Review on the ground of not being
VS LEPANTO prosecuted under the name of the real party in interest. While
G.R. No. 175799 November 28, 2011 we stand by our pronouncement in Philips Export on the
FACTS: Respondent Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company importance of the corporate name to the very existence of
(Lepanto) and petitioner NM Rothschild entered into loan and corporations and the significance thereof in the corporations
hedging contracts. On August 30, 2005, Lepanto filed with the right to sue, we shall not go so far as to dismiss a case filed
RTC of Makati City a complaint against NM Rothschild praying for a by the proper party using its former name when adequate
judgment declaring the said contracts void for being contrary to identification is presented. A real party in interest is the party
Article 2018 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and for damages. who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the
suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. There is no
Respondent claims that under the Hedging Contracts, the intention doubt in our minds that the party who filed the present
of the parties was allegedly merely to compel each other to pay Petition, having presented sufficient evidence of its identity
the difference between the value of the gold at the forward price and being represented by the same counsel as that of the
stated in the contract and its market price at the supposed time of defendant in the case sought to be dismissed, is the entity
delivery, despite the express stipulation for deliveries of gold. that will be benefited if this Court grants the dismissal prayed
for.
Thereafter, the trial court authorized Lepanto’s counsel to Since the main objection of respondent to the verification and
personally bring the summons and Complaint to the Philippine certification against forum shopping likewise depends on the
Consulate General in Sydney, Australia for the latter office to effect supposed inexistence of the corporation named therein, we give
service of summons on NM Rothschild. no credit to said objection in light of the foregoing discussion.

On October 20, 2005, petitioner filed a Special Appearance With 2. No. We have held time and again that an order denying a
Motion to Dismiss praying for the dismissal of the Complaint on Motion to Dismiss is an interlocutory order which neither
the following grounds: (a) the court has not acquired jurisdiction terminates nor finally disposes of a case as it leaves
over the person of petitioner due to the defective and improper something to be done by the court before the case is finally
service of summons; (b) the Complaint failed to state a cause of decided on the merits. The general rule, therefore, is that
action and respondent does not have any against petitioner; (c) the denial of a Motion to Dismiss cannot be
the action is barred by estoppel; and (d) respondent did not come questioned in a special civil action for Certiorari which
to court with clean hands. Petitioner subsequently filed two is a remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction
Motions: (1) a Motion for Leave to take the deposition of Mr. Paul and not errors of judgment. However, we have
Murray (Director, Risk Management of petitioner) before the likewise held that when the denial of the Motion to
Philippine Consul General; and (2) a Motion for Leave to Serve Dismiss is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, the
Interrogatories on respondent Lepanto. grant of the extraordinary remedy of Certiorari may be
justified. By grave abuse of discretion is meant:

16
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
[S]uch capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is Courts may consider other facts within the range of judicial notice
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be as well as relevant laws and jurisprudence which the courts are
grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic bound to take into account, and they are also fairly entitled to
manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so examine records/documents duly incorporated into the complaint
patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to by the pleader himself in ruling on the demurrer to the complaint
a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act all in (Tan v. Court of Appeals).
contemplation of law. In the case at bar, respondent asserts in the Complaint that the
The resolution of the present Petition therefore entails an inquiry Hedging Contracts are void for being contrary to Article 2018 of
into whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the trial the Civil Code. Whether such an agreement is void is a mere
court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in its denial of allegation of a conclusion of law, which therefore cannot be
petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss. A mere error in judgment on the hypothetically admitted. Quite properly, the relevant portions of
part of the trial court would undeniably be inadequate for us to the contracts sought to be nullified, as well as a copy of the
reverse the disposition by the Court of Appeals. contract itself, are incorporated in the Complaint. The
determination of whether or not the Complaint stated a cause of
3. No. As correctly ruled by both the trial court and the Court of action would therefore involve an inquiry into whether or not the
Appeals, the alleged absence of a cause of action (as opposed assailed contracts are void under Philippine laws. This is, precisely,
to the failure to state a cause of action), the alleged estoppel the very issue to be determined in Civil Case No. 05-782. Indeed,
on the part of petitioner, and the argument that respondent is petitioner’s defense against the charge of nullity of the Hedging
in pari delicto in the execution of the challenged contracts, Contracts is the purported intent of the parties that actual
are not grounds in a Motion to Dismiss as enumerated in deliveries of gold be made pursuant thereto. Such a defense
Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. Rather, such requires the presentation of evidence on the merits of the case. An
defenses raise evidentiary issues closely related to the validity issue that requires the contravention of the allegations of the
and/or existence of respondent’s alleged cause of action and complaint, as well as the full ventilation, in effect, of the main
should therefore be threshed out during the trial. merits of the case, should not be within the province of a mere
Motion to Dismiss. The trial court, therefore, correctly denied the
As regards the allegation of failure to state a cause of action, while Motion to Dismiss on this ground.
the same is usually available as a ground in a Motion to Dismiss, It is also settled in jurisprudence that allegations of estoppel and
said ground cannot be ruled upon in the present Petition without bad faith require proof. On the proposition in the Motion to
going into the very merits of the main case. Dismiss that respondent has come to court with unclean hands,
It is basic that [a] cause of action is the act or omission by which a suffice it to state that the determination of whether one acted in
party violates a right of another. Its elements are the following: bad faith and whether damages may be awarded is evidentiary in
(1) a right existing in favor of the plaintiff, (2) a duty on the part nature. Thus, we have previously held that as a matter of defense,
of the defendant to respect the plaintiff's right, and (3) an act or it can be best passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits.
omission of the defendant in violation of such right. We have held
that to sustain a Motion to Dismiss for lack of cause of action, the 4. Yes. The service of summons to petitioner through the DFA
complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist and by the conveyance of the summons to the Philippine
not only that the claim was defectively stated or is ambiguous, Consulate General in Sydney, Australia was clearly made
indefinite or uncertain. pursuant to Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. It is
apparent that there are only four instances wherein a
The trial court held that the Complaint in the case at bar contains defendant who is a non-resident and is not found in the
all the three elements of a cause of action, i.e., it alleges that: (1) country may be served with summons by extraterritorial
plaintiff has the right to ask for the declaration of nullity of the service, to wit: (1) when the action affects the personal status
Hedging Contracts for being null and void and contrary to Article of the plaintiffs; (2) when the action relates to, or the subject
2018 of the Civil Code of the Philippines; (2) defendant has the of which is property, within the Philippines, in which the
corresponding obligation not to enforce the Hedging Contracts defendant claims a lien or an interest, actual or contingent;
because they are in the nature of wagering or gambling (3) when the relief demanded in such action consists, wholly
agreements and therefore the transactions implementing those or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest in
contracts are null and void under Philippine laws; and (3) property located in the Philippines; and (4) when the
defendant ignored the advice and intends to enforce the Hedging defendant non-resident's property has been attached within
Contracts by demanding financial payments due therefrom. the Philippines. In these instances, service of summons may
be effected by (a) personal service out of the country, with
The rule is that in a Motion to Dismiss, a defendant hypothetically leave of court; (b) publication, also with leave of court; or (c)
admits the truth of the material allegations of the ultimate facts any other manner the court may deem sufficient.
contained in the plaintiff's complaint. However, this principle of Undoubtedly, extraterritorial service of summons applies
hypothetical admission admits of exceptions i.e., that a motion to only where the action is in rem or quasi in rem, but not if
dismiss does not admit the truth of mere epithets of fraud; nor an action is in personam.
allegations of legal conclusions; nor an erroneous statement of
law; nor mere inferences or conclusions from facts not stated; nor When the case instituted is an action in rem or quasi in rem,
mere conclusions of law; nor allegations of fact the falsity of which Philippine courts already have jurisdiction to hear and decide the
is subject to judicial notice; nor matters of evidence; nor case because, in actions in rem and quasi in rem, jurisdiction over
surplusage and irrelevant matter; nor scandalous matter inserted the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer
merely to insult the opposing party; nor to legally impossible facts; jurisdiction on the court, provided that the court acquires
nor to facts which appear unfounded by a record incorporated in jurisdiction over the res. Thus, in such instance, extraterritorial
the pleading, or by a document referred to; and, nor to general service of summons can be made upon the defendant. The said
averments contradicted by more specific averments. A more extraterritorial service of summons is not for the purpose of
judicious resolution of a motion to dismiss, therefore, necessitates vesting the court with jurisdiction, but for complying with the
that the court be not restricted to the consideration of the facts requirements of fair play or due process, so that the defendant will
alleged in the complaint and inferences fairly deducible therefrom. be informed of the pendency of the action against him and the
17
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
possibility that property in the Philippines belonging to him or in Carson by Process Server Jechonias F. Pajila, Jr. at its business
which he has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor address through its "corporate secretary," Precilla S. Serrano.
of the plaintiff, and he can thereby take steps to protect his
interest if he is so minded. On the other hand, when the Atty. Tomas Z. Roxas, Jr. (appointed Corporate Sec. and
defendant or respondent does not reside and is not found in the legal counsel of Carson), filed an Appearance and Motion
Philippines, and the action involved is in personam, Philippine dated April 25, 2007 with the court wherein the latter
courts cannot try any case against him because of the impossibility entered his appearance and acknowledged that the
of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily Summons was served and received by one of the staff
appears in court (Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Dakila Trading assistants of Carson.
Corporation).
BUT instead of filing a responsive pleading, Atty. Roxas moved to
The Complaint in the case at bar is an action to declare the loan dismiss the complaint, alleging that the Summons was not served
and Hedging Contracts between the parties void with a prayer for on any of the officers and personnel authorized to receive
damages. It is a suit in which the plaintiff seeks to be freed from summons under the Rules of Court.
its obligations to the defendant under a contract and to hold said
defendant pecuniarily liable to the plaintiff for entering into such Santos countered that while the Summons was initially received by
contract. It is therefore an action in personam, unless and until Serrano, who as it turned out was a staff assistant and not the
the plaintiff attaches a property within the Philippines belonging to corporate secretary of Carson, the corporation acknowledged
the defendant, in which case the action will be converted to one receipt of the Summons when Atty. Roxas alleged in his
quasi in rem. Appearance and Motion that he may not be able to comply with
Since the action involved in the case at bar is in personam and the 15-day prescribed period stated in the Summons within which
since the defendant, petitioner Rothschild/Investec, does not to file a responsive pleading. Thus, when Carson sought for an
reside and is not found in the Philippines, the Philippine courts affirmative relief of a 15-day extension from April 27, 2007 to file
cannot try any case against it because of the impossibility of its pleading, it already voluntarily submitted itself to the
acquiring jurisdiction over its person unless it voluntarily appears jurisdiction of the RTC
in court.
Section 20, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides Second Summons: The RTC denied Carson's Motion to Dismiss
that: and directed the issuance of an alias summons to be served anew
SEC. 20. Voluntary appearance. The defendant's upon the corporation.
voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to
service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss Process Server Pajila attempted to serve the alias Summons dated
of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the September 24, 2007 on the President and General Manager of
person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary Carson, as well as on the Board of Directors and Corporate
appearance. Secretary, but they were not around. Hence, he was advised by a
certain Lorie Fernandez, the "secretary" of the company, to bring
The new second sentence, it can be observed, merely mentions the alias Summons to the law office of Atty. Roxas. Pajila
other grounds in a Motion to Dismiss aside from lack of jurisdiction attempted to serve the alias Summons at the law office of Atty.
over the person of the defendant. This clearly refers to affirmative Roxas twice, but to no avail. This prompted him to resort to
defenses, rather than affirmative reliefs. In several cases, the substituted service of the alias Summons by leaving a copy thereof
Court ruled that seeking affirmative relief in a court is tantamount with a certain Mr. JR Taganila, but the latter also refused to
to voluntary appearance therein. acknowledge receipt of the alias Summons.
We therefore rule that petitioner, by seeking affirmative
reliefs from the trial court, is deemed to have voluntarily Atty. Roxas filed a Manifestation stating that the alias Summons
submitted to the jurisdiction of said court. A party cannot was again improperly and invalidly served as his law office was not
invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against empowered to receive summons on behalf of Carson.
his opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief,
repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. Consequently, the Third Summons: Santos requested the RTC for the issuance of
trial court cannot be considered to have committed grave abuse of another alias Summons. The RTC granted this request and issued
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the denial an alias Summons dated September 9, 2008. The alias Summons
of the Motion to Dismiss on account of failure to acquire was served by Pajila on Oct. 28, 2008 but once again, the
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. President/General Manager of the company was not around.

Loreta M. Fernandez, the receptionist who received the September

CARSON RELATY AND MANAGEMENT CORP VS RED ROBIN 9, 2008 alias Summons, filed a Manifestation before the RTC
SECURITY AGENCY signifying her intention of returning the alias Summons, together
(February 8, 2017) with the Complaint. Fernandez posited that, as a mere
receptionist, she had no authority to receive the said documents
FACTS: [In this case, the RTC served 3 Summons upon the and that there was an improper service of summons.
defendant Carson Realty. The latter alleges that all 3 summonses
are invalid in its deliberate attempt to evade from the court in Santos filed a second Motion to Declare Defendant in Default in
acquiring jurisdiction over its person.] January 2009. The RTC granted the motion and allowed her to
present her evidence ex-parte  in its Order dated June 29, 2009.
On March 23, 2007, respondent Monina C. Santos filed a
Complaint for Sum of Money and Damages against petitioner On August 27, 2009, Carson filed an Urgent Motion to Set Aside
Carson Realty & Management Corp. Order of Default alleging that the RTC has yet to acquire
jurisdiction over its person due to improper service of summons.
First Summons: A copy of the Summons dated April 11, 2007, The RTC denied the same in its December 4, 2009 Order.
together with the Complaint and its annexes, was served upon
18
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
ISSUE: ISSUE #2:The substituted service of summons is valid
1. WON RTC acquired jurisdiction over Carson: YES
2. WON the service of substituted service of summons is While SC’s pronouncement in Manotoc v. Court of Appeals , which
valid: YES provides an exhaustive discussion on what constitutes valid resort
to substituted service of summons   has been strictly applied to
RULING: several succeeding cases, We do not cling to such strictness in
instances where the circumstances justify substantial compliance
ISSUE #1: The RTC had already acquired jurisdiction over with the requirements laid down therein.
Carson early on due to its voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the court. It is the spirit of the procedural rules, not their letter that governs.
In Sagana v. Francisco, SC explained:
Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the xxx an overly strict application of the Rules is not warranted
complaint. On the other hand,jurisdiction over the defendants in a in this case, as it would clearly frustrate the spirit of the law
civil case is acquired either through the service of summons upon as well as do injustice to the parties, who have been waiting
them or through their voluntary appearance in court and their for almost 15 years for a resolution of this case. xxx Of
submission to its authority, as provided in Section 20,   Rule 14 of course it is to be expected that defendants try to avoid
the Rules of Court. service of summons, prompting this Court to declare that,
"the sheriff must be resourceful, persevering, canny, and
On this score, Philippine Commercial International Bank v. diligent in serving the process on the defendant." However,
Spouses Dy instructs that: sheriffs are not expected to be sleuths, and cannot be
[General Rule on Voluntary Appearance:] As a general faulted where the defendants themselves engage in
proposition, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to deception to thwart the orderly administration of justice.
have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. It is by
reason of this rule that we have had occasion to declare that Similarly, given the circumstances in the case at bench, We find
the (1) filing of motions to admit answer, (2) for additional that resort to substituted service was warranted since the
time to file answer, (3) for reconsideration of a default impossibility of personal service is clearly apparent.
judgment, and (4) to lift order of default with motion for
reconsideration, is considered voluntary submission to the The Officer's Return dated October 28, 2008 established the
court's jurisdiction. impossibility of personal service to Carson's officers, as shown by
the efforts made by Process Server Pajila to serve the September
[Exception:] This, however, is tempered only by the 8, 2008 alias Summons on Carson's President/General Manager. In
concept of conditional appearance, such that a party who particular, several attempts to serve the summons on these
makes a special appearance to challenge, among others, the officers were made on four separate occasions: October 2, 2008,
court's jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to October 16, 2008, October 27, 2008, and October 28, 2008, but to
have submitted to its authority. Prescinding from the no avail.
foregoing, it is thus clear that:
(1) Special appearance operates as an exception to the On his fourth and final attempt, Process Server Pajila served the
general rule on voluntary appearance; summons on Loreta/Lorie Fernandez, Carson's receptionist, due to
(2) Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the court the unavailability and difficulty to locate the company's corporate
over the person of the defendant must be explicitly officers. But the latter also refused to acknowledge receipt of the
made, i.e., set forth in an unequivocal manner; and process.
(3) Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the court, especially in instances where a Based on the facts, there was a deliberate plan of Carson's for its
pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and officers not to receive the Summons. It is a legal maneuver that is
submitted to the court for resolution. in derogation of the rules on Summons. We cannot tolerate that.

We have, time and again, held that the filing of a motion for The facts now show that the responsible officers did not intend to
additional time to file answer is considered voluntary submission receive the alias Summons through substituted service. The
to the jurisdiction of the court . If the defendant knowingly does an Summons is considered validly served.
act inconsistent with the right to object to the lack of personal
jurisdiction as to him, like voluntarily appearing in the action, he is Discussion on Substituted Service of Summons
deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
Seeking an affirmative relief is inconsistent with the position that In actions in personam,  such as the present case, the court
no voluntary appearance had been made, and to ask for such acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant through
relief, without the proper objection, necessitates submission to the personal or substituted service of summons. However, because
Court's jurisdiction. substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service
and personal service of summons is preferred over substituted
Carson voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the RTC when it service, parties do not have unbridled [unrestrained] right to
filed, through Atty. Roxas, the Appearance and Motion dated April resort to substituted service of summons. Before substituted
25, 2007 acknowledging Carson's receipt of the Summons dated service of summons is resorted to, the parties must:
April 11, 2007 and seeking additional time to file its responsive (a) indicate the impossibility of personal service of
pleading. As noted by the CA, Carson failed to indicate therein that summons within a reasonable time;
the Appearance and Motion was being filed by way of a conditional (b) specify the efforts exerted to locate the defendant;
appearance to question the regularity of the service of summons. and
Thus, by securing the affirmative relief of additional time to file its (c) state that the summons was served upon a person of
responsive pleading, Carson effectively voluntarily submitted to the sufficient age and discretion who is residing in the
jurisdiction of the RTC. address, or who is in charge of the office or regular place
of business of the defendant.
19
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
service, the inquiries made to locate the defendant, the
[Note: This part is only an extended discussion on the grounds name/s of the occupants of the alleged residence or house of
before a party can validly avail of the substituted service of defendant and all other acts done, though futile, to serve the
summons. It is only included just in case Atty. Cantana summons on defendant must be specified in the Return to
unfortunately decides to take questions from here.] justify substituted service.
In relation to the foregoing, Manotoc v. Court of Appeals
provides an exhaustive discussion on what constitutes valid resort (3) A Person of Suitable Age and Discretion
to substituted service of summons: If the substituted service will be effected at defendant's
house or residence, it should be left with a person of
(1) Impossibility of Prompt Personal Service "suitable age and discretion then residing therein." A person
The party relying on substituted service or the sheriff must of suitable age and discretion is one who has attained the
show that defendant cannot be served promptly or there is age of full legal capacity (18 years old) and is considered to
impossibility of prompt service. Section 8, Rule 14 provides have enough discernment to understand the importance of a
that the plaintiff or the sheriff is given a "reasonable time" to summons. To be of sufficient discretion, such person must
serve the summons to the defendant in person, but no know how to read and understand English to comprehend
specific time frame is mentioned. "Reasonable time" is the import of the summons, and fully realize the need to
defined as "so much time as is necessary under the deliver the summons and complaint to the defendant at the
circumstances for a reasonably prudent and diligent man to earliest possible time for the person to take appropriate
do, conveniently, what the contract or duty requires that action. Thus, the person must have the "relation of
should be done, having a regard for the rights and possibility confidence" to the defendant, ensuring that the latter would
of loss, if any, to the other party." Under the Rules, the receive or at least be notified of the receipt of the summons.
service of summons has no set period. These matters must be clearly and specifically described in
the Return of Summons.
However, when the court, clerk of court, or the plaintiff asks
the sheriff to make the return of the summons and the latter (4) A Competent Person in Charge
submits the return of summons, then the validity of the If the substituted service will be done at defendant's office or
summons lapses. The plaintiff may then ask for an alias regular place of business, then it should be served on a
summons if the service of summons has failed. What then is competent person in charge of the place. Thus, the person
a reasonable time for the sheriff to effect a personal service on whom the substituted service will be made must be the
in order to demonstrate impossibility of prompt service? To one managing the office or business of defendant, such as
the plaintiff, "reasonable time" means no more than seven the president or manager; and such individual must have
(7) days since an expeditious processing of a complaint is sufficient knowledge to understand the obligation of the
what a plaintiff wants. To the sheriff, "reasonable time" defendant in the summons, its importance, and the
means 15 to 30 days because at the end of the month, it is a prejudicial effects arising from inaction on the summons.
practice for the branch clerk of court to require the sheriff to Again, these details must be contained in the Return.
submit a return of the summons assigned to the sheriff for
service. The Sheriffs Return provides data to the Clerk of
Court, which the clerk uses in the Monthly Report of Cases to EXPRESS PADALA ITALIA VS OCAMPO 2017
be submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator within G.R. No. 202505
the first ten (10) days of the succeeding month. Thus, one The core issue being raised is whether service of summons was
month from the issuance of summons can be considered validly effected upon respondent, who lives in Italy, through
"reasonable time" with regard to personal service on the substituted service.
defendant.
FACTS: BDO Remittance, a corporation with principal office in
Sheriffs are asked to discharge their duties on the service of Italy, hired respondent Ocampo as a remittance processor in
summons with due care, utmost diligence, and reasonable September 2002. She was dismissed in 2004 for misappropriating
promptness and speed so as not to prejudice the expeditious the sum of €24,035.60 by falsifying invoices of money payments
dispensation of justice. Thus, they are enjoined to try their relating to customers' money transfer orders.
best efforts to accomplish personal service on defendant. On
the other hand, since the defendant is expected to try to Accordingly, BDO Remittance filed a criminal complaint against
avoid and evade service of summons, the sheriff must be Ocampo for the same acts before the Court of Turin, Italy.
resourceful, persevering, canny, and diligent in serving the Ocampo pleaded guilty to the offense charged. The Court of Turin
process on the defendant. For substituted service of convicted and sentenced her to suffer imprisonment of six months
summons to be available, there must be several attempts by and a penalty of €300.00, but granted her the benefit of
the sheriff to personally serve the summons within a suspension of the enforcement of sentence on account of her
reasonable period [of one month] which eventually resulted guilty plea (the Court of Turin Decision).
in failure to prove impossibility of prompt service. "Several
attempts" means at least three (3) tries, preferably on at In 2008, BDO Remittance filed a petition for recognition of foreign
least two different dates. In addition, the sheriff must cite judgment with the RTC of Mandaluyong City. BDO Remittance
why such efforts were unsuccessful. It is only then that prayed for the recognition of the Court of Turin Decision and the
impossibility of service can be confirmed or accepted. cancellation or restriction of Ocampo' s Philippine passport by the
DFA.
(2) Specific Details in the Return
The sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the On November 21, 2008, the sheriff attempted to personally serve
facts and circumstances surrounding the attempted personal the summons on Ocampo in her local address alleged in the
service. The efforts made to find the defendant and the petition located in Batangas. However, since the address was
reasons behind the failure must be clearly narrated in detail incomplete, the sheriff sought the help of barangay officials, who
in the Return. The date and time of the attempts on personal pointed him to the house belonging to Ocampo's father, Nicasio
20
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
Ocampo, Victor Macahia, uncle of Ocampo and present occupant, When the defendant's whereabouts are unknown, the rules allow
informed the sheriff that Ocampo and her family were already service of summons by publication. As an exception to the
in Italy, and that he was only a caretaker of the house. The preferred mode of service, service of summons by publication may
sheriff then proceeded to serve the summons upon only be resorted to when the whereabouts of the defendant are
Macahia. After Ocampo failed to file an answer, BDO not only unknown, but cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry.
Remittance filed a motion to declare Ocampo in default. The diligence requirement means that there must be prior resort
The RTC granted the motion and allowed BDO Remittance to to personal service under Section 7 and substituted service under
present evidence ex parte. Section 8, and proof that these modes were ineffective before
summons by publication may be allowed. This mode also requires
In 2009, the RTC rendered a Decision in favor of BDO Remittance the plaintiff to file a written motion for leave of court to effect
(RTC Decision). It recognized as valid and binding in the service of summons by publication, supported by affidavit of the
Philippines the Court of Turin Decision and ordered the DFA to plaintiff or some person on his behalf, setting forth the grounds for
cancel or restrict Ocampo's Philippine passport and not to allow its the application.
renewal until she has served her sentence.
In 2010, Ocampo's mother, LaureanaMacahia, received a copy of In the present case, the sheriff resorted to substituted service
the RTC Decision and forwarded it to Ocampo. Not having been upon Ocampo through her uncle, who was the caretaker of
represented by counsel a quo, the period of appeal lapsed. Ocampo's old family residence in Tanauan, Batangas. The CA held
Ocampo was later able to engage the services of counsel who filed that substituted service was improperly resorted to. It found that
a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA. Ocampo since Ocampo' s "whereabouts are unknown and cannot be
principally argued that the RTC acted in grave abuse of discretion ascertained by diligent inquiry x xx service may be effected only
in recognizing and ordering the enforcement of the Court of Turin by publication in a newspaper of general circulation."
Decision.
We agree with the CA that substituted service is improper
In its now assailed Decision, the CA set aside the RTC Decision under the facts of this case. Substituted service presupposes
and revoked the order to cancel or restrict Ocampo's Philippine that the place where the summons is being served is the
passport (CA Decision). The CA first settled the issue of procedural defendant's current residence or office/regular place of
due process, particularly whether Ocampo was properly served business. Thus, where the defendant neither resides nor holds
with summons. It held that since Ocampo's whereabouts were office in the address stated in the summons, substituted service
unknown, summons should have been served in accordance with cannot be resorted to. As we explained in Keister v. Navarro: 
Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The sheriff Under the Rules, substituted service may be effect[ed]
however, erroneously effected the substituted service of summons (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's
under Section 7 of Rule 14. Thus, the CA concluded that the RTC dwelling house or residence with some person of suitable
did not acquire jurisdiction over Ocampo, and the RTC Decision age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by
against her is null and void. It also found that the RTC acted in leaving the copies at defendant's office or regular place
grave abuse of discretion when it recognized a foreign judgment of business with some competent person in charge
of a criminal case and ordered the DFA to restrict or cancel thereof. The terms "dwelling house" or "residence" are
Ocampo's passport. generally held to refer to the time of service, hence it is
not sufficient "to leave the copy at defendant's former
Ocampo explained that BDO Remittance's insistence on the dwelling house, residence, or place of abode, as the case
enforcement of Court of Turin Decision is misleading because, by may be, after his removal therefrom." They refer to the
availing of the benefit of suspension of the enforcement, the place where the person named in the summons is living
penalty of confinement will not be enforced upon her. She also at the time when the service is made, even though he
presented a decree from the High Court of Turin which stated that may be temporarily out of the country at the time.
her criminal liability has been extinguished. Similarly, the terms "office" or "regular place of business"
refer to the office or place of business of defendant at
ISSUE: WON the RTC acquired a jurisdiction over the person of the time of service. Note that the rule designates the
the defendant (who resides abroad and who’s address is therein is persons to whom copies of the process may be left. The
unknown) through the substituted service of summons? rule presupposes that such a relation of confidence exists
between the person with whom the copy is left and the
RULING: NO defendant and, therefore, assumes that such person will
The general rule in this jurisdiction is that summons must be deliver the process to defendant or in some way give him
served personally on the defendant. Section 6, Rule 14 of the notice thereof.
Rules of Court provides: Based on the sheriffs report, it is clear that Ocampo no
Sec. 6. Service in person on defendant. - Whenever practicable, longer resides in San Bernardo Village, Darasa, Tanauan,
the summons shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the Batangas. The report categorically stated that "defendant
defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by Helen M. Ocampo and her family were already in Italy,"
tendering it to him. without, however, identifying any specific address. Even
BDO Remittance itself admitted in its petition for
For justifiable reasons, however, other modes of serving summons recognition that Ocampo' s "whereabouts in Italy are no
may be resorted to. When the defendant cannot be served longer certain." This, we note, is the reason why in
personally within a reasonable time after efforts to locate him have alleging the two addresses of Ocampo, one in Italy and
failed, the rules allow summons to be served by substituted one in the Philippines, BDO Remittance used the phrase
service. Substituted service is effected by leaving copies of the "last known [address ]" instead of the usual "resident
summons at the defendant's residence with some person of of." Not being a resident of the address where the
suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or by leaving the summons was served, the substituted service of
copies at defendant's office or regular place of business with some summons is ineffective. Accordingly, the RTC did not
competent person in charge thereof.  acquire jurisdiction over the person of Ocampo.

21
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
BDO Remittance's reliance on Palma v. Galvez is misplaced for the Investments and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and
simple reason that the case involved service of summons to a thus, disqualified from instituting the present action in our courts.
person who is temporarily out of the country. In this case,
however, Ocampo's sojourn in Italy cannot be classified as Petitioners likewise argue that since private respondents have no
temporary considering that she already resides there, capacity to bring suit here, the Philippines is not the "most
albeit her precise address was not known. Modes of service convenient forum" because the trial court is devoid of any power
of summons must be strictly followed in order that the court may to enforce its orders issued or decisions rendered in a case that
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The purpose could not have been commenced to begin with, such that in
of this is to afford the defendant an opportunity to be heard on insisting to assume and exercise jurisdiction over the case below,
the claim against him. BDO Remittance is not totally without the trial court had gravely abused its discretion and even actually
recourse, as the rules allow summons by publication and exceeded its jurisdiction.
extraterritorial service. Unlike substituted service, however, these
are extraordinary modes which require leave of court. ISSUE:
I. Whether or not the Court acquired
The service of summons is a vital and indispensable ingredient of a jurisdiction over the parties
defendant's constitutional right to due process. As a rule, if a a. Whether or not private respondent ITEC
defendant has not been validly summoned, the court acquires no is an unlicensed corporation doing
jurisdiction over his person, and a judgment rendered against him business in the Philippines.
is void. Since the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the II. Whether to give due course to the suit or
person of Ocampo, the judgment rendered by the court dismiss it, on the principle of forum non
could not be considered binding upon her. convenience. 
HELD:
 it is a corporation doing business in the Philippines
Generally, a "foreign corporation" has no legal existence within the
FORUM NON CONVENIENS state in which it is foreign. This proceeds from the principle that
juridical existence of a corporation is confined within the territory
COMMUNICATION MATERIALS AND DESIGN, INC., ASPAC of the state under whose laws it was incorporated and organized,
MULTI-TRADE, INC., (formerly ASPAC-ITEC PHILIPPINES, and it has no legal status beyond such territory. Such foreign
INC.) and FRANCISCO S. AGUIRRE, petitioners,  corporation may be excluded by any other state from doing
vs. business within its limits, or conditions may be imposed on the
THE COURT OF APPEALS, ITEC INTERNATIONAL, INC., and exercise of such privileges. Before a foreign corporation can
ITEC, INC., respondents. transact business in this country, it must first obtain a license to
transact business in the Philippines, and a certificate from the
Facts: Petitioners COMMUNICATION MATERIALS AND DESIGN, appropriate government agency. If it transacts business in the
INC., (CMDI) and ASPAC MULTI-TRADE INC., (ASPAC) are both Philippines without such a license, it shall not be permitted to
domestic corporations. Private Respondents ITEC, INC. and/or maintain or intervene in any action, suit, or proceeding in any
ITEC, INTERNATIONAL, INC. (ITEC) are corporations duly court or administrative agency of the Philippines, but it may be
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Alabama, sued on any valid cause of action recognized under Philippine
United States of America. There is no dispute that ITEC is a laws.
foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines.
Where a single act or transaction is not merely incidental or casual
ITEC entered into a contract with petitioner ASPAC referred to as but indicates the foreign corporation's intention to do other
"Representative Agreement". Pursuant to the contract, ITEC business in the Philippines, said single act or transaction
engaged ASPAC as its "exclusive representative" in the Philippines constitutes "doing" or "engaging in" or "transacting" business in
for the sale of ITEC's products, in consideration of which, ASPAC the Philippines. It should be distinguished from a single or isolated
was paid a stipulated commission. By virtue of said contract, transaction or occasional, incidental, or casual transactions, which
ASPAC sold electronic products, exported by ITEC, to their sole do not come within the meaning of the law, for in such case, the
customer, the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, foreign corporation is deemed not engaged in business in the
(PLDT). Philippines.

However, ITEC decided to terminate the agreement because We are persuaded to conclude that private respondent had been
petitioner ASPAC allegedly violated its contractual commitment as "engaged in" or "doing business" in the Philippines for some time
stipulated in their agreements. ITEC charges the petitioners of now. This is the inevitable result after a scrutiny of the different
using knowledge and information of ITEC's products specifications contracts and agreements entered into by ITEC with its various
to develop their own line of equipment and product support, which business contacts in the country, particularly ASPAC and
are similar, if not identical to ITEC's own, and offering them to Telephone Equipment Sales and Services, Inc. (TESSI). The terms
ITEC's former customer. and conditions of the contracts as well as ITEC's conduct indicate
A complaint was filed with the Regional Trial Court, it sought to that they established within our country a continuous business,
enjoin permanently DIGITAL, CMDI to cease and desist from and not merely one of a temporary character. Further, a perusal of
selling or attempting to sell to PLDT and to any other party, the agreements between petitioner ASPAC and the respondents
products which have been copied or manufactured "in like shows that there are provisions which are highly restrictive in
manner, similar or identical to the products, wares and equipment nature, such as to reduce petitioner ASPAC to a mere extension or
of plaintiff. instrument of the private respondent.

It is the petitioners' submission that private respondents are  ASPAC is estopped from questioning the corporate
foreign corporations actually doing business in the Philippines existence and capacity of ITEC
without the requisite authority and license from the Board of A foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines may sue in
Philippine Courts although not authorized to do business here
22
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
against a Philippine citizen or entity who had contracted with and marketability of the shares of stock delivered to 1488, Inc. under
benefited by said corporation. A party is estopped to challenge the the Agreement.
personality of a corporation after having acknowledged the same
by entering into a contract with it. And the doctrine of estoppel to While the Civil Case was pending in the United States, petitioners
deny corporate existence applies to a foreign as well as to filed a complaint “For Sum of Money with Damages and Writ of
domestic corporations. Preliminary Attachment” against private respondents in the RTC
By entering into the "Representative Agreement" with ITEC, Makati. The complaint reiterated the allegation of petitioners in
Petitioner is charged with knowledge that ITEC was not licensed to their respective counterclaims in the Civil Action in the United
engage in business activities in the country, and is thus estopped States District Court of Southern Texas that private respondents
from raising in defense such incapacity of ITEC, having chosen to committed fraud by selling the property at a price 400 percent
ignore or even presumptively take advantage of the same. more than its true value of US$800,000.00. Petitioners prayed that
private respondents be ordered to return to ATHONA the excess
 The court may assume or decline jurisdiction over the payment and to pay damages. The trial court issued a writ of
case preliminary attachment against the real and personal properties of
Petitioner's insistence on the dismissal of this action due to the private respondents
application, or non-application, of the private international law rule
Ducat moved to dismiss the Civil Case in the RTC-Makati on the
of forum non conveniens defies well-settled rules of fair play.
grounds of (1) litispendentia, vis-a-vis the Civil Action in the U.S.,
(2) forum non conveniens, and (3) failure of petitioners PHILSEC
According to petitioner, the Philippine Court has no venue to apply
and BPI-IFL to state a cause of action.
its discretion whether to give cognizance or not to the present
action, because it has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of The trial court granted Ducat’s MTD, stating that “the evidentiary
the plaintiff in the case, the latter allegedly having no personality requirements of the controversy may be more suitably tried before
to sue before Philippine Courts. This argument is misplaced the forum of the litispendentia in the U.S., under the principle in
because the court has already acquired jurisdiction over the private international law of forum non conveniens,” even as it
plaintiff in the suit, by virtue of his filing the original complaint. noted that Ducat was not a party in the U.S. case.

The Philippine Court may refuse to assume jurisdiction in spite of Petitioners appealed to the CA, arguing that the trial court erred in
its having acquired jurisdiction. Conversely, the court may assume applying the principle of litispendentia and forum non conveniens.
jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so; provided, that the
following requisites are met: 1) That the Philippine Court is one The CA affirmed the dismissal of Civil Case against Ducat, 1488,
to which the parties may conveniently resort to; 2) That the Inc., and Daic on the ground of litispendentia.
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 ISSUE: W/N the Civil Case in the RTC-Makati barred by the
is likely to have power to enforce its decision. judgment of the U.S. court
The aforesaid requirements having been met, and in view of the
HELD:NO. While this Court has given the effect of res judicata to
court's disposition to give due course to the questioned action, the
foreign judgments in several cases, it was after the parties
matter of the present forum not being the "most convenient" as a
opposed to the judgment had been given ample opportunity to
ground for the suit's dismissal, deserves scant consideration.
repel them on grounds allowed under the law. It is not necessary
for this purpose to initiate a separate action or proceeding for
enforcement of the foreign judgment. What is essential is that
PHILSEC VS CA 1997 there is opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment, in order for
G.R. No. 103493. June 19, 1997 the court to properly determine its efficacy. This is because in this
FACTS: Private respondent Ducat obtained separate loans from jurisdiction, with respect to actions in personam, as distinguished
petitioners Ayala International Finance Limited (AYALA) and from actions in rem, a foreign judgment merely constitutes prima
Philsec Investment Corp (PHILSEC), in the sum of facie evidence of the justness of the claim of a party and, as such,
US$2,500,000.00, secured by shares of stock owned by Ducat with is subject to proof to the contrary. Rule 39, §50 provides:
a market value of P14,088,995.00.
Sec. 50. Effect of foreign judgments. — The effect of a judgment
In order to facilitate the payment of the loans, private respondent of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to pronounce
1488, Inc., through its president, private respondent Daic, the judgment is as follows:
assumed Ducat’s obligation under an Agreement, whereby 1488,
Inc. executed a Warranty Deed with Vendor’s Lien by which it sold (a) In case of a judgment upon a specific thing, the judgment is
to petitioner Athona Holdings, N.V. (ATHONA) a parcel of land in conclusive upon the title to the thing;
Texas, U.S.A., while PHILSEC and AYALA extended a loan to
ATHONA as initial payment of the purchase price. The balance was (b) In case of a judgment against a person, the judgment is
to be paid by means of a promissory note executed by ATHONA in presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their
favor of 1488, Inc. Subsequently, upon their receipt of the money successors in interest by a subsequent title; but the judgment may
from 1488, Inc., PHILSEC and AYALA released Ducat from his be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to
indebtedness and delivered to 1488, Inc. all the shares of stock in the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
their possession belonging to Ducat.
In the case at bar, it cannot be said that petitioners were given
As ATHONA failed to pay the interest on the balance, the entire the opportunity to challenge the judgment of the U.S. court as
amount covered by the note became due and demandable. basis for declaring it res judicata or conclusive of the rights of
Accordingly, private respondent 1488, Inc. sued petitioners private respondents. The proceedings in the trial court were
PHILSEC, AYALA, and ATHONA in the United States for payment of summary. Neither the trial court nor the appellate court was even
the balance and for damages for breach of contract and for fraud furnished copies of the pleadings in the U.S. court or apprised of
allegedly perpetrated by petitioners in misrepresenting the the evidence presented thereat, to assure a proper determination
of whether the issues then being litigated in the U.S. court were

23
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
exactly the issues raised in this case such that the judgment that On February 20, 1990, respondent Santos filed a complaint for
might be rendered would constitute res judicata. illegal dismissal with the Arbitration Branch, National Capital
Region, National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
To sustain the appellate courts ruling that the foreign judgment
constitutes res judicata and is a bar to the claim of petitioners PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: On July 23, 1991, petitioners
would effectively preclude petitioners from repelling the judgment appealed to the NLRC, arguing that the POEA, not the NLRC had
in the case for enforcement. jurisdiction over the case.
Second. Nor is the trial court’s refusal to take cognizance of the
NLRC’s Decision: Santos was illegally dismissed from
case justifiable under the principle of forum non conveniens:
employment and recommended that he be paid actual damages
First, a MTD is limited to the grounds under Rule 16, sec.1, which equivalent to his salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract.
does not include forum non conveniens. The propriety of Denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioners.
dismissing a case based on this principle requires a factual
determination, hence, it is more properly considered a matter of ISSUE: WON NLRC WAS A SERIOUSLY INCONVENIENT
defense. Second, while it is within the discretion of the trial court FORUM.
to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it should do
so only after “vital facts are established, to determine whether RULING: YES. The NLRC was a seriously inconvenient forum.
special circumstances” require the court’s desistance.

In this case, the trial court abstained from taking jurisdiction solely Forum Non-Conveniens
on the basis of the pleadings filed by private respondents in We note that the main aspects of the case transpired in two
connection with the motion to dismiss. It failed to consider that foreign jurisdictions and the case involves purely foreign elements.
one of the plaintiffs (PHILSEC) is a domestic corporation and one The only link that the Philippines has with the case is that
of the defendants (Ventura Ducat) is a Filipino, and that it was the respondent Santos is a Filipino citizen. The Palace Hotel and
extinguishment of the latters debt which was the object of the MHICL are foreign corporations. Not all cases involving our citizens
transaction under litigation. The trial court arbitrarily dismissed the can be tried here.
case even after finding that Ducat was not a party in the U.S.
case. The employment contract
Respondent Santos was hired directly by the Palace Hotel, a
Third. It was error we think for the Court of Appeals and the trial foreign employer, through correspondence sent to the Sultanate of
court to hold that jurisdiction over 1488, Inc. and Daic could not Oman, where respondent Santos was then employed. He was
be obtained because this is an action in personam and summons hired without the intervention of the POEA or any authorized
were served by extraterritorial service. Rule 14, 17 on recruitment agency of the government.
extraterritorial service provides that service of summons on a non-
resident defendant may be effected out of the Philippines by leave Under the rule of forum Non-Conveniens
of Court where, among others, the property of the defendant has A Philippine court or agency may assume jurisdiction over the
been attached within the Philippines case if it chooses to do so provided: (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
MANILA HOTEL VS NLRC 2000
to the law and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine court has or is
G.R. No. 120077 October 13, 2000 likely to have power to enforce its decision. The conditions are
FACTS: Marcelo Santos (Private Respondent) was an overseas
unavailing in the case at bar.
worker employed as a printer at the Mazoon Printing Press,
Sultanate of Oman. Subsequently, in June 1988, he was directly
Not Convenient
hired by the Palace Hotel, Beijing, People's Republic of China and We fail to see how the NLRC is a convenient forum given that all
later terminated due to retrenchment.
the incidents of the case — from the time of recruitment, to
employment to dismissal occurred outside the Philippines. The
During his employment with the Mazoon Printing Press in the
inconvenience is compounded by the fact that the proper
Sultanate of Oman, respondent Santos received a letter dated May defendants, the Palace Hotel and MHICL are not nationals of the
2, 1988 from Mr. Gerhard R. Shmidt, General Manager, Palace
Philippines. Neither .are they "doing business in the Philippines."
Hotel, Beijing, China. Respondent Santos wrote to Mr. Shmidt and Likewise, the main witnesses, Mr. Shmidt and Mr. Henk are non-
signified his acceptance of the offer.
residents of the Philippines.
On July 22, 1989, Mr. Shmidt's Executive Secretary, a certain
No power to determine applicable law.
Joanna suggested in a that respondent Santos be given one (1) Neither can an intelligent decision be made as to the law
month notice of his release from employment.
governing the employment contract as such was perfected in
foreign soil. This calls to fore the application of the principle of lex
On August 10, 1989, the Palace Hotel informed respondent Santos
loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract was
by letter signed by Mr. Shmidt that his employment at the Palace made).
Hotel print shop would be terminated due to business reverses
brought about by the political upheaval in China. The employment contract was not perfected in the Philippines.
Respondent Santos signified his acceptance by writing a letter
On October 24, 1989, respondent Santos, through his lawyer, Atty. while he was in the Republic of Oman. This letter was sent to the
Ednave wrote Mr. Shmidt, demanding full compensation pursuant
Palace Hotel in the People's Republic of China.
to the employment agreement.
No power to determine the facts.
Neither can the NLRC determine the facts surrounding the alleged
illegal dismissal as all acts complained of took place in Beijing,
24
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
People's Republic of China. The NLRC was not in a position to no jurisdiction, because the case involved partnership
determine whether the Tiannamen Square incident truly adversely interest, and there was difficulty in ascertaining the applicable
affected operations of the Palace Hotel as to justify respondent law in California. All the aspects of the transaction took place
Santos' retrenchment.
in a foreign country, and respondent is not even Filipino.
5.) The lower court ruled in favor of Respondent. CA affirmed.
Principle of effectiveness, No Power to Execute Decision
Even assuming that a proper decision could be reached by the
NLRC, such would not have any binding effect against the ISSUE:
employer, the Palace Hotel. The Palace Hotel is a corporation 1.) WON Summary Judgment is appropriate in this case? Yes
incorporated under the laws of China and was not even served 2.) WON the principle of FORUM NON CONVENIENS applies
with summons. Jurisdiction over its person was not acquired. in this case? No

This is not to say that Philippine courts and agencies have no

RULING:
power to solve controversies involving foreign employers. Neither
are we saying that we do not have power over an employment 1.) For summary judgment to be valid, Rule 34, Section 3 of
contract executed in a foreign country . If Santos were an the Rules of Court, requires (a) that there must be no
"overseas contract worker", a Philippine forum, specifically the genuine issue as to any material fact, except for the
POEA, not the NLRC, would protect him . He is not an "overseas amount of damages; and (b) that the party presenting
contract worker" a fact which he admits with conviction. the motion for summary judgment must be entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law. There was no genuine
Even assuming that the NLRC was the proper forum, even on the
issue as to any material fact. In this case, the foreign
merits, the NLRC's decision cannot be sustained.
judgment attained finality, and in fact, has already been
The Court ANNULS the orders and resolutions of the partially executed.
National Labor Relations Commission.
2.) Under the principle of forum non conveniens ,  even
if the exercise of jurisdiction is authorized by law, courts
PUYAT VS ZABARTE 2001 may nonetheless refuse to entertain a case for any of the
FACTS: following practical reasons:
1.) Respondent Ron Zabarte commenced an action to enforce
money judgment rendered by the Supreme Court for the 1.) The belief that the matter can be better tried and
State of California, County of Contra Costa, USA. decided elsewhere, either because the main
2.) Petitioner Gil Puyat filed his Answer with special and aspects of the case transpired in a foreign
affirmative defenses: jurisdiction or the material witnesses have their
a.) That the Superior Court for the State of California did not residence there;
properly acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and
over the persons involved.
2.) The belief that the non-resident plaintiff sought the
b.) That the Judgment on Stipulation for Entry in Judgment
forum, a practice known as forum
in the case decided by the foreign court obtained without
shopping,  merely to secure procedural advantages
assistance of counsel and without sufficient notice to
or to convey or harass the defendant;
Petitioner.
c.) That said judgment was procured by means of fraud or
collusion or undue influence and based on clear mistake 3.) The unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to
of fact and law. non-residents or aliens when the docket may
d.) That said judgment is contrary to laws, public policy and already be overcrowded;
canons of morality obtaining in the Philippines and would
result to unjust enrichment. 4.) The inadequacy of the local judicial machinery
e.) That said judgment is null and void. for effectuating the right sought to be
f.) That Respondent is guilty of misrepresentation or maintained; and
falsification of complaint and has no capacity to sue in
the Philippines. 5.) The difficulty of ascertaining foreign law.
g.) That venue in this case (action to enforce money
judgment) is improperly laid. None of the aforementioned reasons barred the RTC from
3.) Respondent filed a motion for Summary Judgment alleging exercising its jurisdiction. In the present action, there was no more
that Petitioner failed to tender any genuine issue as to the need for material witnesses, no forum shopping or harassment of
material facts. petitioner, no inadequacy in the local machinery to enforce the
4.) The court issued an order granting the Motion for Summary foreign judgment, and no question raised as to the application of
Judgment. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground any foreign law.
of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and The issue of whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on
FORUM NON-CONVENIENS. Petitioner argues that the RTC the basis of the above-mentioned principle depends largely upon
should have refused to entertain the Complaint for the facts of each case and on the sound discretion of the trial
enforcement of the foreign judgment on the principle court. Since the present action lodged in the RTC was for
of forum non conveniens.  He claims that the trial court had the enforcement of a foreign judgment, there was no need
25
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
to ascertain the rights and the obligations of the parties operation of the vessels as well as of the proceeds of the
based on foreign laws or contracts. The parties needed subsequent foreclosure sale.
only to perform their obligations under the Compromise
Agreement they had entered into.  The banks filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds of
forum non conveniens and lack of cause of action
Under Section 48, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a against them which was denied by the RTC. With respect
judgment in an action in personam  rendered by a foreign tribunal to forum non conveniens, defendant banks alleged the
following:
clothed with jurisdiction is presumptive evidence of a right as
between the parties and their successors-in-interest by a
subsequent title. i) The Bank of America Branches involved are based in
Hongkong and England. As such, the evidence and the
Also, under Section 5(n) of Rule 131, a court -- whether in the witnesses are not readily available in the Philippines;
Philippines or elsewhere -- enjoys the presumption that it is acting
in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction, and that it is regularly ii) The loan transactions were obtained, perfected,
performing its official duty. Its judgment may, however, be performed, consummated and partially paid outside the
assailed if there is evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice Philippines;
to the party, collusion, fraud or clear mistake of law or fact. But
iii) The monies were advanced outside the Philippines.
precisely, this possibility signals the need for a local trial court to
Furthermore, the mortgaged vessels were part of an
exercise jurisdiction. Clearly, the application of forum non offshore fleet, not based in the Philippines;
coveniens  is not called for.
iv) All the loans involved were granted to the Private
Respondents' foreign corporations;
G.R. No. 120135            March 31, 2003
BANK OF AMERICA NT & SA, BANK OF AMERICA v) The Restructuring Agreements were all governed by
INTERNATIONAL, LTD., vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. the laws of England;
MANUEL PADOLINA, EDUARDO LITONJUA, SR., and
AURELIO K. LITONJUA, JR., vi) The subsequent sales of the mortgaged vessels and
the application of the sales proceeds occurred and
transpired outside the Philippines, and the deliveries of
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE: This case involves a petition for the sold mortgaged vessels were likewise made outside
review on certiorari under Rule 45 filed by Bank of America the Philippines;
assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals and the denial of its
motion for reconsideration. vii) The revenues of the vessels and the proceeds of the
sales of these vessels were ALL deposited to the
FACTS: Accounts of the foreign Corporations abroad; and

 On May 10, 1993, Eduardo Litonjua Sr. and Aurelio viii) Bank of America International Ltd. is not licensed nor
Litonjua filed a complaint before the Regional Trial engaged in trade or business in the Philippines.
Court of Pasig against the Bank of America NT&SA
and Bank of America International, Ltd. The banks argue further that the loan agreements,
security documentation and all subsequent restructuring
 The Litonjuas alleged that they were engaged in the agreements uniformly, unconditionally and expressly
shipping business and owned six vessels. The operation provided that they will be governed by the laws of
and the funds derived from the vessels were placed England. They insist that the inconvenience and difficulty
under the complete and exclusive control and disposition
of applying English law with respect to a wholly foreign
of the banks as trustees.
transaction in a case pending in the Philippines may be
(Don Aurelio and El Champion - first two vessels owned
avoided by its dismissal on the ground of forum non
by the Litonjuas)
conveniens.
(El Carrier, El General, El Challenger and El Conqueror -
four vessels subsequently acquired through loans with  Instead of filing an answer, the defendant banks went to
the banks) the Court of Appeals questioning the denial of their
motion to dismiss. The appellate court dismissed the
 The negligence of the petitioners resulted to the drastic petition.
decline of the revenues from the operation of said
vessels and the loans acquired for the purchase of the ISSUE: Whether or not the complaint should be dismissed on the
four vessels then matured and remained unpaid, ground of forum non-conveniens
prompting the banks to have all the six vessels
foreclosed and sold at public auction. RULING: NO. The doctrine of forum non-conveniens, literally
meaning 'the forum is inconvenient', emerged in private
 The Litonjuas prayed for the accounting of the revenues
international law to deter the practice of global forum shopping,
derived in the operation of the six vessels and of the
that is to prevent non-resident litigants from choosing the forum
proceeds of the sale thereof at the foreclosure
or place wherein to bring their suit for malicious reasons, such as
proceedings instituted by the banks, damages for breach
of trust, exemplary damages and attorney's fees. The to secure procedural advantages, to annoy and harass the
Litonjuas claimed that banks as trustees did not fully defendant, to avoid overcrowded dockets, or to select a more
render an account of all the income derived from the friendly venue. Under this doctrine, a court, in conflicts of law
26
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the
most "convenient" or available forum and the parties are not PART III. SPECIFIC CONFLICT RULES
precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. 1) NATIONALITY
2) DOMICILE
Whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of 3) RENVOI
said doctrine depends largely upon the facts of the particular case 4) MARRIAGE AND ITS INCIDENTS
5) PATERNITY/FILIATION/ADOPTION
and is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. In the
6) PROPERTY
case of Communication Materials and Design, Inc. vs. Court of
7) WILLS AND SUCCESSION
Appeals, the Court held that a Philippine Court may assume 8) CONTRACTS
jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so; provided, that the 9) CORPORATION
following requisites are met: (1) that the Philippine Court is 10) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
one to which the parties may conveniently resort to; (2) 11) TORTS/DAMAGES AND CRIMES
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 in the
instant case.

Moreover, the Court enunciated in Philsec. Investment Corporation

vs. Court of Appeals, that the doctrine of forum non conveniens
should not be used as a ground for a motion to dismiss because
Sec. 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court does not include said doctrine
as a ground. 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.

PACIFIC VS SCHON FELD 2007

RAYTHEON VS ROUZIE 2008
NAVIDA VS DIZON 2011
SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES VS REBESENCIO 2015
CONTINENTAL MICRONISA VS BASSO 2015 (SUPRA)

2) CHOICE OF LAW; CHOICE OF LAW PRINCIPLES;

NATURE AND CHARACTERISTIZATION
GIBBS VS GOVERNMENT OF PI 1933
CADALIN VS POEA 1994
BANK OF AMERICA NT AND ASIA VS AMERICAN REALTY
CORPORATION 1999
SAUDI ARABIA AIRLINES VS CA 1998 (SUPRA)
LWV CONSTRUCTION VS DUPO 2009
DACASIN VS DACASIN 2010

PROOF OF FOREIGN LAW AND EXCEPTIONS; PROCESSUAL

PRESUMPTION
EDI STAFF BUILDERS INT’L VS NLRC 2007
NORSE MANAGEMENT VS NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD 1982
HSBC VS SHERMAN 1989
MANUFACTURERS HANOVER VS GUERRERO 2003
ATCI VS ETCHIN 2010

3) RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN

JUDGMENT
PUYAT VS ZABARTE 2001 (SUPRA)
ST. AVIATION VS GRAND AIR 2006 (SUPRA)
ATCI VS ETCHIN 2010 (SUPRA)
CORPUZ CS STO TOMAS 2010
FUJIKI VS MARINAY 2013
BPI VS GUEVARA 2015
27
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
PACIFIC CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL ASIA, INC. and 7. Accommodation: The company will provide partly
JENS PETER HENRICHSEN vs. KLAUS K. SCHONFELD furnished accommodation to a rent including association
(GR 166920; February 19, 2007) fees, taxes and VAT not exceeding the Pesos equivalent
of US$2,900.00 per month.
Facts: Klaus K. Schonfeld is a Canadian citizen and was a resident 8. Transportation: Included for in the remuneration.
of New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada. He had been a 9. Leave Travels: You are entitled to two leave travels
consultant in the field of environmental engineering and water per year.
supply and sanitation. Pacicon Philippines, Inc. (PPI) is a 10. Shipment of Personal
corporation duly established and incorporated in accordance with Effects: The maximum allowance is US$4,000.00.
the laws of the Philippines. The primary purpose of PPI was to 11. Mobilization
engage in the business of providing specialty and technical Travel: Mobilization travel will be from New Westminster,
services both in and out of the Philippines. 2 It is a subsidiary of B.C., Canada.
Pacific Consultants International of Japan (PCIJ). The president of
PPI, Jens Peter Henrichsen, who was also the director of PCIJ, was This letter is send (sic) to you in duplicate; we kindly request you
based in Tokyo, Japan. Henrichsen commuted from Japan to to sign and return one copy to us.”
Manila and vice versa, as well as in other countries where PCIJ
had business. Section 21 of the General Conditions of Employment appended to
the letter of employment reads:
In 1997, PCIJ decided to engage in consultancy services for water
and sanitation in the Philippines. In October 1997, Schonfeld was 21 Arbitration
employed by PCIJ, through Henrichsen, as Sector Manager of PPI
in its Water and Sanitation Department. However, PCIJ assigned
him as PPI sector manager in the Philippines. His salary was to be Any question of interpretation, understanding or fulfillment of the
paid partly by PPI and PCIJ. conditions of employment, as well as any question arising between
the Employee and the Company which is in consequence of or
connected with his employment with the Company and which
On January 7, 1998, Henrichsen transmitted a letter of cannot be settled amicably, is to be finally settled, binding to both
employment to Schonfeld in Canada, requesting him to accept the parties through written submissions, by the Court of Arbitration in
same and affix his conformity thereto. Schonfeld made some London.
revisions in the letter of employment and signed the contract. He
then sent a copy to Henrichsen.
Schonfeld arrived in the Philippines and assumed his position as
PPI Sector Manager. He was accorded the status of a resident
The letter states: alien.

“This Letter of Employment with the attached General As required by Rule XIV (Employment of Aliens) of the Omnibus
Conditions of Employment constitutes the agreement under which Rules Implementing the Labor Code, PPI applied for an Alien
you will be engaged by our Company on the terms and conditions Employment Permit (Permit) for Schonfeld before the Department
defined hereunder. In case of any discrepancies or contradictions of Labor and Employment (DOLE). It appended Schonfeld’s
between this Letter of Employment and the General Conditions of contract of employment to the application.
Employment, this Letter of Employment will prevail.

On February 26, 1999, the DOLE granted the application and

You will, from the date of commencement, be issued the Permit to Schonfeld. It reads:
["seconded"] to our subsidiary Pacicon Philippines, Inc. in Manila,
hereinafter referred as Pacicon. Pacicon will provide you with a
separate contract, which will define that part of the present terms ALIEN EMPLOYMENT PERMIT
and conditions for which Pacicon is responsible. In case of any ISSUED TO: SCHONFELD, KLAUS KURT
discrepancies or contradictions between the present Letter of DATE OF BIRTH: January 11, 1942 NATIONALITY: Canadian
Employment and the contract with Pacicon Philippines, Inc. or in POSITION: VP – WATER & SANITATION
the case that Pacicon should not live up to its obligations, this EMPLOYER: PACICON PHILIPPINES, INC.
Letter of Employment will prevail. ADDRESS: 27/F Rufino Pacific Towers Bldg., Ayala Ave., Makati
City
1. Project Country: The Philippines with possible short-
term assignments in other countries. Schonfeld received his compensation from PPI for the following
2. Duty Station: Manila, the Philippines. periods: February to June 1998, November to December 1998,
3. Family Status: Married. and January to August 1999. He was also reimbursed by PPI for
4. Position: Sector Manager, Water and Sanitation. the expenses he incurred in connection with his work as sector
5. Commencement: 1st October 1997. manager. He reported for work in Manila except for occasional
6. Remuneration: US$7,000.00 per month. The amount assignments abroad, and received instructions from Henrichsen. 7
will be paid partly as a local salary (US$2,100.00 per
month) by Pacicon and partly as an offshore salary On May 5, 1999, Schonfeld received a letter from Henrichsen
(US$4,900.00) by PCI to bank accounts to be nominated informing him that his employment had been terminated effective
by you. August 4, 1999 for the reason that PCIJ and PPI had not been
A performance related component corresponding to successful in the water and sanitation sector in the
17.6% of the total annual remuneration, subject to Philippines. However, on July 24, 1999, Henrichsen, by electronic
satisfactory performance against agreed tasks and mail, requested Schonfeld to stay put in his job after August 5,
targets, paid offshore. 1999, until such time that he would be able to report on certain

28
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
projects and discuss all the opportunities he had adopted two inconsistent positions: it was first alleged that he
developed. Schonfeld continued his work with PPI until the end of should have filed his complaint in Tokyo, Japan; and it later
business hours on October 1, 1999. insisted that the complaint should have been filed in the London
Court of Arbitration.
Schonfeld filed with PPI several money claims, including unpaid
salary, leave pay, air fare from Manila to Canada, and cost of Issue:
shipment of goods to Canada. PPI partially settled some of his
claims (US$5,635.99), but refused to pay the rest. W/N the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction over the subject
matter (YES)
On December 5, 2000, Schonfeld filed a Complaint for Illegal
Dismissal against petitioners PPI and Henrichsen with the Labor Labor Arbiter’s Ruling (Affirmed by NLRC):
Arbiter.

On August 2, 2001, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision granting

In his Complaint, Schonfeld alleged that he was illegally dismissed; petitioners’ Motion to Dismiss. The Labor Arbiter found, among
PPI had not notified the DOLE of its decision to close one of its others, that the January 7, 1998 contract of employment between
departments, which resulted in his dismissal; and they failed to Schonfeld and PCIJ was controlling; the Philippines was only the
notify him that his employment was terminated after August 4, "duty station" where Schonfeld was required to work under the
1999. Schonfeld also claimed for separation pay and other unpaid General Conditions of Employment. PCIJ remained Schonfeld’s
benefits. He alleged that the company acted in bad faith and employer despite his having been sent to the Philippines. Since the
disregarded his rights. parties had agreed that any differences regarding employer-
employee relationship should be submitted to the jurisdiction of
Petitioner’s Contentions: the court of arbitration in London, this agreement is controlling.

Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the following CA’s Ruling:
grounds: (1) the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the subject
matter; and (2) venue was improperly laid. It averred that The CA found the petition meritorious. Applying the four-fold
Schonfeld was a Canadian citizen, a transient expatriate who had test of determining an employer-employee relationship, the CA
left the Philippines. He was employed and dismissed by PCIJ, a declared that Schonfeld was an employee of PPI. On the issue of
foreign corporation with principal office in Tokyo, Japan. Since venue, the appellate court declared that, even under the January
Schonfeld’s cause of action was based on his letter of employment 7, 1998 contract of employment, the parties were not precluded
executed in Tokyo, Japan dated January 7, 1998, under the from bringing a case related thereto in other venues. While there
principle of lex loci contractus, the complaint should have been was, indeed, an agreement that issues between the parties were
filed in Tokyo, Japan. Petitioners claimed that Schonfeld did not to be resolved in the London Court of Arbitration, the venue is not
offer any justification for filing his complaint against PPI before the exclusive, since there is no stipulation that the complaint cannot
NLRC in the Philippines. Moreover, under Section 12 of the General be filed in any other forum other than in the Philippines.
Conditions of Employment appended to the letter of employment
dated January 7, 1998, complainant and PCIJ had agreed that any
employment-related dispute should be brought before the London SC’s Ruling:
Court of Arbitration.
Petitioner PPI applied for the issuance of an AEP to Schonfeld
Petitioners claimed that Schonfeld’s employer was PCIJ, which had before the DOLE. In said application, PPI averred that Schonfeld is
exercised supervision and control over him, and not PPI. Schonfeld its employee. To show that this was the case, PPI appended a
was dismissed by PPI via a letter of Henrichsen under the copy of Schonfeld’s employment contract. The DOLE then granted
letterhead of PCIJ in Japan. the application of PPI and issued the permit.

Respondent’s Contentions: It bears stressing that under the Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code, one of the requirements for the issuance of an
employment permit is the employment contract. Section 5, Rule
Schonfeld opposed the Motion, contending that he was employed XIV (Employment of Aliens) of the Omnibus Rules provides:
by PPI to work in the Philippines under contract separate from his
January 7, 1998 contract of employment with PCIJ. He insisted
that his employer was PPI, a Philippine-registered corporation; it is SECTION 1. Coverage. – This rule shall apply to all aliens
inconsequential that PPI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of PCIJ employed or seeking employment in the Philippines and the
because the two corporations have separate and distinct present or prospective employers. xxx
personalities; and he received orders and instructions from
Henrichsen who was the president of PPI. He further insisted that Thus, as claimed by Schonfeld, he had an employment contract
the principles of forum non conveniens and lex loci contractus do with petitioner PPI; otherwise, petitioner PPI would not have filed
not apply, and that although he is a Canadian citizen, Philippine an application for a Permit with the DOLE. Petitioners are thus
Labor Laws apply in this case. estopped from alleging that the PCIJ, not petitioner PPI, had been
the employer of Schonfeld all along.
According to Schonfeld, the material allegations of the complaint,
not petitioners’ defenses, determine which quasi-judicial body has We agree with the conclusion of the CA that there was an
jurisdiction. Section 21 of the Arbitration Clause in the General employer-employee relationship between petitioner PPI and
Conditions of Employment does not provide for an exclusive venue Schonfeld using the four-fold test. Jurisprudence is firmly settled
where the complaint against PPI for violation of the Philippine that whenever the existence of an employment relationship is in
Labor Laws may be filed. Schonfeld pointed out that PPI had dispute, four elements constitute the reliable yardstick: (a) the
29
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of First. The Labor Code of the Philippines does not include
wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer’s power forum non conveniens as a ground for the dismissal of
to control the employee’s conduct. It is the so-called "control test" the complaint.
which constitutes the most important index of the existence of the
employer-employee relationship–that is, whether the employer Second. The propriety of dismissing a case based on this
controls or has reserved the right to control the employee not only principle requires a factual determination; hence, it is
as to the result of the work to be done but also as to the means properly considered as defense.
and methods by which the same is to be accomplished. Stated
otherwise, an employer-employee relationship exists where the
person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to Third. In Bank of America, NT&SA, Bank of America
control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be International, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 36 this Court held
used in reaching such that:
end.https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_166920
_2007.html - fnt29 We quote with approval the following ruling of x x x [a] Philippine Court may assume jurisdiction over the case if
the CA: it chooses to do so; provided, that the following requisites are
met: (1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may
[T]here is, indeed, substantial evidence on record which would conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine Court is in a position
erase any doubt that the Schonfeld company is the true employer to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and,
of petitioner. In the case at bar, the power to control and (3) that the Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to
supervise petitioner’s work performance devolved upon the enforce its decision. x x x
Schonfeld company. Likewise, the power to terminate the
employment relationship was exercised by the President of the
Schonfeld company. It is not the letterhead used by the company
in the termination letter which controls, but the person who RAYTHEON INTERNATIONAL, INC. vs. STOCKTON W.
exercised the power to terminate the employee. It is also ROUZIE, JR.
inconsequential if the second letter of employment executed in the
Philippines was not signed by the petitioner. An employer- (G.R. No. 162894; February 26, 2008)
employee relationship may indeed exist even in the absence of a FACTS: Sometime in 1990, Brand Marine Services, Inc. (BMSI), a
written contract, so long as the four elements mentioned in the corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the
Mafinco case are all present. State of Connecticut, USA, and respondent Stockton W. Rouzie,
Jr., an American citizen, entered into a contract whereby BMSI
The settled rule on stipulations regarding venue, as held by this hired respondent as its representative to negotiate the sale of
Court in the vintage case of Philippine Banking Corporation v. services in several government projects in the Philippines for an
Tensuan, is that while they are considered valid and enforceable, agreed remuneration of 10% of the gross receipts. Respondent
venue stipulations in a contract do not, as a rule, supersede the secured a service contract with the Republic of the Philippines on
general rule set forth in Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court in the behalf of BMSI for the dredging of rivers affected by the Mt.
absence of qualifying or restrictive words. They should be Pinatubo eruption and mudflows.
considered merely as an agreement or additional forum, not as
On 16 July 1994, respondent filed before the Arbitration
limiting venue to the specified place. They are not exclusive but,
Branch of the NLRC, a suit against BMSI and Rust International,
rather permissive. If the intention of the parties were to restrict
Inc. (RUST), Rodney C. Gilbert and Walter G. Browning for alleged
venue, there must be accompanying language clearly and
nonpayment of commissions, illegal termination and breach of
categorically expressing their purpose and design that actions
employment contract. The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment
between them be litigated only at the place named by them.
ordering BMSI and RUST to pay respondent’s money claims. Upon
appeal by BMSI, the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor
In the instant case, no restrictive words like "only," "solely," Arbiter and dismissed respondent’s complaint on the ground of
"exclusively in this court," "in no other court save —," lack of jurisdiction. Respondent elevated the case to this Court but
"particularly," "nowhere else but/except —," or words of equal was dismissed in a Resolution which became final and executory.
import were stated in the contract. 33 It cannot be said that the
court of arbitration in London is an exclusive venue to bring forth On 8 January 1999, respondent, then a resident of La Union,
any complaint arising out of the employment contract. instituted an action for damages before the RTC of Bauang, La
Union. The Complaint, named as defendants herein petitioner
Raytheon International, Inc. as well as BMSI and RUST, the two
Petitioners contend that Schonfeld should have filed his Complaint corporations impleaded in the earlier labor case. The complaint
in his place of permanent residence, or where the PCIJ holds its essentially reiterated the allegations in the labor case and that
principal office, at the place where the contract of employment respondent was not paid the commissions due him from the
was signed, in London as stated in their contract. By enumerating Pinatubo dredging project which he secured on behalf of BMSI.
possible venues where Schonfeld could have filed his complaint, The complaint also averred that BMSI and RUST as well as
however, petitioners themselves admitted that the provision on petitioner itself had combined and functioned as one company.
venue in the employment contract is indeed merely permissive.
In its Answer, petitioner denied entering into any arrangement
with respondent or paying the latter any sum of money. Petitioner
Petitioners’ insistence on the application of the principle of forum
also denied combining with BMSI and RUST for the purpose of
non conveniens must be rejected. The bare fact that Schonfeld is
assuming the alleged obligation of the said companies. Petitioner
a Canadian citizen and was a repatriate does not warrant the
also referred to the NLRC decision which disclosed that per the
application of the principle for the following reasons:
written agreement between respondent and BMSI and RUST,
denominated as "Special Sales Representative Agreement," the
rights and obligations of the parties shall be governed by the laws
of the State of Connecticut. Petitioner sought the dismissal of the
30
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
complaint on grounds of failure to state a cause of action and Jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct concepts.
forum non conveniens and prayed for damages by way of Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair to cause a defendant to
compulsory counterclaim. travel to this state; choice of law asks the further question
whether the application of a substantive law which will determine
Petitioner sought the dismissal of the complaint on grounds of the merits of the case is fair to both parties. The choice of law
forum non conveniens and failure to state a cause of action. stipulation will become relevant only when the substantive issues
The RTC denied petitioner’s omnibus motion. The trial court held of the instant case develop, that is, after hearing on the merits
that the factual allegations in the complaint, assuming the same to proceeds before the trial court.
be admitted, were sufficient for the trial court to render a valid Forum non conveniens:
judgment thereon. It also ruled that the principle of forum non
conveniens was inapplicable because the trial court could enforce Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court, in
judgment on petitioner, it being a foreign corporation licensed to conflicts-of-laws cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction
do business in the Philippines. where it is not the most "convenient" or available forum and the
parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere.
Petitioner filed with the CA for the issuance of a writ of certiorari
Petitioner’s averments of the foreign elements in the instant case
and a writ of injunction to set aside the twin orders of the trial are not sufficient to oust the trial court of its jurisdiction over Civil
court and to enjoin the trial court from conducting further
Case No. No. 1192-BG and the parties involved.
proceedings. The CA denied the petition for certiorari for lack of
merit. It also denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Moreover, the propriety of dismissing a case based on the principle
of forum non conveniens requires a factual determination; hence,
Certiorari with the SC: it is more properly considered as a matter of defense. While it is
Petitioner's main contention: That the written contract within the discretion of the trial court to abstain from assuming
between respondent and BMSI included a valid choice of law jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so only after vital facts are
clause, that is, that the contract shall be governed by the laws of established, to determine whether special circumstances require
the State of Connecticut. It also mentions the presence of foreign the court’s desistance.
elements in the dispute – namely, the parties and witnesses
Finding no grave abuse of discretion on the trial court, the Court
involved are American corporations and citizens and the evidence of Appeals respected its conclusion that it can assume jurisdiction
to be presented is located outside the Philippines – that renders
over the dispute notwithstanding its foreign elements. In the same
our local courts inconvenient forums. manner, the Court defers to the sound discretion of the lower
Petitioner theorizes that the foreign elements of the dispute courts because their findings are binding on this Court.
necessitate the immediate application of the doctrine of forum non Other issues:
conveniens.
No cause of action:
ISSUES:
Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of
(a) W/N the RTC had jurisdiction. YES allegation in the pleading. As a general rule, the elementary test
(b) W/N the complaint should be dismissed on the ground for failure to state a cause of action is whether the complaint
of forum non conveniens. NO alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded.
Merger:
Three consecutive phases in judicial resolution of conflicts-of-laws The question of whether petitioner, BMSI and RUST merged
problems: jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and together requires the presentation of further evidence, which only
enforcement of judgments. a full-blown trial on the merits can afford.
In the instances where the Court held that the local judicial WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is
machinery was adequate to resolve controversies with a foreign DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the CA are hereby
element, the following requisites had to be proved: (1) that the AFFIRMED.
Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently
resort; (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 NAVIDA VS. DIZON (GR 125078, May 30 2011)
Philippine Court has or is likely to have the power to enforce its
decision. Facts: In 1993, a number of personal injury suits were filed in
different Texas state courts by citizens of twelve foreign countries,
On the matter of jurisdiction: including the Philippines seeking damages for injuries they
Civil Case No. 1192-BG is an action for damages arising from an allegedly sustained from their exposure
alleged breach of contract. Undoubtedly, the nature of the action to dibromochloropropane (DBCP), a chemical used to kill
and the amount of damages prayed are within the jurisdiction of nematodes (worms), while working on farms in 23 foreign
the RTC. countries. The cases were eventually transferred to, and
consolidated in, the Federal District Court for the Southern District
As regards jurisdiction over the parties, the trial court acquired
of Texas, Houston Division including those involving Filipino
jurisdiction over herein respondent (as party plaintiff) upon the
plaintiffs which were docketed as Jorge Colindres Carcamo, et al.
filing of the complaint. On the other hand, jurisdiction over the
person of petitioner (as party defendant) was acquired by its v. Shell Oil Co., et al., and Juan Ramon Valdez, et al. v. Shell
voluntary appearance in court. Oil Co., et al.

That the subject contract included a stipulation that the same shall They sought dismissal of the action on the ground of forum
be governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut does not non conveniens which was partially granted by the Texas Court
suggest that the Philippine courts, or any other foreign tribunal for through a Memorandum and Order dated July 11, 1995.
that matter, are precluded from hearing the civil action.
31
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
A. RTC-GENSAN “The Court views that the plaintiffs did not freely choose to
file the instant action, but rather were coerced to do so,
Pursuant to such Memorandum, a total of 336 plaintiffs from merely to comply with the U.S. District Courts Order dated
General Santos City (the petitioners in G.R. No. 125078, July 11, 1995, and in order to keep open to the plaintiffs the
hereinafter referred to as NAVIDA, et al.) filed a Joint opportunity to return to the U.S. District Court.”
Complaint in the RTC of General Santos City on August 10, 1995.
NAVIDA, et al., prayed for the payment of damages in view of the 4. the act of NAVIDA, et al., of filing of the case in the US courts
illnesses and injuries to the reproductive systems which they divested this court of its own jurisdiction
allegedly suffered because of their exposure to DBCP. They
claimed, among others, that they were exposed to this chemical
“the filing of the case in the U.S. courts divested this court of
during the early 1970s up to the early 1980s when they used the
its own jurisdiction. This court takes note that the U.S.
same in the banana plantations where they worked at; and/or
District Court did not decline jurisdiction over the cause of
when they resided within the agricultural area where such
action. The case was dismissed on the ground of forum non
chemical was used.
conveniens, which is really a matter of venue. By taking
In the complaint, the following companies were named cognizance of the case, the U.S. District Court has, in
defendants: Named as defendants therein were: Shell Oil Co. essence, concurrent jurisdiction with this court over the
(SHELL); Dow Chemical Co. (DOW); Occidental Chemical Corp. subject matter of this case. It is settled that initial acquisition
(OCCIDENTAL); Dole Food Co., Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Co., of jurisdiction divests another of its own jurisdiction.”
Standard Fruit Co., Standard Fruit and Steamship Co. (hereinafter The defendants filed Motions for Reconsideration but in
collectively referred to as DOLE); Chiquita Brands, Inc. and an Order dated July 9, 1996, the RTC of General Santos City
Chiquita Brands International, Inc. (CHIQUITA); Del Monte Fresh declared that it had already lost its jurisdiction over the case as it
Produce N.A. and Del Monte Tropical Fruit Co. (hereinafter took into consideration the Manifestation of the counsel of
collectively referred to as DEL MONTE); Dead Sea Bromine Co., NAVIDA, et al., which stated that the latter had already filed a
Ltd.; Ameribrom, Inc.; Bromine Compounds, Ltd.; and Amvac petition for review on certiorari before this Court. On July 11,
Chemical Corp. 1996, NAVIDA, et al., filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari in
order to assail the RTC Order dated May 20, 1996, which was
However, on March 13, 1996, NAVIDA, et al., filed
docketed as G.R. No. 125078.
an Amended Joint Complaint, excluding Dead Sea Bromine Co.,
Ltd., Ameribrom, Inc., Bromine Compounds, Ltd. and Amvac B. RTC-DAVAO
Chemical Corp. as party defendants during the pendency of the
Motion for the Bill of Particulars filed by the defendants. Another joint complaint for damages against SHELL, DOW,
OCCIDENTAL, DOLE, DEL MONTE, and CHIQUITA was filed before
Without resolving the pending Motions, the RTC-GenSan Branch 16 of the RTC of Davao City by 155 plaintiffs from Davao
issued an Order dismissing the complaint on the following City. (ABELLA, et al.,)
grounds:
Similar to the complaint of NAVIDA, et al., ABELLA, et al.,
1. Lack of jurisdiction alleged that, as workers in the banana plantation and/or as
residents near the said plantation, they were made to use and/or
“The substance of the cause of action as stated in the were exposed to nematocides, which contained the chemical
complaint against the defendant foreign companies cites DBCP. According to ABELLA, et al., such exposure resulted in
activity on their part which took place abroad and had serious and permanent injuries to their health, including, but not
occurred outside and beyond the territorial domain of limited to, sterility and severe injuries to their reproductive
the Philippines. These acts of defendants cited in the capacities.
complaint included the manufacture of pesticides, their
The RTC-Davao also junked the Abella case in this wise:
packaging in containers, their distribution through sale or
other disposition, resulting in their becoming part of the “ 1)                  In the original Joint Complaint, plaintiffs
stream of commerce.” state that: defendants have no properties in the Philippines; they
have no agents as well (par. 18); plaintiffs are suing the
2. and that the tort alleged by NAVIDA, et al., in their complaint is defendants for tortuous acts committed by these foreign
a tort category that is not recognized in Philippine laws. corporations on their respective countries, as plaintiffs, after
having elected to sue in the place of defendants residence, are
“The specific tort asserted against defendant foreign
now compelled by a decision of a Texas District Court to file cases
companies in the present complaint is product liability
under torts in this jurisdiction for causes of actions which occurred
tort. When the averments in the present complaint are abroad x
examined in terms of the particular categories of tort
recognized in the Philippine Civil Code, it becomes stark clear 2. The Court however is also constrained to dismiss the case
that such averments describe and identify the category of because it shares the opinion of legal experts given in the
specific tort known as product liability tort.” interview made by the Inquirer in its Special report Pesticide Cause
Mass Sterility, to wit: 
3. NAVIDA, et al., were coerced into submitting their case to the
Philippine courts A.  Former Justice Secretary Demetrio Demetria in a
May 1995 opinion said: The Philippines should be an

32
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
inconvenient forum to file this kind of damage suit against (8) In all other cases in which the
foreign companies since the causes of action alleged in the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of
petition do not exist under Philippine laws. There has been whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation
no decided case in Philippine Jurisprudence awarding to
expenses, and costs or the value of the
those adversely affected by DBCP.
property in controversy exceeds One hundred
B.  Retired Supreme Court Justice Abraham Sarmiento
opined that while a class suit is allowed in the Philippines the thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in such other
device has been employed strictly. Mass sterility will not cases in Metro Manila, where the demand,
qualify as a class suit injury within the contemplation of exclusive of the abovementioned items exceeds
Philippine statute. Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00).
C.     Retired High Court Justice Rodolfo Nocom stated [60]
 
that there is simply an absence of doctrine here that permits
these causes to be heard. No product liability ever filed or Corollary thereto, Supreme Court Administrative Circular
tried here” No. 09-94, states:

2. The exclusion of the term damages of

Parties have filed their respective Motions for Reconsiderations to
whatever kind in determining the jurisdictional
no avail. Hence, this action before the Supreme Court. The Court
consolidated these cases. amount under Section 19 (8) and Section 33
(1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No.
Issue/s: 7691, applies to cases where the damages are
merely incidental to or a consequence of the
1. WON RTC-GenSan and RTC-Davao has jurisdiction over the
main cause of action. However, in cases where
case
the claim for damages is the main cause of
action, or one of the causes of action, the
Ruling/s: amount of such claim shall be considered in
determining the jurisdiction of the court.
1. JURISDICTION
Petitioner’s Contention: NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., Pursuant to the complaints of NAVIDA et al., and ABELLA
argue that the allegedly tortious acts and/or omissions of et al., it is clear that the claim for damages is the main cause of
defendant companies occurred within Philippine territory. action and that the total amount sought in the complaints is
Specifically, the use of and exposure to DBCP that was
approximately P2.7 million for each of the plaintiff claimants. The
manufactured, distributed or otherwise put into the stream of
RTCs unmistakably have jurisdiction over the cases filed in General
commerce by defendant companies happened in
Santos City and Davao City, as both claims by NAVIDA, et al., and
the Philippines. Said fact allegedly constitutes reasonable basis for
our courts to assume jurisdiction over the case. Furthermore, ABELLA, et al., fall within the purview of the definition of the
NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., assert that the provisions of jurisdiction of the RTC under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
Chapter 2 of the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code, as well as
The allegations in the Amended Joint-Complaints of
Article 2176 thereof, are broad enough to cover their claim for
NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., attribute to defendant
damages.
companies certain acts and/or omissions which led to their
The RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao City exposure to nematocides containing the chemical DBCP. According
have jurisdiction over Civil Case Nos. 5617 and 24,251- to NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., such exposure to the said
96,respectively chemical caused ill effects, injuries and illnesses, specifically to
their reproductive system. Thus, these allegations in the
The rule is settled that jurisdiction over the subject complaints constitute the cause of action of plaintiff claimants a
matter of a case is conferred by law and is determined by the quasi-delict, which under the Civil Code is defined as an act, or
allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought, omission which causes damage to another, there being fault or
irrespective of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to all or some of negligence.
the claims asserted therein. Once vested by law, on a particular
court or body, the jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of In addition thereto, the injuries and illnesses, which
the action cannot be dislodged by anybody other than by the NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., allegedly suffered resulted
legislature through the enactment of a law.  from their exposure to DBCP while they were employed in the
banana plantations located in the Philippines or while they were
At the time of the filing of the complaints, the jurisdiction residing within the agricultural areas also located in
of the RTC in civil cases under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as the Philippines. The factual allegations in the Amended Joint-
amended by Republic Act No. 7691, was:  Complaints all point to their cause of action, which
undeniably occurred in the Philippines. The RTC of General
SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.
Santos City and the RTC of Davao City obviously have reasonable
Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive
basis to assume jurisdiction over the cases.
original jurisdiction: 
It is, therefore, error on the part of the courts a
x x x x 
quo when they dismissed the cases on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction on the mistaken assumption that the cause of action

33
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
narrated by NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., took place abroad for Female Cabin Attendants" (Unified Contract), which provides
and had occurred outside and beyond the territorial boundaries of that the employment of a Flight Attendant who becomes pregnant
the Philippines is rendered void, to wit:

The RTC of General Santos City and the RTC (H) Due to the essential nature of the Air Hostess
of Davao City validly acquired jurisdiction over the persons functions to be physically fit on board to provide various
of all the defendant companies services required in normal or emergency cases on both
domestic/international flights beside her role in
Article 14, Section 20 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides maintaining continuous safety and security of passengers,
that [t]he defendants voluntary appearance in the action shall be and since she will not be able to maintain the required
equivalent to service of summons. In this connection, all the medical fitness while at work in case of pregnancy,
defendant companies designated and authorized representatives accordingly, if the Air Hostess becomes pregnant at
to receive summons and to represent them in the proceedings any time during the term of this contract, this shall
before the courts a quo. All the defendant companies submitted render her employment contract as void and she
themselves to the jurisdiction of the courts  a quo by making will be terminated due to lack of medical fitness .[18] 
several voluntary appearances, by praying for various affirmative
reliefs, and by actively participating during the course of the On November 8, 2007, Rebesencio et.al filed a Complaint
proceedings below. against Saudia and its officers for illegal dismissal and for
underpayment of salary and other benefits. Saudia assailed the
Thus, the RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. It claimed that all the determining
City have validly acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the
points of contact referred to foreign law and insisted that the
defendant companies, as well as over the subject matter of the
Complaint ought to be dismissed on the ground of forum non
instant case. What is more, this jurisdiction, which has been
conveniens. It added that respondents had no cause of action as
acquired and has been vested on the courts a quo, continues until
they resigned voluntarily.
the termination of the proceedings.

The court’ orders are reversed and set aside and cases are
The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint. The LA’s ruling
remanded.
was reversed by the NLRC holding that there were no special
circumstances that warranted its abstention from exercising
SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES v. MA. JOPETTE M. jurisdiction. On appeal, this was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
REBESENCIO
(GR No. 198587, Jan 14, 2015) ISSUE: Whether or not the Labor Arbiter and the National
FACTS: Petitioner Saudia recruited and hired respondents Ma. Labor Relations Commission may exercise jurisdiction over
Jopete Rebesencio, Montassah Sacar-Andiong, Rouen Ruth Saudi Arabian Airlines and apply Philippine law in
Cristobal, Loraine Schneider-Cruz (Rebesencio et.al) as Temporary adjudicating the present dispute.
Flight Attendants with the accreditation and approval of the
HELD: YES. Philippine courts or tribunals are an adequate forum
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
for the adjudication of Rebesencio et.al’s complaint.
Eventually, Rebesencio et.al became Permanent Flight Attendants.
Rebesencio et.al, continued their employment with Saudia until As to the jurisdiction of Philippine tribunals
they were separated from service on various dates in 2006.
Saudia posits that respondents' Complaint was brought against the
Rebesencio et.al contended THAT: wrong party because "Saudia Manila," upon which summons was
served, was never the employer of Rebesencio et.al.
 The termination of their employment was illegal because it
was made solely because they were pregnant.
 They had informed Saudia of their pregnancies and had SC: The pleadings and summons were validly served on Saudia
gone through the necessary procedures to process their through its counsel and jurisdiction over it validly acquired. Also,
maternity leaves.
there is no basis for concluding that "Saudia Jeddah" is distinct
 Initially, Saudia had given its approval but later on told them
from "Saudia Manila."By its own admission, Saudia, while a foreign
that its management in Jeddah had disapproved their
maternity leaves. In addition, it required them to file their corporation, has a Philippine office in Makati.
resignation letters.
Saudia is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines.
 That if they will not resign, Saudia would terminate them all
As such, Saudia may be sued in the Philippines and is subject to
the same. And they will lose all of their benefits; such as
separation pay and ticket discount entitlements. the jurisdiction of Philippine tribunals. Moreover, since there is no
 That the Unified Contract took effect on September 23, 2006 real distinction between "Saudia Jeddah" and "Saudia Manila" —
(the first day of Ramadan), well after they had filed and had the latter being nothing more than Saudia's local office — service
their maternity leaves approved. of summons to Saudia's office in Manila sufficed to vest jurisdiction
 Faced with the dilemma of resigning or totally losing their over Saudia's person in Philippine tribunals.
benefits, respondents executed handwritten resignation
letters. Forum Non Conveniens

SC: Forum non conveniens is not applicable. It is not the primarily

Saudia anchored its disapproval of the maternity leaves and pivotal consideration in this case.
demand for their resignation on its "Unified Employment Contract
34
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
positioned to enforce judgments and, ultimately, to dispense
Saudia asserts that Philippine courts and/or tribunals are not in a justice. 
position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts.
This is because respondents' Cabin Attendant contracts require the Accordingly, under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, "a court,
application of the laws of Saudi Arabia, rather than those of the in conflicts of law cases,  may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction
Philippines. It claims that the difficulty of ascertaining foreign law where it is not the most 'convenient' or available forum and the
calls into operation the principle of forum non conveniens , thereby parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere."
rendering improper the exercise of jurisdiction by Philippine
In Puyat v. Zabarte, this court recognized the following situations
tribunals.
that may warrant a court's desistance from exercising jurisdiction:

1. The belief that the matter can be better tried and decided
SC: A choice of law governing the validity of contracts or the elsewhere, either because the main aspects of the case
interpretation of its provisions does not necessarily imply forum transpired in a foreign jurisdiction or the material witnesses
non conveniens. Choice of law and forum non conveniens are have their residence there;
entirely different matters. 2. The belief that the non-resident plaintiff sought the forum[,]
a practice known as forum shopping[,] merely to secure
Choice of law provisions are an offshoot of the fundamental procedural advantages or to convey or harass the
principle of autonomy of contracts. Article 1306 of NCC: The defendant;
contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms 3. The unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to non
and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are residents or aliens when the docket may already be
not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public overcrowded;
policy. 4. The inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for
effectuating the right sought to be maintained; and
Likewise, contractual choice of law is not determinative of 5. The difficulty of ascertaining foreign law.
jurisdiction. Stipulating on the laws of a given jurisdiction as the
governing law of a contract does not preclude the exercise of
jurisdiction by tribunals elsewhere. The reverse is equally true: In Bank of America, NT&SA, Bank of America International, Ltd. v.
The assumption of jurisdiction by tribunals does not ipso Court of Appeals: Philippine court MAY properly assume
facto mean that it cannot apply and rule on the basis of the jurisdiction over a case if it chooses to do so to the extent:
parties' stipulation.
1. That the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may
Forum non conveniens, like the rules of forum shopping, litis conveniently resort to;
2. That the Philippine Court is in a position to make an
pendentia, and res judicata, is a means of addressing the problem
intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and
of parallel litigation. While the rules of forum shopping, litis
3. That the Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to
pendentia, and res judicata are designed to address the problem enforce its decision."
of parallel litigation within a single jurisdiction, forum non
conveniens is a means devised to address parallel litigation arising (The foregoing were satisfied in this case)
in multiple jurisdictions.
The use of the word "may" (i.e., " may refuse impositions on its
jurisdiction") in the decisions shows that the matter of jurisdiction
Forum non conveniens literally translates to "the forum is rests on the sound discretion of a court. Neither the mere
inconvenient." It is a concept in private international law and invocation of forum non conveniens nor the averment of foreign
was devised to combat the "less than honorable" reasons and elements operates to automatically divest a court of jurisdiction.
excuses that litigants use to secure procedural advantages, annoy Rather, a court should renounce jurisdiction only "after 'vital facts
and harass defendants, avoid overcrowded dockets, and select a are established, to determine whether special circumstances'
"friendlier" venue. Thus, the doctrine of forum non conveniens require the court's desistance." As the propriety of applying forum
addresses the same rationale that the rule against forum shopping non conveniens is contingent on a factual determination, it is,
does, albeit on a multijurisdictional scale. therefore, a matter of defense.

Forum non conveniens, like res judicata, is a concept originating in Moreover, Rule 9, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is
common law. However, unlike the rule on res judicata, as well as exclusive in its recital of the grounds for dismissal that are exempt
those on litis pendentia and forum shopping, forum non from the omnibus motion rule: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the
conveniens finds no textual anchor, whether in statute or in subject matter; (2) litis pendentia; (3) res judicata; and (4)
procedural rules, in our civil law system. Nevertheless, prescription. Also, it was ruled in Hasegawa case that forum non
jurisprudence has applied forum non conveniens as basis for a conveniens is not a ground for a motion to dismiss.
court to decline its exercise of jurisdiction.
Forum non conveniens must not only be clearly pleaded as a
ground for dismissal; it must be pleaded as such at the earliest
Forum non conveniens is also grounded on principles of comity possible opportunity. Otherwise, it shall be deemed waived. A
and judicial efficiency. Consistent with the principle of comity, a defendant must also plead and show that a prior suit has, in fact,
tribunal's desistance in exercising jurisdiction on account of forum been brought in another jurisdiction . On this, the moving party
non conveniens is a deferential gesture to the tribunals of another bears the burden of proof.
sovereign. Xxx Forum non conveniens entails a recognition not
only that tribunals elsewhere are better suited to rule on and
resolve a controversy, but also, that these tribunals are better Forum non conveniens finds no application and does not operate
35
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
to divest Philippine tribunals of jurisdiction and to require the
application of foreign law. Forum non conveniens relates to forum, So informed and animated, we emphasize the glaringly
not to the choice of governing law. That forum non conveniens discriminatory nature of Saudia's policy. Pregnancy is an
may ultimately result in the application of foreign law is merely an occurrence that pertains specifically to women. Rebesencio et.al
incident of its application. were dismissed because they became pregnant. Saudia's policy
excludes from and restricts employment on the basis of no other
consideration but sex.
In any case, even a further consideration of the applicability
of forum non conveniens on the incidental matter of the law
governing Rebesencio et.al’s relation with Saudia leads to the Pregnancy does present physical limitations that may render
conclusion that it is improper for Philippine tribunals to divest difficult the performance of functions associated with being a flight
themselves of jurisdiction. attendant. Nevertheless, it would be the height of iniquity to view
pregnancy as a disability so permanent and immutable that, it
must entail the termination of one's employment.
Any evaluation of the propriety of contracting parties' choice of a
forum and its incidents must grapple with two (2) considerations: Also, it is settled that contracts relating to labor and employment
first, the availability and adequacy of recourse to a foreign are impressed with public interest. Article 1700 of the Civil Code
tribunal; and second, the question of where, as between the provides that "[t]he relation between capital and labor are not
forum court and a foreign court, the balance of interests inhering merely contractual. They are so impressed with public interest that
in a dispute weighs more heavily. labor contracts must yield to the common good."

The first is a pragmatic matter. It relates to the viability of ceding In Pakistan International Airlines Corporation: the relationship is
jurisdiction to a foreign tribunal and can be resolved by much affected with public interest and that the otherwise
juxtaposing the competencies and practical circumstances of the applicable Philippine laws and regulations cannot be rendered
tribunals in alternative fora. Exigencies, like the statute of illusory by the parties agreeing upon some other law to govern
limitations, capacity to enforce orders and judgments, access to their relationship.
records, requirements for the acquisition of jurisdiction, and even
questions relating to the integrity of foreign courts, may render As the present dispute relates to (what the respondents allege to
undesirable or even totally unfeasible recourse to a foreign court. be) the illegal termination of respondents' employment, this case
is immutably a matter of public interest and public policy.
Two (2) factors weigh into a court's appraisal of the balance of Consistent with clear pronouncements in law and jurisprudence,
interests inhering in a dispute: first, the vinculum which the parties Philippine laws properly find application in and govern this case. It
and their relation have to a given jurisdiction; and second, the follows that Philippine tribunals may properly assume jurisdiction
public interest that must animate a tribunal, in its capacity as an over the present controversy.
agent of the sovereign, in choosing to assume or decline
Renunciation of Philippine jurisdiction was held improper
jurisdiction. The first is more concerned with the parties, their
in the ff. cases:
personal circumstances, and private interests; the second concerns
itself with the state and the greater social order. 1. One of the plaintiffs was a domestic corporation, that one of
the defendants was a Filipino, and that it was the
extinguishment of the latter's debt that was the object of the
While Philippine tribunal (acting as the forum court) is called upon transaction subject of the litigation.
to respect the parties' choice of governing law, such respect must 2. Petitioner was a foreign corporation licensed to do business
not be so permissive as to lose sight of considerations of law, in the Philippines.
morals, good customs, public order, or public policy that underlie 3. "It is more convenient to hear and decide the case in the
the contract central to the controversy. Philippines because Todaro resides in the Philippines and the
contract allegedly breached involve[d] employment in the
Article II, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution provides that "[t]he Philippines."
State ... shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of 4. The complainant in an illegal dismissal case was a Canadian
women and men." Contrasted with Article II, Section 1 of the 1987 citizen and a repatriate did not warrant the application
Constitution's statement that "[n]o person shall ... be denied the of forum non conveniens considering that: (1) the Labor
equal protection of the laws," Article II, Section 14 exhorts the Code does not include forum non conveniens as a ground for
State to "ensure." xxx It imposes an obligation to actively the dismissal of a complaint for illegal dismissal; (2) the
engage in securing the fundamental equality of men and women. propriety of dismissing a case based on forum non
conveniens requires a factual determination; and (3) the
requisites for assumption of jurisdiction as laid out in Bank
The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination
of America, NT&SA were all satisfied.
against Women (CEDAW) gives effect to the Constitution's policy
statement in Article II, Section 14. Article I of the CEDAW defines
"discrimination against women" as: Renunciation of jurisdiction proper: In The Manila Hotel
any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission , the main aspects of
which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the the case transpired in two (2) foreign jurisdictions, Oman and
recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their China, and that the case involved purely foreign elements.
marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of Specifically, Santos was directly hired by a foreign employer
human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, through correspondence sent to Oman. Also, the proper
social, cultural, civil or any other field.
36
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
defendants were neither Philippine nationals nor engaged in ALLISON G. GIBBS VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
business in the Philippines, while the main witnesses were not PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
residents of the Philippines. (G.R. No. L-35694; December 23, 1933)

Contrary to Manila Hotel, the case now before us does not entail a FACTS: Eva Johnson Gibbs died intestate in California and at the
preponderance of linkages that favor a foreign jurisdiction. time of her death, she and her husband Allison Gibbs
(Gibbs),were citizens of California and domiciled therein. Gibbs
 First, there is no basis for concluding that the case can be filed a petition with the trial court for him to be issued a transfer
more conveniently tried elsewhere. As established earlier, certificate of title over 3 parcels of land formerly belonging to the
Saudia is doing business in the Philippines. For their part, conjugal partnership of Allison Gibbs and Eva Gibbs.
all four (4) respondents are Filipino citizens maintaining
residence in the Philippines and, apart from their previous The CFI of Manila issued a final order requiring the register of
employment with Saudia, have no other connection to the deeds of the Manila to cancel the certificates of title covering the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It would even be to respondents' parcels of lands located in the City of Manila, and issue in lieu
inconvenience if this case were to be tried elsewhere. thereof new certificates of titles in favour of Gibbs.
 Second, the records are bereft of any indication that
Rebesencio et.al filed their Complaint in an effort to engage The register of deeds of the City of Manila, declined to accept
in forum shopping or to vex and inconvenience Saudia. as binding the said decree of court, and refused to register the
 Third, there is no indication of "unwillingness to extend transfer of title of the said conjugal property to Gibbs, on the
local judicial facilities to non-residents or aliens." That ground that the corresponding inheritance tax had not been paid.
Saudia has managed to bring the present controversy all
the way to this court proves this. The trial court ruled in favor of Gibbs, thus this appeal. The
 Fourth, it cannot be said that the local judicial machinery is trial court found that under the law of California, upon the death
inadequate for effectuating the right sought to be of the wife, the entire community property without administration
maintained. Summons was properly served on Saudia and
belongs to the surviving husband; that he is the absolute owner of
jurisdiction over its person was validly acquired.
all the community property from the moment of the death of his
 Lastly, there is not even room for considering foreign law.
wife, not by virtue of succession, but by virtue of the fact that
Philippine law properly governs the present dispute.
when the death of the wife precedes that of the husband he
Even if we were to assume, for the sake of discussion, that it is acquires the community property, not as an heir or as the
the laws of Saudi Arabia which should apply, it does not follow beneficiary of his deceased wife, but because she never had more
that Philippine tribunals should refrain from exercising jurisdiction. than an inchoate interest which is extinguished upon her death.
(So if California law were to govern, as Gibbs insists, there will be
It is not so much the mere applicability of foreign law which calls no need for him to pay inheritance tax).
into operation forum non conveniens, rather, what justifies a
court's desistance from exercising jurisdiction is "[t]he difficulty of Gibbs’ contention: That the law of California should determine
ascertaining foreign law" or the inability of a "Philippine Court to the nature and extent of the title, if any, that vested in Eva
make an intelligent decision as to the law[.]" [97] Johnson Gibbs under the three certificates of title, citing article 9
of the Civil Code. But that, even if the nature and extent of her
title under said certificates be governed by the law of the
Philippine tribunals may apply the foreign law selected by the Philippine Islands, the laws of California govern the succession to
parties. In fact, in this case, Rebesencio et.al themselves have such title, citing the second paragraph of article 10 of the Civil
made averments in their comment as to the laws of Saudi Arabia Code.
that the law in Saudi Arabia is even more harsh and strict [sic] in a. Article 9 of the Civil Code:
that no employer can terminate the employment of a female
worker or give her a warning of the same while on Maternity “The laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the
Leave. status, condition, and legal capacity of persons, are
binding upon Spaniards even though they reside in a
There is no compelling basis for ceding jurisdiction to a foreign foreign country.”
tribunal. Quite the contrary, the immense public policy
considerations attendant to this case behoove Philippine tribunals Gibbs argued that the conjugal right of the California wife in
to not shy away from their duty to rule on the case. community real estate in the Philippine Islands is a personal right
and must, therefore, be settled by the law governing her personal
As to WON they were illegally dismissed: YES. (Di na nako status, that is, the law of California.
ibutang, ngano, taas na kaayo, di na related sa conflict)
Government’s contention: Article 9 of the Civil Code relied
upon by Gibbs treats of purely personal relations and status
CONTINENTAL MICRONISA VS BASSO 2015 (SUPRA) and capacity for juristic acts. Furthermore, article 9, by its very
terms, is applicable only to "Spaniards" (now, by construction, to
citizens of the Philippine Islands). The rules relating to property,
12) CHOICE OF LAW; CHOICE OF LAW PRINCIPLES; both personal and real, are governed not by Article 9 but by article
NATURE AND CHARACTERISTIZATION 10 of the Civil Code.

The second paragraph Article 10 of the Civil Code provides:

37
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
“Nevertheless, legal and testamentary successions, in accordance with lex rae sitae (law where the property is
respect to the order of succession as well as to the situated). It is admitted that the Philippine lands here in question
amount of the successional rights and the intrinsic were acquired as community property of the conjugal partnership
validity of their provisions, shall be regulated by the of the appellee Gibbs and his wife.
national law of the person whose succession is in
question, whatever may be the nature of the property Under the law of the Philippine Islands, she was vested of a title
or the country in which it may be situated.” equal to that of her husband. It results that the wife of Gibbs
was, by the law of the Philippine Islands, vested of a
The second paragraph of article 10 applies when a legal or descendible interest, equal to that of her husband, in the
testamentary succession has taken place in the Philippines and in Philippine lands covered by certificates of title Nos. 20880, 28336
accordance with the law of the Philippine Islands; and the and 28331, from the date of their acquisition to the date of her
foreign law is consulted only in regard to the order of death.
succession or the extent of the successional rights; in other words,
the second paragraph of article 10 can be invoked only when the The descendible interest of Eva Johnson Gibbs in the lands
deceased was vested with a descendible interest in property within aforesaid was transmitted to her heirs by virtue of inheritance and
the jurisdiction of the Philippine Islands. this transmission plainly falls within the language of section 1536
of Article XI of Chapter 40 of the Administrative Code which levies
1stISSUE: WON the Government of the Philippines (at the time, a tax on inheritances.
was still a colony of the United States) can apply conflict of law
rules. The judgment of the trial court is reversed with directions to
dismiss the petition.
2nd ISSUE (more important): WON Californian or Philippine Law
should apply to the case at bar. (WON Eva Johnson Gibbs at the
time of her death is the owner of a descendible interest in the
Philippine lands.)

RULING ON 1ST ISSUE:

Yes, The Philippines can apply conflict of law rules.

The Organic Act of the Philippine Islands (Act of Congress, August

29, 1916, known as the "Jones Law") as regards the determination
of private rights, grants practical autonomy to the Government of
the Philippine Islands. This Government, therefore, may apply the
principles and rules of private international law (conflicts of laws)
on the same footing as an organized territory or state of the
United States.

RULING ON 2nd ISSUE:

Philippine law applies, Eva Johnson Gibbs at the time of her death
is the owner of a descendible interest in the Philippine lands.
(Thus, inheritance taxes must be paid).

In the case of Clarke vs. Clarke (178 US 186, 191), the court said:
It is principle firmly established that to the law of the state in
which the land is situated we must look for the rules which
govern its descent, alienation, and transfer, and for the effect and
construction of wills and other conveyances.

This fundamental principle is stated in the first paragraph of article

10 of our Civil Code as follows: "Personal property is subject to the
laws of the nation of the owner thereof; real property to the
laws of the country in which it is situated.”

It is stated in 5 Cal. Jur., 478: In accord with the rule that real
property is subject to the lex rei sitae, the respective rights of
husband and wife in such property, in the absence of an
antenuptial contract, are determined by the law of the place
where the property is situated, irrespective of the domicile
of the parties or to the place where the marriage was
celebrated.

Under this broad principle, the nature and extent of the title which
vested in Mrs. Gibbs at the time of the acquisition of the
community lands here in question must be determined in

38
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
CADALIN VS POEA As a GENERAL RULE, a foreign procedural law will not be applied
(G.R. No. L-104776; December 5, 1994) in the forum. Procedural matters, such as service of process,
joinder of actions, period and requisites for appeal, and so forth,
FACTS: Cadalin et al. are Filipino workers recruited by Asia Int’l are governed by the laws of the forum. This is true even if the
Builders Co. (AIBC), a domestic recruitment corporation, for action is based upon a foreign substantive law.
employment in Bahrain to work for Brown & Root Int’l Inc. (BRII)
which is a foreign corporation with headquarters in Houston,
Texas. 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
Cadalin et al. instituted a class suit with the POEA for money substantive, depending on the characterization given such a law.
claims arising from the unexpired portion of their employment
contract which was prematurely terminated. They worked Thus in Bournias v. Atlantic Maritime Company, supra,  the
in Bahrain for BRII and they filed the suit after 1 yr. from the American court applied the statute of limitations of New York,
termination of their employment contract. instead of the Panamanian law, after finding that there was no
showing that the Panamanian law on prescription was intended to
AIBC and BRII, insists that the actions have prescribed under the be substantive. Being considered merely a procedural law even in
Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 (foreign law of Bahrain), arguing that Panama, it has to give way to the law of the forum on prescription
there is in force in the Philippines a "borrowing law," which is of actions.
Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Philippine law) and that
where such kind of law exists, it takes precedence over the
However, the characterization of a statute into a
common-law conflicts rule.
procedural or substantive law becomes irrelevant when
the country of the forum has a "borrowing statute." Said
Article 156 of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976
statute has the practical effect of treating the foreign statute of
provides:
limitation as one of substance. A "borrowing statute" directs the
A claim arising out of a contract of employment shall not
state of the forum to apply the foreign statute of limitations to the
be actionable after the lapse of one year from the date
pending claims based on a foreign law.
of the expiry of the contract. 

Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: While there are several kinds of "borrowing statutes," one
If by the laws of the state or country where the cause of form provides that an action barred by the laws of the
action arose, the action is barred, it is also barred in the place where it accrued, will not be enforced in the forum
Philippine Islands. even though the local statute has not run against it.
Section 48 of our Code of Civil Procedure is of this kind. Said
For Cadalin et al. and POEA, the prescriptive period was 10 years, Section provides:
applying Article 1144 of the Civil Code of the Philippines since this
is a money claim arising from contract. For POEA, the respondents If by the laws of the state or country
violated the provisions of the Amiri Decree No. 23 issued in where the cause of action arose, the
Bahrain, which ipso facto amended the worker’s contracts of action is barred, it is also barred in the
employment. Philippines Islands.

NLRC, however, believes that the prescriptive period should be 3

Section 48 has not been repealed or amended by the Civil Code of
years as provided in Article 291 of the Labor Code of the
Philippines since this is a money claim arising from employer- the Philippines. Article 2270 of said Code repealed only those
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedures as to which were
employee relations. It disagreed with POEA’s stance that Article
291 of the Labor Code applies only to money claims specifically inconsistent with it. There is no provision in the Civil Code of the
Philippines, which is inconsistent with or contradictory to Section
recoverable under the Philippine Labor Code since the provision
itself does not give such indication. Moreover, Cadalin et al.’s 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
claims arose from the benefits of the law of the country where
they worked; thus it cannot be said that the cause of action In the light of the 1987 Constitution, however, Section 48
accrued from a violation of their employment contracts. cannot be enforced ex proprio vigore  insofar as it ordains the
application in this jurisdiction of Section 156 of the Amiri Decree
The Solicitor General’s personal view is that the prescriptive period No. 23 of 1976.
was 1 year as prescribed by the Amiri Decree, but he deferred to
the ruling of the NLRC that Article 291 of the Labor Code was The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim
operative. obnoxious to the forum's public policy (Canadian Northern Railway
Co. v. Eggen, 252 U.S. 553, 40 S. Ct. 402, 64 L. ed. 713 [1920]).
ISSUE: What is the applicable prescriptive period for the filing of To enforce the one-year prescriptive period of the Amiri Decree
the claims in the instant case? No. 23 of 1976 as regards the claims in question would contravene
- 3 years, as provided in Article 291 of the Labor Code of the public policy on the protection to labor.
the Philippines;
-10 years as provided in Article 1144 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines; or BANK OF AMERICA, NT and SA,  vs. AMERICAN REALTY
-1 year as provided in the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 CORPORATION
[G.R. No. 133876. December 29, 1999]
RULING: The 3-year prescriptive period of Article 291 of the
Labor Code of the Philippines is applicable since the claim arose
from labor employment.
FACTS:

39
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
 Bank of America NT & SA (BANTSA) is an international (1) a waiver of the remedy of foreclosure requires the
banking and financing institution duly licensed to do business concurrence of two requisites: an ordinary civil action for
in the Philippines, organized and existing under and by virtue collection should be filed and subsequently a final
of the laws of the State of California, USA while judgment be correspondingly rendered therein.
 American Realty Corporation (ARC) is a domestic corporation. Furthermore, the mere filing of a personal action to
 Bank of America International Limited (BAIL), on the other collect the principal loan does not suffice; a final
hand, is a limited liability company organized and existing judgment must be secured and obtained in the personal
under the laws of England. action so that waiver of the remedy of foreclosure may
be appreciated. To put it differently, absent any of the
BANTSA and BAIL on several occasions granted three major two requisites, the mortgagee-creditor is deemed not to
multi-million (US) Dollar loans to corporate borrowers:  have waived the remedy of foreclosure.
(1) Liberian Transport Navigation, S.A.;
(2) Under English Law, which according to BANTSA is the
(2) El Challenger S.A. and
governing law with regard to the principal agreements,
(3) Eshley Compania Naviera S.A. (hereinafter collectively
the mortgagee does not lose its security interest by
referred to as borrowers), all of which are existing
simply filing civil actions for sums of money
under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of
Panama and are foreign affiliates of ARC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners act of filing a collection suit
Due to the default in the payment of the loan amortizations, against the principal debtors for the recovery of the loan before
BANTSA and the corporate borrowers signed and entered into foreign courts constituted a waiver of the remedy of foreclosure.
restructuring agreements. As additional security for the
restructured loans, ARC as 3rd party mortgagor executed two real RULING: Yes.
estate mortgages (REMs)  over its parcels of land including
improvements thereon, located in Philippines. THE FILING OF A COLLECTION SUIT BARRED THE
FORECLOSURE OF THE MORTGAGE.
Eventually, the corporate borrowers defaulted in the
payment of the restructured loans prompting BANTSA to file civil In our jurisdiction, the remedies available to the mortgage creditor
actionshttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/13387 are deemed alternative and not cumulative.  BANTSA may opt to
6.htm - _edn5 before foreign courts for the collection of the exercise only one of two remedies so as not to violate the rule
principal loan in England and in Hongkong. In these cases against splitting a cause of action. In the instant case, petitioners
instituted before the foreign courts against the borrowers, ARC, contention that the requisites of filing the action for collection and
being a third party mortgagor, was not impleaded as party- rendition of final judgment therein should concur, is untenable.
defendant.
By the mere filing of the ordinary action for collection against the
Subsequently, BANTSA filed before the Office of the
principal debtors, the petitioner in the present case is deemed to
Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan, Philippines, an application for
have elected a remedy, as a result of which a waiver of the other
extrajudicial foreclosure the REM. The properties were then sold at
necessarily must arise.  Corollarily, no final judgment in the
public auction in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale.
collection suit is required for the rule on waiver to apply.
Thereafter, ARC filed an action for damages against BANTSA,
for its foreclosure of the properties despite the pendency of civil In this case, BANTSA necessarily abandoned the remedy to
suits before foreign courts for the collection of the principal loan. foreclose the real estate mortgages constituted over the properties
of third-party mortgagor ARC by the expediency of filing four civil
For its part, BANTSA alleged that the rule prohibiting the suits before foreign courts,. Moreover, by filing the four civil
mortgagee from foreclosing the mortgage after an ordinary suit for actions and by eventually foreclosing extrajudicially the
collection has been filed, is not applicable in the present case, mortgages, it in effect transgressed the rules against
claiming that: splitting a cause of action well-enshrined in jurisprudence and
our statute books. Hence, a suit brought before a foreign
 There is actually no civil suit for sum of money filed in the court having competence and jurisdiction to entertain the
Philippines since the civil actions were filed in Hongkong and action is deemed, for this purpose, to be within the
England. As such, any decisions (sic) which may be rendered contemplation of the remedy available to the mortgagee-
in the abovementioned courts are not (sic) enforceable in the creditor. 
Philippines unless a separate action to enforce the foreign
judgments is first filed in the Philippines, pursuant to Rule 39, CHOICE OF LAW
Section 50 of the Revised Rules of Court.
 Under English Law, which is the governing law under the Incidentally, BANTSA alleges that under English Law, which
principal agreements, the mortgagee does not lose its according to petitioner is the governing law with regard to the
security interest by filing civil actions for sums of money. principal agreements, the mortgagee does not lose its security
interest by simply filing civil actions for sums of money.
RTC: The filing in foreign courts by the defendant of collection
suits against the principal debtors operated as a waiver of the In the case at bench, Philippine law shall apply notwithstanding
security of the mortgages. Consequently, the ARC’s rights as the evidence presented by petitioner to prove the English law on
owner and possessor of the properties were violated when the the matter. In a long line of decisions, this Court adopted the well-
defendant caused the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgages imbedded principle in our jurisdiction that there is no judicial
constituted thereon. CA reversed, hence the petition before SC. notice of any foreign law. A foreign law must be properly pleaded
and proved as a fact. Thus, if the foreign law involved is not
properly pleaded and proved, our courts will presume that the
BANTSA submits that foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or internal

40
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
law. This is what we refer to as the doctrine of processual On May 28, 1999, MARCELO informed MMG, through the LWV,
presumption. that he needs to extend his vacation because his son was
hospitalized. In reply, MMG informed MARCELO that his services
In the instant case, assuming arguendo that the English Law on are still needed; that he was issued a plane ticket for his return
the matter were properly pleaded and proved in accordance with flight to Saudi Arabia on May 31, 1999; and that his decision
Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court and the jurisprudence regarding his employment must be made within seven days,
laid down in Yao Kee, et al. vs. Sy-Gonzales ,said foreign law otherwise, MMG will be compelled to cancel [his] slot.
would still not find applicability. Thus, when the foreign law,
judgment or contract is contrary to a sound and established public On July 6, 1999, MARCELO resigned. In his letter to MMG, he also
policy of the forum, the said foreign law, judgment or order shall claimed for a long service award.
not be applied.
When he followed up his claim LWV informed him that MMG did
Additionally, prohibitive laws concerning persons, not respond.
their acts or property, and those which have for their
object public order, public policy and good customs shall On December 11, 2000, MARCELO filed a complaint for payment of
not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments service award against LWV before the National Labor Relations
promulgated, or by determinations or conventions Commission (NLRC), Regional Arbitration Branch, Cordillera
agreed upon in a foreign country. Administrative Region, Baguio City.

The public policy sought to be protected in the instant case is MARCELO’s CLAIM: Under the Law of Saudi Arabia, an
the principle imbedded in our jurisdiction proscribing the splitting employee who rendered at least five (5) years in a company within
up of a single cause of action. the jurisdiction of Saudi Arabia, is entitled to the so-called long
service award which is known to others as longevity pay of at least
Section 4, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is pertinent - one half month pay for every year of service. In excess of five
If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the years an employee is entitled to one month pay for every year of
same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment service. In both cases inclusive of all benefits and allowances.
upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for
the dismissal of the others. This benefit was offered to him before he went on vacation,
hence, this was engrained in his mind. He reconstructed the
Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when its application computation of his long service award or longevity pay and he
would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the arrived at the following computation exactly the same with the
forum. To give justice is the most important function of amount he was previously offered [which is US$12,640.33].
law; hence, a law, or judgment or contract that is obviously unjust MARCELO said that he did not grab the offer for he intended to
negates the fundamental principles of Conflict of return after his vacation.
Laws.http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/133876.
htm - _edn35 LWS’s DEFENSE: For its part, LWV offered payment and
prescription as defenses. LWV maintained that MMG pays its
Clearly then, English Law is not applicable. workers their Service Award or Severance Pay every conclusion of
their Labor Contracts pursuant to Article 87 of the [Saudi Labor
Law]. Under Article 87, payment of the award is at the end or
SAUDI ARABIA AIRLINES VS CA 1998 (SUPRA) termination of the Labor Contract concluded for a specific period.
Based on the payroll, MARCELO was already paid his service award
or severance pay for his latest (sixth) employment contract.

LWV CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION vs. MARCELO B. LWV added that under Article 13 of the Saudi Labor Law, the
DUPO, action to enforce payment of the service award must be filed
(G.R. No. 172342 July 13, 2009) within one year from the termination of a labor contract for a
specific period. MARCELO’s sixth contract ended when he left
Saudi Arabia on April 30, 1999. LWV concluded that the one-year
DOCTRINE: The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign prescriptive period had lapsed because MARCELO filed his
claim obnoxious to the forums public policy. To enforce the one- complaint on December 11, 2000 or one year and seven months
year prescriptive period of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 as after his sixth contract ended.
regards the claims in question would contravene the public policy
on the protection to labor. LABOR ARBITER (NOT IMPORTANT, JUST IN CASE ASKED BY
ATTY.):
FACTS: LWV CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (LWV for brevity), a
domestic corporation which recruits Filipino workers, hired The Labor Arbiter ordered LWV to pay MARCELO longevity pay of
MARCELO B. DUPO (MARCELO) as Civil Structural Superintendent to US$12,640.33 or P648,562.69 and attorneys fees of P64,856.27 or
work in Saudi Arabia for its principal, Mohammad Al-Mojil a total of P713,418.96.
Group/Establishment (MMG). MARCELO signed his first overseas
employment contract, renewable after one year. It was renewed five MARCELO’s seven-year employment with MMG had sufficiently
times. All were fixed-period contracts for one year. oriented him on the benefits given to workers; that LWV was
unable to convincingly refute MARCELO’s claim that MMG offered
The sixth and last contract stated that MARCELO’s employment him longevity pay before he went on vacation on May 1, 1999;
starts upon reporting to work and ends when he leaves the work and that MARCELO’s claim was not barred by prescription since his
site. MARCELO left Saudi Arabia on April 30, 1999 and arrived in the claim on July 6, 1999, made a month after his cause of action
Philippines on May 1, 1999. accrued, interrupted the prescriptive period under the Saudi Labor
Law until his claim was categorically denied.
41
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
additional nine days of service he rendered after one year.
NLRC (NOT IMPORTANT, JUST IN CASE ASKED BY ATTY.): NLRC MARCELO’s employment contracts expressly stated that his
dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Labor Arbiters decision. The employment ended upon his departure from work. Each year he
NLRC ruled that MARCELO is entitled to longevity pay which is departed from work and successively new contracts were executed
different from severance pay. before he reported for work anew. We also said in that case that
under American law, [w]here a contract specifies the period of its
COURT OF APPEALS (NOT IMPORTANT, JUST IN CASE ASKED duration, it terminates on the expiration of such period. A contract
BY ATTY.): The Court of Appeals denied the petition and affirmed of employment for a definite period terminates by its own terms at
the NLRC. The Court of Appeals ruled that service award is the the end of such period. As it is, Article 72 of the Saudi Labor Law
same as longevity pay, and that the severance pay received by is also of similar import. It reads:
MARCELO cannot be equated with service award. The dispositive
portion of the Court of Appeals decision reads: A labor contract concluded for a specified period shall
terminate upon the expiry of its term. If both parties
ISSUES: Whether MARCELO is entitled to a service award or continue to enforce the contract, thereafter, it shall be
longevity pay under the provisions of the Saudi Labor Law. NO, IT considered renewed for an unspecified period.
WAS ALREADY PAID
Regarding MARCELO’s claim that he was offered US$12,640.33 as
Related to this issue are LWV’s defenses of payment and longevity pay before he returned to the Philippines on May 1,
prescription. THERE IS NO PRESCRIPTION 1999, we find that he was not candid on this particular point. His
categorical assertion about the offer being engrained in his mind
The issue related to conflict of laws is PRESCRIPTION. such that he reconstructed the computation and arrived at the
Skip discussion on Payment at your own risk. computation exactly the same with the amount he was previously
offered is not only beyond belief. Such assertion is also a stark
RULING: ON THE MATTER OF PAYMENT (NOT IMPORTANT departure from his July 6, 1999 letter to MMG where he could only
JUST IN CASE ASKED BY ATTY.): We find that MARCELO’s service express his hope that he was entitled to a long service award and
award under Article 87 of the Saudi Labor Law has already been where he never mentioned the supposed previous offer. Moreover,
paid. Our computation will show that the severance pay received MARCELO’s claim that his monthly compensation is SR10,248.92 is
by MARCELO was his service award. belied by the payroll which shows that he receives SR5,438 per
month.
Article 87 clearly grants a service award. It reads:
We therefore emphasize that such payroll should have prompted
Article 87 Where the term of a labor contract concluded the lower tribunals to examine closely MARCELO’s computation of
for a specified period comes to an end or where the his supposed longevity pay before adopting that computation as
employer cancels a contract of unspecified period, the their own.
employer shall pay to the workman an award for the
period of his service to be computed on the basis of half ON THE MATTER OF PRESCRIPTION (VERY IMPORTANT TO
a month’s pay for each of the first five years and one CONFLICT OF LAWS): We cannot agree with LWV that
month’s pay for each of the subsequent years. The last MARCELO’s action has prescribed under Article 13 of the Saudi
rate of pay shall be taken as basis for the computation of Labor Law. What applies is Article 291 of our Labor Code which
the award. For fractions of a year, the workman shall be reads:
entitled to an award which is proportionate to his service
period during that year. Furthermore, the workman shall ART. 291. Money claims. All money claims arising from
be entitled to the service award provided for at the employer-employee relations accruing during the
beginning of this article in the following cases: effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three (3)
A. If he is called to military service. years from the time the cause of action accrued;
B. If a workman resigns because of marriage or otherwise they shall be forever barred.
childbirth.
C. If the workman is leaving the work as a result of a In Cadalin v. POEAs Administrator , we held that Article 291 covers
force majeure beyond his control. all money claims from employer-employee relationship and is
broader in scope than claims arising from a specific law. It is not
MARCELO, however, has called the benefit other names such as limited to money claims recoverable under the Labor Code, but
long service award and longevity pay. applies also to claims of overseas contract workers. The following
MARCELO’s position paper mentioned how his long service award ruling in Cadalin v. POEAs Administrator is instructive:
or longevity pay is computed: half-months pay per year of service
and one-months pay per year after five years of service. Article 87 First to be determined is whether it is the Bahrain law on
has the same formula to compute the service award. prescription of action based on the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 or
a Philippine law on prescription that shall be the governing law.
The payroll submitted by LWV showed that MARCELO received
severance pay of SR2,786 for his sixth employment contract covering As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be applied in
the period April 21, 1998 to April 29, 1999. The computation below the forum. Procedural matters, such as service of process, joinder
shows that MARCELO’s severance pay of SR2,786 was his service award of actions, period and requisites for appeal, and so forth, are
under Article 87. governed by the laws of the forum. This is true even if the action
is based upon a foreign substantive law (Restatement of the
Service Award = (SR5,438) + (9 days/365 days) x (SR5,438) Conflict of Laws, Sec. 685; Salonga, Private International Law, 131
Service Award = SR2,786.04 [1979]).

MARCELO’s service award for the sixth contract is equivalent only

to half-months pay plus the proportionate amount for the
42
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict of Laws in that there is lack of jurisdiction on the part of RTC because the
the sense that it may be viewed either as procedural or Illinois courts retained the jurisdiction to enforce the divorce
substantive, depending on the characterization given such a law. decree.

However, the characterization of a statute into a procedural or ISSUE:

substantive law becomes irrelevant when the country of the forum
has a borrowing statute. Said statute has the practical effect of WON the RTC has jurisdiction to take cognizance of HERALD’s suit
treating the foreign statute of limitation as one of substance and enforce the Agreement on the joint custody of the parties
(Goodrich, Conflict of Laws, 152-153 [1938]). A borrowing statute child.
directs the state of the forum to apply the foreign statute of
limitations to the pending claims based on a foreign law (Siegel, HELD:
Conflicts, 183 [1975]). While there are several kinds of borrowing
statutes, one form provides that an action barred by the laws of The RTC has jurisdiction to entertain HERALD’s suit but not to
the place where it accrued, will not be enforced in the forum even enforce the Agreement which is void.
though the local statute has not run against it (Goodrich and
Scoles, Conflict of Laws, 152-153 [1938]). Section 48 of our Code RTC VESTED WITH JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE
of Civil Procedure is of this kind. Said Section provides: CONTRACTS
At the time HERALD filed his suit in the trial court, statutory law
If by the laws of the state or country where the cause of action vests on RTC exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions
arose, the action is barred, it is also barred in the Philippine incapable of pecuniary estimation including the action for specific
Islands. performance, such a suit to enforce the Agreement on joint child
custody.
Section 48 has not been repealed or amended by the Civil Code of
the Philippines. Article 2270 of said Code repealed only those Indeed, Illinois court retained jurisdiction for the purpose
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as to which were of enforcing all and sundry the various provisions of [its]
inconsistent with it. There is no provision in the Civil Code of the Judgment for Dissolution. However, HERALD’s suit seeks the
Philippines, which is inconsistent with or contradictory to Section enforcement not of the various provisions of the divorce decree
48 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Paras, Philippine Conflict of but of the post-divorce Agreement on joint child custody. Thus,
Laws, 104 [7th ed.]). the action lies beyond the zone of the Illinois courts so-called
retained jurisdiction.
In the light of the 1987 Constitution, however, Section 48 [of the
Code of Civil Procedure] cannot be enforced ex propriovigore (by HERALD’S SUIT LACKS CAUSE OF ACTION
their or Its own force.) insofar as it ordains the application in this In this jurisdiction, parties to a contract are free to stipulate the
jurisdiction of [Article] 156 of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976. terms of agreement subject to the minimum ban on stipulations
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public
The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim policy. Otherwise, the contract is denied legal existence, deemed
obnoxious to the forums public policy x xx. To enforce the inexistent and void from the beginning. For lack of relevant
one-year prescriptive period of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of stipulation in the Agreement, these and other ancillary Philippine
1976 as regards the claims in question would contravene substantive law serve as default parameters to test the validity of
the public policy on the protection to labor. the Agreements joint child custody stipulations.
THE AGREEMENT IS VOID AB INITIO FOR BEING
x xxx CONTRARY TO LAW. Under the Philippine law on child custody
Thus, in our considered view, MARCELO’s complaint was filed well for spouses separated in fact or in law, no child under seven years
within the three-year prescriptive period under Article 291 of our of age shall be separated from the mother (Article 213 Par 2 of the
Labor Code. This point, however, has already been mooted by our FC). Clearly then, the Agreements object to establish a post-
finding that MARCELO’s service award had been paid, albeit the divorce joint custody regime between HERALD and SHARON over
payroll termed such payment as severance pay. their child under seven years old contravenes Philippine law.

The Agreement would be valid if the spouses have not divorced or

DACASIN vs. DACASIN separated because the law provides for joint parental authority
(G.R. No. 168785, February 5, 2010) when spouses live together. For a child within this age bracket
(and for commonsensical reasons), the law decides for the
FACTS: HERALD, an American, was married to SHARON, a separated or divorced parents how best to take care of the child
Filipino, in Manila. They have one daughter named Stephanie. and that is to give custody to the separated mother. 
SHARON was able to acquire from the Illinois court a divorce
decree against HERALD and awarded sole custody of Stephanie It will not do to argue that the second paragraph of Article 213 of
and retained jurisdiction over the case for enforcement purposes. the Family Code applies only to judicial custodial agreements
based on its text that No child under seven years of age shall be
Subsequently, both executed an agreement for the joint custody separated from the mother, unless the court finds compelling
of Stephanie in Manila and chose Philippine courts as exclusive reasons to order otherwise. To limit this provisions enforceability
forum to adjudicate disputes arising from the Agreement. She also to court sanctioned agreements while placing private agreements
undertook to obtain from the Illinois court an order relinquishing beyond its reach is to sanction a double standard in custody
jurisdiction to Philippine courts. regulation of children under seven years old of separated parents.

In 2002, HERALD sued SHARON in the RTC of Makati for the Further, the imposed custodial regime under the second paragraph
enforcement of the agreement as SHARON allegedly violated the of Article 213 is limited in duration, lasting only until the child’s
agreement when the latter exercised sole custody of the child. seventh year. From the eighth year until the child’s emancipation,
SHARON however sought the dismissal of the complaint averring the law gives the separated parents freedom, subject to the usual
43
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
contractual limitations, to agree on custody regimes they see fit to
adopt.
FACTS: Petitioner EDI is a corporation engaged in recruitment
Lastly, even supposing that the spouses are not barred from and placement of OFWs. It recruited private respondent Gran,
entering into the Agreement for the joint custody of Stephanie, whose documentation and deployment was processed by ESI.
SHARON repudiated the Agreement by asserting sole custody over Gran was assigned to work for OAB in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi
Stephanie. Her act effectively brought the parties back to ambit of Arabia as "Computer Specialist." After accepting OAB's offer of
the default custodial regime in the second paragraph of Article 213 employment, Gran signed an employment contract that granted
of the Family Code vesting on respondent sole custody of him a monthly salary of USD 850 for a period of two years.
Stephanie.
After Gran had been working for about five months for OAB, his
SHARON cannot rely on the divorce decrees alleged invalidity - not employment was terminated through OAB's letter on the following
because the Illinois court lacked jurisdiction or that the divorce grounds:
decree violated Illinois law, but because the divorce was obtained
by his Filipino spouse - to support the Agreements enforceability. 1. Non-compliance to contract requirements by the
An alien spouse of a Filipino is bound by a divorce decree obtained recruitment agency primarily on your salary and contract
abroad. There, we dismissed the alien divorcees Philippine suit for duration.
accounting of alleged post-divorce conjugal property and rejected 2. Non-compliance to pre-qualification requirements by the
his submission that the foreign divorce (obtained by the Filipino recruitment agency;
spouse) is not valid in this jurisdiction  in this wise: 3. Insubordination or disobedience to Top Management
  Order and/or instructions (non-submittal of daily activity
There can be no question as to the validity of that reports despite several instructions);
Nevada divorce in any of the States of the United
States. The decree is binding on private respondent as Gran received from OAB the total amount of SR 2,948.00
an American citizen. For instance, private respondent representing his final pay, and on the same day, he executed a
cannot sue petitioner, as her husband, in any State of the Declaration releasing OAB from any financial obligation or
Union. What he is contending in this case is that the
otherwise, towards him. However, after his arrival in the
divorce is not valid and binding in this jurisdiction, the
Philippines, Gran instituted a complaint against ESI/EDI, OAB,
same being contrary to local law and public policy.
  Country Bankers Insurance Corporation, and Western Guaranty
It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Corporation with the NLRC of Quezon City for underpayment of
Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are wages/salaries and illegal dismissal.
covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same
being considered contrary to our concept of public policy and The Labor Arbiter ruled that Gran failed to refute EDI's allegations.
morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, It decided that Gran was validly dismissed from his work due to
which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided insubordination, disobedience, and his failure to submit daily
they are valid according to their national law. In this activity reports.
case, the divorce in Nevada released private
respondent from the marriage from the standards of The NLRC reversed the decision and held that Gran did not commit
American law, under which divorce dissolves the any act that constituted a legal ground for dismissal. The alleged
marriage. x x x x non-compliance with contractual stipulations relating to Gran's
  salary and contract duration, and the absence of pre-qualification
Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no requirements cannot be attributed to Gran but to EDI, which dealt
longer the husband of petitioner. He would have no standing directly with OAB. In addition, the charge of insubordination was
to sue in the case below as petitioners husband entitled to not substantiated, and Gran was not even afforded the required
exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the notice and investigation on his alleged offenses.
Decision of his own country’s Court, which validly exercised
jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not Gran then filed a Motion for Execution of Judgment with the NLRC
repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation before and petitioner receiving a copy of this motion on the same date.
said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal EDI filed an Opposition thereto arguing that the Writ of Execution
property. cannot issue because it was not notified of the appellate
proceedings before the NLRC and was not given a copy of the
memorandum of appeal nor any opportunity to participate in the
Thus, it should be clear by now that a foreign divorce decree
appeal.
carries as much validity against the alien divorcee in this
jurisdiction as it does in the jurisdiction of the alien’s
EDI further claims that Gran was validly dismissed for just cause,
nationality, irrespective of who obtained the divorce.
due to incompetence and insubordination or disobedience. To
 
The foreign divorce decree carries as much validity against prove its allegations, EDI submitted two letters as evidence, the
the alien divorcee in this jurisdiction as it does in the jurisdiction of first being the termination letter while the second letter outlines
the aliens nationality, irrespective of who obtained the divorce. the reasons why OAB had terminated Gran's employment. It
further argued that Gran was incompetent for the Computer
Specialist position because he had "insufficient knowledge in
PROOF OF FOREIGN LAW AND EXCEPTIONS; PROCESSUAL programming and zero knowledge of the ACAD system. Lastly,
PRESUMPTION Gran was justifiably dismissed due to insubordination or
disobedience because he continually failed to submit the required
"Daily Activity Reports.
EDI STAFF BUILDERS INT’L VS NLRC 2007
44
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
The CA ruled that Gran's failure to furnish a copy of his appeal In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law
memorandum to EDI was a mere formal lapse, an excusable applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign
neglect and not a jurisdictional defect which would justify the law. The foreign law is treated as a question of fact to be properly
dismissal of his appeal. It further ruled that Gran was not afforded pleaded and proved as the judge or labor arbiter cannot take
due process, given that OAB did not abide by the twin notice judicial notice of a foreign law. He is presumed to know only
requirement since he was dismissed on the same day he received domestic or forum law.
the termination letter, without having been apprised of the bases
of his dismissal or afforded an opportunity to explain his side. Unfortunately for petitioner, it did not prove the pertinent Saudi
laws on the matter; thus, the International Law doctrine
ISSUES: of presumed-identity approach or processual presumption comes
into play. Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded,
(1) W/N the failure of Gran to furnish a copy of his appeal is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as
memorandum to petitioner EDI would constitute a ours. Thus, we apply Philippine labor laws in determining the
jurisdictional defect and a deprivation of petitioner EDI’s
issues presented before us.
right to due process as would justify the dismissal of
Gran's appeal. NO Employer has the burden to prove valid dismissal

(2) W/N Gran's dismissal is justifiable by reason of In illegal dismissal cases, it has been established by Philippine law
incompetence, insubordination, and disobedience. NO and jurisprudence that the employer should prove that the
dismissal of employees or personnel is legal and just. The
RULING: NO for both employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal is for just
FIRST ISSUE and valid causes; and failure to do so would necessarily mean that
the dismissal was not justified and therefore illegal. The employer
The failure of appellant to furnish a copy of the appeal to is bound to adduce clear, accurate, consistent, and convincing
the adverse party is not fatal to the appeal. evidence to prove that the dismissal is valid and legal. This is
consistent with the principle of security of tenure as guaranteed by
The doctrine that evolved from catena of cases is that failure to the Constitution and reinforced by Article 277 (b) of the Labor
furnish the adverse party with a copy of the appeal is treated only Code of the Philippines.
as a formal lapse, an excusable neglect, and hence, not a
jurisdictional defect. Accordingly, in such a situation, the appeal Here, other than the letters, no other evidence was presented to
should not be dismissed; however, it should not be given due show how and why Gran was considered incompetent,
course either. The duty that is imposed on the NLRC, in such a insubordinate, or disobedient. Petitioner EDI had clearly failed to
case, is to require the appellant to comply with the rule that the overcome the burden of proving that Gran was validly dismissed.
opposing party should be provided with a copy of the appeal An allegation of incompetence should have a factual foundation.
memorandum. Incompetence may be shown by weighing it against a standard,
benchmark, or criterion. However, EDI failed to establish any such
While Gran's failure to furnish EDI with a copy of the Appeal bases to show how it found Gran incompetent .In addition, the
Memorandum is excusable, the abject failure of the NLRC to order elements that must concur for the charge of insubordination or
Gran to furnish EDI with the Appeal Memorandum willful disobedience to prosper were not present.
constitutes grave abuse of discretion .
For willful disobedience to be a valid cause for
SECOND ISSUE dismissal, the following twin elements must concur:
(1) the employee's assailed conduct must have been
Employment contract governs
willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and
In cases involving OFWs, the rights and obligations among and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must
between the OFW, the local recruiter/agent, and the foreign have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the
employer/principal are governed by the employment contract. A employee and must pertain to the duties which he
contract freely entered into is considered law between the parties; had been engaged to discharge.
and hence, should be respected. In formulating the contract, the
EDI failed to discharge the burden of proving Gran's
parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and
insubordination or willful disobedience.EDI should have provided a
conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not
copy of the company policy, Gran's job description, or any other
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public
document that would show that the "Daily Activity Reports" were
policy.
required for submission by the employees, more particularly by a
In the present case, the employment contract signed by Gran Computer Specialist. In conclusion, EDI failed to prove that Gran
specifically states that Saudi Labor Laws will govern matters not was justifiably dismissed due to incompetence, insubordination, or
provided for in the contract (e.g. specific causes for termination, willful disobedience.
termination procedures, etc.). Being the law intended by the
parties (lex loci intentiones) to apply to the contract, Saudi Labor
Laws should govern all matters relating to the termination of the
employment of Gran.

Judicial notice in re: foreign law

45
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
NORSE MANAGEMENT CO. considered opinion that the jurisprudence on this matter was
vs. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD never meant to apply to cases before administrative or quasi-
(G.R. No. L-54204 September 30, 1982) judicial bodies such as the National Seamen Board. For well-settled
also is the rule that administrative and quasi-judicial bodies are not
FACTS: Napoleon B. Abordo, the deceased husband of private bound strictly by technical rules. It has always been the policy of
respondent Restituta C. Abordo, was the Second Engineer of M.T. this Board, as enunciated in a long line of cases, that in cases of
"Cherry Earl" when he died from an apoplectic stroke in the course
valid claims for benefits on account of injury or death while in the
of his employment with petitioner NORSE MANAGEMENT
course of employment, the law of the country in which the vessel
COMPANY (PTE). The M.T. "Cherry Earl" is a vessel of Singaporean
Registry. is registered shall be considered.

ISSUE:
National Seamen Board
WON the law of Singapore applies.
Restituta filed a complaint for "death compensation benefits, HELD:
accrued leave pay and time-off allowances, funeral expenses,
attorney's fees and other benefits and reliefs available in Yes.
connection with the death of Napoleon B. Abordo,". She alleged
that the amount of compensation due her from Norse and Pacific In "Employment Agreement" between Norse and the late
Seamen Services, Inc., principal and agent, respectively, should be Napoleon B. Abordo, it was stipulated that:
based on the law where the vessel is registered (Singapore Law).
On the other hand, Norse and Pacific contend that the law of xx If such illness or injury incapacitates the EMPLOYEE to
Singapore should not be applied in this case because the National the extent the EMPLOYEE's services must be terminated
Seamen Board cannot take judicial notice of the Workmen's xxx and provided such illness or injury was not due in
Insurance Law of Singapore. As an alternative, they offered to pay part or whole to his willful act, neglect or
Restituta the sum of P30,000.00 as death benefits based on the misconduct compensation shall be paid to employee in
Board's Memorandum Circular No. 25 which they claim should accordance with and subject to the limitations of the
apply in this case. Workmen's Compensation Act of the Republic of the
Philippines or the Workmen's Insurance Law of registry
Ministry of Labor and Employment of the vessel whichever is greater. (Emphasis supplied)

It rendered judgment ordering herein Norse and Pacifico "to pay In the "Employment Agreement" it is clear that compensation shall
jointly and severally”. Norse and Pacifico appealed. be paid under Philippine Law or the law of registry of
petitioners' vessel, whichever is greater. Since Restituta C.
Abordo was offered P30,000.00 only by the petitioners, Singapore
Ministry of Labor
law was properly applied in this case.

Its decision in this case as follows:

As it is familiar with Singapore Law, the National Seamen Board is
justified in taking judicial notice of and in applying that law.
Motion for reconsideration filed by respondents from the Order of
this Board dated 20 June 1979 requiring them to pay complainant,
Furthermore, Article 20, Labor Code of the Philippines, provides
jointly and severally, the amount $34,210.00 representing death
that the National Seamen Board has original and exclusive
benefits, funeral expenses and attorney's fees.
jurisdiction over all matters or cases including money claims,
involving employer-employee relations, arising out of or by virtue
In their motion for reconsideration, Norse and Pacifico strongly of any law or contracts involving Filipino seamen for overseas
argue that employment. Thus, it is safe to assume that the Board is familiar
with pertinent Singapore maritime laws relative to workmen's
 the law of Singapore should not be applied in the case compensation. Moreover, the Board may apply the rule on judicial
considering that their responsibility was not alleged in the notice and, "in administrative proceedings, the technical rules of
complaint procedure — particularly of evidence — applied in judicial trials, do
 that no proof of the existence of the Workmen's Insurance not strictly apply." (Oromeca Lumber Co. Inc. vs. Social Security
Law of Singapore was ever presented and Commission).
 that the Board cannot take judicial notice of the Workmen's
Insurance Law of Singapore.
Finally, Article IV of the Labor Code provides that "all doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this code,
The only issue is whether or not the law of Singapore ought to be
including its implementing rules and resolved in favor of labor.
applied in this case.

For lack of merit, this petition is DENIED. SO ORDERED.

We rule in the affirmative. It is true that the law of Singapore was
not alleged and proved in the course of the hearing. And following
Supreme Court decisions in a long line of cases that a foreign law,
being a matter of evidence, must be alleged and proved, the law
of Singapore ought not to be recognized in this case. But it is our

46
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
HSBC v SHERMAN The CA granted the petition and declared that the court of
(G.R. No. 72494, August 11, 1989) Singapore is the proper forum.

FACTS: Eastern Book Supply Service PTE, Ltd. (Eastern), a In rendering the decision, the CA made the following observations
company incorporated in Singapore applied with, and was granted of the significant aspects of the case:
by Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) Singapore
branch an overdraft facility in the maximum amount of 200,000.00  The loan was obtained by Eastern a company incorporated
(increased to 375,000.00) Singapore dollars. in Singapore.
 The loan was granted by HSBC Singapore Branch.
 The Joint and Several Guarantee was also concluded
As a security for the repayment by Eastern, Jack Robert Sherman
in Singapore.
(Sherman) and Deodato Reloj (Reloj) and a certain Robin de Clive  The loan was in Singaporean dollars and the repayment
Lowe (Lowe), all of whom were directors of Eastern at such time, thereof also in the same currency.
executed a Joint and Several Guarantee in favor of HSBC  The transaction, to say the least, took place in Singaporean
whereby Sherman, Reloj, and Lowe agreed to pay, jointly and setting in which the law of that country is the measure by
severally, on demand all sums owed by the Eastern to HSBC under which that relationship of the parties will be governed.
the aforestated overdraft facility.  Contrary to the position taken by Sherman and Reloj, the
guarantee agreement compliance that any litigation will be
before the courts of Singapore and that the rights and
The Joint and Several Guarantee provides, inter alia, that:
obligations of the parties shall be construed and determined
in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Singapore.
This guarantee and all rights, obligations and liabilities  A closer examination of the Guarantee Agreement upon which
arising hereunder shall be construed and determined under the motion to dismiss is based, employs in clear and
and may be enforced in accordance with the laws of the unmistakable (terms the word 'shall' which under statutory
Republic of Singapore. We hereby agree that the Courts of construction is mandatory.
Singapore shall have jurisdiction over all disputes arising
under this guarantee. (Emphasis supplied) ISSUE:

Eastern failed to pay its obligation. Thus, HSBC demanded Whether or not Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the
payment from Sherman and Reloj conformably with the provisions suit
of the Joint and Several Guarantee. Inasmuch as Sherman and
Reloj still failed to pay, HSBC filed a complaint for collection of a RULING:
sum of money before the RTC of Quezon City.
YES. The Philippine courts have jurisdiction.

Sherman and Reloj filed a motion to dismiss, before the said RTC, (The decision of the RTC is REINSTATED.)
on the two grounds, namely:
While it is true that "the transaction took place in Singaporean
setting" and that the Joint and Several Guarantee contains a
1. That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
choice-of-forum clause, the very essence of due process dictates
complaint; and
that the stipulation that "[t]his guarantee and all rights,
obligations and liabilities arising hereunder shall be construed and
RTC HELD: There is nothing in the Guarantee which says that the determined under and may be enforced in accordance with the
courts of Singapore shall have jurisdiction to the exclusion of the laws of the Republic of Singapore. We hereby agree that the
courts of other countries or nations. Also, it has long been Courts in Singapore shall have jurisdiction over all disputes arising
established in law and jurisprudence that jurisdiction of courts is under this guarantee" be liberally construed.
fixed by law; it cannot be conferred by the will, submission or
consent of the parties.
One basic principle underlies all rules of jurisdiction in
International Law: a State does not have jurisdiction in the
2. That the court has no jurisdiction over the persons of the absence of some reasonable basis for exercising it, whether the
defendants.
proceedings are in rem quasi in rem  or in personam. To be
reasonable, the jurisdiction must be based on some minimum
RTC HELD: Jurisdiction over the persons of defendants is acquired contacts that will not offend traditional notions of fair play and
by service of summons and copy of the complaint on them. There substantial justice.
has been a valid service of summons to Sherman and Reloj.
Indeed, as pointed-out by HSBC at the outset, the instant case
The motion to dismiss was denied. presents a very odd situation. In the ordinary habits of life, anyone
would be disinclined to litigate before a foreign tribunal, with more
Sherman and Reloj then filed before IAC (now CA) a petition for reason as a defendant. However, in this case, private respondents
prohibition with preliminary injunction and/or prayer for a are Philippine residents (a fact which was not disputed by them)
restraining order to enjoin the CA from taking cognizance of the who would rather face a complaint against them before a foreign
case and to dismiss the same. court and in the process incur considerable expenses, not to
mention inconvenience, than to have a Philippine court try and
resolve the case. Private respondents' stance is hardly
47
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
comprehensible, unless their ultimate intent is to evade, or at least The Bank filed its Answer alleging, inter alia, that by stipulation
delay, the payment of a just obligation. Guerrero’s account is governed by New York law and this law does
not permit any of Guerrero’s claims except actual damages.
The defense of Sherman and Reloj that the complaint should have Subsequently, the Bank filed a Motion for Partial Summary
been filed in Singapore is based merely on technicality. They did Judgment seeking the dismissal of Guerrero’s claims for
not even claim, much less prove, that the filing of the action here consequential, nominal, temperate, moral and exemplary damages
will cause them any unnecessary trouble, damage, or expense. On as well as attorney’s fees on the same ground alleged in its
the other hand, there is no showing that HSBC filed the action Answer. The Bank contended that the trial should be limited to the
here just to harass Sherman and Reloj. issue of actual damages.

The affidavit of Alyssa Walden, a New York attorney, supported

xxx [T]he parties did not thereby stipulate that only the courts of the Bank’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Alyssa Walden’s
Singapore, to the exclusion of all the rest, has jurisdiction. Neither affidavit ("Walden affidavit" for brevity) stated that Guerrero’s New
did the clause in question operate to divest Philippine courts of York bank account stipulated that the governing law is New York
jurisdiction. law and that this law bars all of Guerrero’s claims except actual
damages. The RTC denied the motion. The CA affirmed the RTC’s
In International Law, jurisdiction is often defined as the light of a order ruling that the Walden affidavit does not serve as proof of
State to exercise authority over persons and things within its the New York law and jurisprudence relied on by the Bank to
boundaries subject to certain exceptions. Thus, a State does not support its motion.
assume jurisdiction over travelling sovereigns, ambassadors and
diplomatic representatives of other States, and foreign military Issue: WON the New York law has been sufficiently proven.
units stationed in or marching through State territory with the Held: No.
permission of the latter's authorities. This authority, which finds its
source in the concept of sovereignty, is exclusive within and General Rule: There can be no summary judgment where
throughout the domain of the State. A State is competent to take questions of fact are in issue or where material allegations of the
hold of any judicial matter it sees fit by making its courts and pleadings are in dispute. The resolution of whether a foreign law
agencies assume jurisdiction over all kinds of cases brought before allows only the recovery of actual damages is a question of fact as
them. far as the trial court is concerned since foreign laws do not prove
themselves in our courts. Foreign laws are not a matter of judicial
Other issues: notice. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proven.
Certainly, the conflicting allegations as to whether New York law or
Philippine law applies to Guerrero’s claims present a clear dispute
(1) Venue: The SC hold that venue here was properly laid.
on material allegations which can be resolved only by a trial on the
(2) Forum non conveniens: merits.

Under Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents of a

The CA ruled that: sovereign authority or tribunal may be proved by (1) an official
publication thereof or (2) a copy attested by the officer having the
... In a conflict problem, a court will simply refuse to entertain legal custody thereof. Such official publication or copy must be
the case if it is not authorized by law to exercise jurisdiction. accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a
And even if it is so authorized, it may still refuse to entertain certificate that the attesting officer has the legal custody thereof.
the case by applying the principle of forum non The certificate may be issued by any of the authorized Philippine
conveniens. ... embassy or consular officials stationed in the foreign country in
which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his
(SC) However, whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed office. The attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a
on the basis of the principle of forum non conveniens depends correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case
largely upon the facts of the particular case and is addressed to may be, and must be under the official seal of the attesting officer.
the sound discretion of the trial court.   Thus, the CA should not Exceptions: In Willamette Iron and Steel Works v. Muzzal, it was
have relied on such principle. held that Section 41, Rule 123 (Section 25, Rule 132 of the
Revised Rules of Court) does not exclude the presentation of other
MANUFACTURERS HANOVER VS GUERRERO competent evidence to prove the existence of a foreign law. The
(G.R. No. 136804; February 19, 2003) Supreme Court considered the testimony under oath of an
attorney-at-law of San Francisco, California, who quoted verbatim
Facts: Rafael Ma. Guerrero ("Guerrero" for brevity) filed a
a section of California Civil Code and who stated that the same
complaint for damages against petitioner Manufacturers Hanover
was in force at the time the obligations were contracted, as
Trust Co. and/or Chemical Bank ("the Bank" for brevity) with the
sufficient evidence to establish the existence of said law. Also in
Regional Trial Court of Manila ("RTC" for brevity). Guerrero sought
Collector of Internal Revenue v. Fisher et al., it was held that the
payment of damages allegedly for (1) illegally withheld taxes
counsel for respondent "testified that as an active member of the
charged against interests on his checking account with the Bank;
California Bar since 1951, he is familiar with the revenue and
(2) a returned check worth US$18,000.00 due to signature
taxation laws of the State of California. When asked by the lower
verification problems; and (3) unauthorized conversion of his
court to state the pertinent California law as regards exemption of
account.
intangible personal properties, the witness cited Article 4, Sec.
13851 (a) & (b) of the California Internal and Revenue Code as
48
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
published in Derring’s California Code, a publication of Bancroft- v. Buffalo Savings Bank, 50 A.D.2d 718, 374 N.Y.S..2d 868, 869-
Whitney Co., Inc. And as part of his testimony, a full quotation of 70 (4th Dept 1975) damage to reputation); Dobbs, Law of
the cited section was offered in evidence by Remedies 12.4(1) at 63 (emotional distress).
respondents."Likewise, in several naturalization cases, it was held
by the Court that evidence of the law of a foreign country on 8. As a matter of New York law, a claim for emotional distress
reciprocity regarding the acquisition of citizenship, although not cannot be recovered for a breach of contract. Geler v. National
meeting the prescribed rule of practice, may be allowed and used Westminster Bank U.S.A., 770 F. Supp. 210, 215 (S.D.N.Y. 1991);
as basis for favorable action, if, in the light of all the Pitcherello v. Moray Homes, Ltd., 150 A.D.2d 860,540 N.Y.S.2d
circumstances, the Court is "satisfied of the authenticity of the 387, 390 (3d Dept 1989) Martin v. Donald Park Acres, 54 A.D.2d
written proof offered." 975, 389 N.Y.S..2d 31, 32 (2nd Dept 1976). Damage to reputation
is also not recoverable for a contract. Motif Construction Corp. v.
The Bank, however, cannot rely on Willamette Iron and Steel Buffalo Savings Bank, 374 N.Y.S.2d at 869-70.
Works v. Muzzal or Collector of Internal Revenue v. Fisher to
support its cause. These cases involved attorneys testifying in 9. In cases where the issue is the breach of a contract to purchase
open court during the trial in the Philippines and quoting the stock, New York courts will not take into consideration the
particular foreign laws sought to be established. On the other performance of the stock after the breach. Rather, damages will
hand, the Walden affidavit was taken abroad ex parte and the be based on the value of the stock at the time of the breach,
affiant never testified in open court. The Walden affidavit cannot Aroneck v. Atkin, 90 A.D.2d 966, 456 N.Y.S.2d 558, 559 (4th Dept
be considered as proof of New York law on damages not only 1982), app. den. 59 N.Y.2d 601, 449 N.E.2d 1276, 463 N.Y.S.2d
because it is self-serving but also because it does not state the 1023 (1983).
specific New York law on damages. The portions of the affidavit
10. Under New York law, a party can only get consequential
are as follows:
damages if they were the type that would naturally arise from the
3. In New York, [n]ominal damages are damages in name only, breach and if they were brought within the contemplation of
trivial sums such as six cents or $1. Such damages are awarded parties as the probable result of the breach at the time of or prior
both in tort and contract cases when the plaintiff establishes a to contracting. Kenford Co., Inc. v. Country of Erie, 73 N.Y.2d 312,
cause of action against the defendant, but is unable to prove 319, 540 N.Y.S.2d 1, 3 (1989), (quoting Chapman v. Fargo, 223
actual damages. Dobbs, Law of Remedies, 3.32 at 294 (1993). N.Y. 32, 36 (1918).
Since Guerrero is claiming for actual damages, he cannot ask for
11. Under New York law, a plaintiff is not entitled to attorneys fees
nominal damages.
unless they are provided by contract or statute. E.g., Geler v.
4. There is no concept of temperate damages in New York law. I National Westminster Bank, 770 F. Supp. 210, 213 (S.D.N.Y.
have reviewed Dobbs, a well-respected treatise, which does not 1991); Camatron Sewing Mach, Inc. v. F.M. Ring Assocs., Inc.,
use the phrase temperate damages in its index. I have also done a 179 A.D.2d 165, 582 N.Y.S.2d 396 (1st Dept 1992); Stanisic v.
computerized search for the phrase in all published New York Soho Landmark Assocs., 73 A.D.2d 268, 577 N.Y.S.2d 280, 281
cases, and have found no cases that use it. I have never heard the (1st Dept 1991). There is no statute that permits attorneys fees in
phrase used in American law. a case of this type.

5. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) governs many aspects of 12. Exemplary, or punitive damages are not allowed for a breach
a Banks relationship with its depositors. In this case, it governs of contract, even where the plaintiff claims the defendant acted
Guerreros claim arising out of the non-payment of the $18,000 with malice. Geler v. National Westminster Bank, 770 F.Supp. 210,
check. Guerrero claims that this was a wrongful dishonor. 215 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); Catalogue Service of chesterv. Insurance Co.
However, the UCC states that justifiable refusal to pay or accept as of North America, 74 A.D.2d 837, 838, 425 N.Y.S.2d 635, 637 (2d
opposed to dishonor, occurs when a bank refuses to pay a check Dept 1980); Senior v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 110
for reasons such as a missing indorsement, a missing or illegible A.D.2d 833, 488 N.Y.S.2d 241, 242 (2d Dept 1985).
signature or a forgery, 3-510, Official Comment 2. .. to the
13. Exemplary or punitive damages may be recovered only where
Complaint, MHT returned the check because it had no signature
it is alleged and proven that the wrong supposedly committed by
card on . and could not verify Guerreros signature. In my opinion,
defendant amounts to a fraud aimed at the public generally and
consistent with the UCC, that is a legitimate and justifiable reason
involves a high moral culpability. Walker v. Sheldon, 10 N.Y.2d
not to pay.
401, 179 N.E.2d 497, 223 N.Y.S.2d 488 (1961).
6. Consequential damages are not available in the ordinary case of
14. Furthermore, it has been consistently held under New York law
a justifiable refusal to pay. UCC 1-106 provides that neither
that exemplary damages are not available for a mere breach of
consequential or special or punitive damages may be had except
contract for in such a case, as a matter of law, only a private
as specifically provided in the Act or by other rule of law. UCC 4-
wrong and not a public right is involved. Thaler v.The North
103 further provides that consequential damages can be recovered
Insurance Company, 63 A.D.2d 921, 406 N.Y.S.2d 66 (1st Dept
only where there is bad faith. This is more restrictive than the New
1978).
York common law, which may allow consequential damages in a
breach of contract case (as does the UCC where there is a The Walden affidavit states conclusions from the affiant’s personal
wrongful dishonor). interpretation and opinion of the facts of the case vis a vis the
alleged laws and jurisprudence without citing any law in particular.
7. Under New York law, requests for lost profits, damage to
The citations in the Walden affidavit of various U.S. court decisions
reputation and mental distress are considered consequential
do not constitute proof of the official records or decisions of the
damages. Kenford Co., Inc. v. Country of Erie, 73 N.Y.2d 312, 319,
U.S. courts. While the Bank attached copies of some of the U.S.
540 N.Y.S.2d 1, 4-5 (1989) (lost profits); Motif Construction Corp.
49
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
court decisions cited in the Walden affidavit, these copies do not 1. Whether or not the Ministry of Public Health of Kuwait is
comply with Section 24 of Rule 132 on proof of official records or not liable given that it is a foreign government agency
decisions of foreign courts. Because of the failure to comply with which is immune from suit. Thus, ATCI and Ikdal are also
Section 24 of Rule 132 on how to prove a foreign law and not jointly and solidarily liable;
decisions of foreign courts, the Walden affidavit did not prove the
current state of New York law and jurisprudence. Thus, the Bank 2. Whether or not Philippine Labor Laws are inapplicable
has only alleged, but has not proved, what New York law and because respondent’s employment contract specifically
jurisprudence are on the matters at issue. stipulates that her employment shall be governed by
Kuwaiti Civil Service Laws and Regulations as in fact
POEA Rules accord respect to such rules, customs and
ATCI VS ETCHIN 2010 practices of the host country.
(G.R. No. 178551; October 11, 2010)
RULING:
FACTS: Respondent Josefina Echin (Echin) was hired by petitioner
ATCI Overseas Corporation in behalf of its principal-co-petitioner, 1. No. In providing for the joint and solidary liability of
the Ministry of Public Health of Kuwait (the Ministry), for the private recruitment agencies with their foreign principals,
position of medical technologist under a two-year contract, Republic Act No. 8042 precisely affords the OFWs with
denominated as a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), with a recourse and assures them of immediate and sufficient
monthly salary of US$1,200. payment of what is due them.
Under the MOA, all newly-hired employees undergo a probationary
The obligations covenanted in the recruitment agreement entered
period of one (1) year and are covered by Kuwait’s Civil Service
into by and between the local agent and its foreign principal are
Board Employment Contract. Echin was deployed on February 17,
not coterminous with the term of such agreement so that if either
2000 but was terminated from employment on February 11, 2001,
or both of the parties decide to end the agreement, the
she not having allegedly passed the probationary period. As the
responsibilities of such parties towards the contracted employees
Ministry denied respondent’s request for reconsideration, she
under the agreement do not at all end, but the same extends up
returned to the Philippines on March 17, 2001, shouldering her
to and until the expiration of the employment contracts of the
own air fare.
employees recruited and employed pursuant to the said
On July 27, 2001, Echin filed with the NLRC a complaint for recruitment agreement. Otherwise, this will render nugatory the
illegal dismissal against ATCI as the local recruitment very purpose for which the law governing the employment of
agency, represented by petitioner, Amalia Ikdal (Ikdal), and the workers for foreign jobs abroad was enacted (United Pacific v.
Ministry, as the foreign principal. Maguad).

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Echin and ordered ATCI, The imposition of joint and solidary liability is in line with the policy
Ikdal, and the Ministry to pay her US$3,600.00, representing her of the state to protect and alleviate the plight of the working class.
salary for the three months unexpired portion of her contract. On Verily, to allow petitioners to simply invoke the immunity from suit
appeal, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. of its foreign principal or to wait for the judicial determination of
the foreign principal’s liability before petitioner can be held liable
On appeal before the Court of Appeals, petitioners argued that: 1) renders the law on joint and solidary liability inutile.
their principal, the Ministry, is immune from suit, being a foreign
government agency, and, as such, the immunity extended to them Respecting Ikdal’s joint and solidary liability as a corporate officer,
as agents; and 2) Echin was validly dismissed for her failure to the same is pursuant to Sec. 10 of R.A. 8042 on money claims.
meet the performance rating within the one-year period as The liability of the principal/employer and the
required under Kuwait’s Civil Service Laws. Petitioners further recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims under this
contended that Ikdal should not be liable as an officer of petitioner section shall be joint and several. This provision shall be
ATCI. incorporated in the contract for overseas employment and shall be
a condition precedent for its approval. The performance bond to
The Court of Appeals denied the appeal and still ruled in be filed by the recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law,
favor of Echin. The appellate court noted that under the law, a shall be answerable for all money claims or damages that may be
private employment agency shall assume all responsibilities for the awarded to the workers. If the recruitment/placement agency is a
implementation of the contract of employment of an overseas juridical being, the corporate officers and directors and partners as
worker, hence, it can be sued jointly and severally with the foreign the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarily liable
principal for any violation of the recruitment agreement or contract with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims and
of employment. As to Ikdal’s liability, the appellate court held that damages.
under Sec. 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, the "Migrant and
Overseas Filipinos’ Act of 1995," corporate officers, directors and 2. No. It is hornbook principle that the party invoking the
partners of a recruitment agency may themselves be jointly and application of a foreign law has the burden of proving
solidarily liable with the recruitment agency for money claims and the law, under the doctrine of processual presumption
damages awarded to overseas workers. Hench, this petition for which, in this case, petitioners failed to discharge.
review before the Supreme Court.
The Philippines does not take judicial notice of foreign laws,
ISSUES: hence, they must not only be alleged; they must be proven. To
prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must present a copy

50
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
thereof and comply with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the first be judicially recognized by a competent Philippine court,
Revised Rules of Court. pursuant to NSO Circular No. 4, series of 1982.

To prove the Kuwaiti law, petitioners submitted the following: Accordingly, Gerbert filed a petition for judicial recognition
MOA between respondent and the Ministry, as represented by of foreign divorce and/or declaration of marriage as
ATCI, which provides that the employee is subject to a dissolved (petition) with the RTC. Daisylyn did not file any
probationary period of one (1) year and that the host country’s responsive pleading but submitted instead a notarized
Civil Service Laws and Regulations apply; a translated copy (Arabic letter/manifestation to the trial court. She offered no opposition to
to English) of the termination letter to respondent stating that she Gerbert’s petition and requested that she be considered as a
did not pass the probation terms, without specifying the grounds party-in-interest with a similar prayer to Gerbert’s.
 
therefor, and a translated copy of the certificate of termination,
RTC denied Gerbert’s petition. The RTC concluded that
both of which documents were certified by Mr. Mustapha Alawi,
Gerbert was not the proper party to institute the action for judicial
Head of the Department of Foreign Affairs-Office of Consular recognition of the foreign divorce decree as he is a naturalized
Affairs Islamic Certification and Translation Unit; and respondent’s Canadian citizen .It ruled that only the Filipino spouse can avail of
letter of reconsideration to the Ministry, wherein she noted that in the remedy, under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the
her first eight (8) months of employment, she was given a rating Family Code, in order for him or her to be able to remarry under
of "Excellent" albeit it changed due to changes in her shift of work Philippine law.
schedule.
ISSUE: Whether the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family
These documents, whether taken singly or as a whole, do Code extends to aliens the right to petition a court of this
not sufficiently prove that respondent was validly jurisdiction for the recognition of a foreign divorce decree
terminated as a probationary employee under Kuwaiti civil
service laws. Instead of submitting a copy of the pertinent HELD: The alien spouse can claim no right under the
Kuwaiti labor laws duly authenticated and translated by Embassy second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code as the
officials thereat, as required under the Rules, what petitioners substantive right it establishes is in favor of the Filipino
submitted were mere certifications attesting only to the spouse
Article 26 of the Family Code to its present wording, as
correctness of the translations of the MOA and the termination
follows:
letter which does not prove at all that Kuwaiti civil service laws
Art. 26. xxx
differ from Philippine laws and that under such Kuwaiti laws, Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and
respondent was validly terminated. a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien
spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the
13) RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN
Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to
JUDGMENT
remarry under Philippine law.
 
PUYAT VS ZABARTE 2001 (SUPRA)
Through the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code,
EO 227 effectively incorporated into the law this Courts holding
ST. AVIATION VS GRAND AIR 2006 (SUPRA)
in Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. and Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera. In both
cases, the Court refused to acknowledge the alien spouses
ATCI VS ETCHIN 2010 (SUPRA)
assertion of marital rights after a foreign courts divorce decree
between the alien and the Filipino. The Court, thus, recognized
that the foreign divorce had already severed the marital bond
between the spouses. 
CORPUZ vs. STO. TOMAS
 
(August 11, 2010)
As the RTC correctly stated, the provision was included in the law
to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains
FACTS: Petitioner Gerbert R. Corpuz was a former Filipino citizen
married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no
who acquired Canadian citizenship through naturalization
longer married to the Filipino spouse. The legislative intent is for
on November 29, 2000.On January 18, 2005, Gerbert married
the benefit of the Filipino spouse, by clarifying his or her marital
respondent Daisylyn T. Sto. Tomas, a Filipina, in Pasig City. Due to
status, settling the doubts created by the divorce
work and other professional commitments, Gerbert left
decree. Essentially, the second paragraph of Article 26 of
for Canada soon after the wedding. He returned to the Philippines
the Family Code provided the Filipino spouse a substantive
sometime in April 2005 to surprise Daisylyn, but was shocked to
right to have his or her marriage to the alien spouse
discover that his wife was having an affair with another man. Hurt
considered as dissolved, capacitating him or her to
and disappointed, Gerbert returned to Canada and filed a petition
remarry.
for divorce. The Superior Court of
Justice, Windsor, Ontario, Canada granted Gerberts petition for
No court in this jurisdiction, however, can make a similar
divorce on December 8, 2005. The divorce decree took effect a
declaration for the alien spouse (other than that already
month later, on January 8, 2006.
established by the decree), whose status and legal capacity are
generally governed by his national law.
Two years after the divorce, Gerbert had a new Filipina fiance in
the Philippines. Gerbert went to the Pasig City Civil Registry Office
The foreign divorce decree is presumptive evidence of a
and registered the Canadian divorce decree on his and Daisylyn’s
right that clothes the party with legal interest to petition
marriage certificate. Despite the registration of the divorce decree,
for its recognition in this jurisdiction
an official of the National Statistics Office (NSO) informed Gerbert
 
that the marriage between him and Daisylyn still subsists under
Philippine law; to be enforceable, the foreign divorce decree must
51
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
We qualify our above conclusion i.e., that the second paragraph of The records show that Gerbert attached to his petition a copy of
Article 26 of the Family Code bestows no rights in favor of aliens the divorce decree, as well as the required certificates proving its
with the complementary statement that this conclusion is not authenticity, but failed to include a copy of the Canadian law on
sufficient basis to dismiss Gerbert’s petition before the RTC. In divorce. Under this situation, we can, at this point, simply dismiss
other words, the unavailability of the second paragraph of Article the petition for insufficiency of supporting evidence, unless we
26 of the Family Code to aliens does not necessarily strip Gerbert deem it more appropriate to remand the case to the RTC to
of legal interest to petition the RTC for the recognition of his determine whether the divorce decree is consistent with the
foreign divorce decree. The foreign divorce decree itself, after its Canadian divorce law.
authenticity and conformity with the alien’s national law have been  
duly proven according to our rules of evidence, serves as a We deem it more appropriate to take this latter course of action,
presumptive evidence of right in favor of Gerbert, pursuant to given the Article 26 interests that will be served and the Filipina
Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which provides for the wife’s (Daisylyn’s) obvious conformity with the petition. A remand,
effect of foreign judgments. This Section states: at the same time, will allow other interested parties to oppose the
  foreign judgment and overcome a petitioner’s presumptive
SEC. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders. evidence of a right by proving want of jurisdiction, want of notice
The effect of a judgment or final order of a to a party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or
tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction fact. Needless to state, every precaution must be taken to ensure
to render the judgment or final order is as follows: conformity with our laws before a recognition is made, as the
  foreign judgment, once recognized, shall have the effect of res
(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a judicata between the parties, as provided in Section 48, Rule 39 of
specific thing, the judgment or final order is the Rules of Court.
conclusive upon the title of the thing; and  
  In fact, more than the principle of comity that is served by the
(b) In case of a judgment or final order against practice of reciprocal recognition of foreign judgments between
a person, the judgment or final order is nations, the res judicata effect of the foreign judgments of divorce
presumptive evidence of a right as between serves as the deeper basis for extending judicial recognition and
the parties and their successors in interest for considering the alien spouse bound by its terms. This same
by a subsequent title. effect, as discussed above, will not obtain for the Filipino spouse
  were it not for the substantive rule that the second paragraph of
In either case, the judgment or final order may be Article 26 of the Family Code provides.
repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of
notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of
law or fact. MINORU FUJIKI
  vs.
To our mind, direct involvement or being the subject of the foreign MARIA PAZ GALELA MARINAY, et al
judgment is sufficient to clothe a party with the requisite interest (G.R. No. 196049; June 26, 2013)
to institute an action before our courts for the recognition of the
foreign judgment. In a divorce situation, we have declared, no The Facts: Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national
less, that the divorce obtained by an alien abroad may be who married respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay (Marinay) in the
recognized in the Philippines, provided the divorce is valid Philippines. The marriage did not sit well with petitioner’s parents.
according to his or her national law. Thus, Fujiki could not bring his wife to Japan where he resides.
  Eventually, they lost contact with each other.
The starting point in any recognition of a foreign divorce judgment
is the acknowledgment that our courts do not take judicial notice
of foreign judgments and laws.  Justice Herrera explained that, as a Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara (Maekara).
rule, no sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a Without the first marriage being dissolved, Marinay and Maekara
judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country. This means got married in Quezon City, Philippines. Maekara brought Marinay
that the foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as to Japan. However, Marinay allegedly suffered physical abuse from
facts under our rules on evidence, together with the alien’s Maekara. She left Maekara and started to contact Fujiki.
applicable national law to show the effect of the judgment on the
alien himself or herself. The recognition may be made in an action Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to re-establish
instituted specifically for the purpose or in another action where a their relationship. In 2010, Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a
party invokes the foreign decree as an integral aspect of his claim judgment from a family court in Japan which declared the
or defense. marriage between Marinay and Maekara void on the
  ground of bigamy.
In Gerbert’s case, since both the foreign divorce decree and the
national law of the alien, recognizing his or her capacity to obtain
Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC entitled: "Judicial Recognition of
a divorce, purport to be official acts of a sovereign authority,
Foreign Judgment (or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage)."
Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court comes into play. This
Fujiki prayed that (1) the Japanese Family Court judgment
Section requires proof, either by (1) official publications or (2)
be recognized; (2) that the bigamous marriage between Marinay
copies attested by the officer having legal custody of the
and Maekara be declared void ab initio under Articles 35(4) and 41
documents. If the copies of official records are not kept in
of the Family Code of the Philippines; and (3) for the RTC to direct
the Philippines, these must be (a) accompanied by a certificate
the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City to annotate the Japanese
issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine
Family Court judgment on the Certificate of Marriage between
foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record
Marinay and Maekara.
is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office.
 

52
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
A few days after the filing of the petition, the RTC immediately required by Article 407 of the Civil Code. In other words, "the law
issued an Order dismissing the petition and withdrawing the case requires the entry in the civil registry of judicial decrees that
from its active civil docket. The RTC cited the following provisions produce legal consequences upon a person’s legal capacity and
of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages status." The Japanese Family Court judgment directly bears on the
and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC): civil status of a Filipino citizen and should therefore be proven as a
fact in a Rule 108 proceeding.
Sec. 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void
marriages. – The Issues

(a) Who may file. – A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of Petitioner raises the following legal issues:
void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife.
(1) Whether the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity
x xxx of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages
(A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) is applicable. NO
Sec. 4. Venue. – The petition shall be filed in the Family Court of
the province or city where the petitioner or the respondent has (2) Whether a husband or wife of a prior marriage can
been residing for at least six months prior to the date of filing, or file a petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying
in the case of a non-resident respondent, where he may be found the subsequent marriage between his or her spouse and
in the Philippines, at the election of the petitioner. x xx a foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy. YES

The RTC ruled, without further explanation, that the petition was (3) Whether the Regional Trial Court can
in "gross violation" of the above provisions. The trial court based recognize the foreign judgment in a proceeding
its dismissal on Section 5(4) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which for cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil
provides that "failure to comply with any of the preceding Registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. YES
requirements may be a ground for immediate dismissal of the
petition." Apparently, the RTC took the view that only "the The Ruling of the Court
husband or the wife," in this case either Maekara or Marinay, can
file the petition to declare their marriage void, and not Fujiki.
The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) does not
Fujiki moved that the Order be reconsidered. He argued that A.M. apply in a petition to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the
No. 02-11-10-SC contemplated ordinary civil actions for declaration status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a
of nullity and annulment of marriage. Thus, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC foreign country.
does not apply. A petition for recognition of foreign judgment is a
special proceeding, which "seeks to establish a status, a right or a
particular fact," and not a civil action which is "for the enforcement Moreover, in Juliano-Llave v. Republic, this Court held that the rule
or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong."  in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC that only the husband or wife can file a
declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage "does not apply if
the reason behind the petition is bigamy."
In other words, the petition in the RTC sought to establish (1) the
status and concomitant rights of Fujiki and Marinay as husband
and wife and (2) the fact of the rendition of the Japanese Family For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment
Court judgment declaring the marriage between Marinay and relating to the status of a marriage where one of the
Maekara as void on the ground of bigamy. The petitioner parties is a citizen of a foreign country, the petitioner only
contended that the Japanese judgment was consistent with Article needs to prove the foreign judgment as a fact under the
35(4) of the Family Code of the Philippines on bigamy and was Rules of Court. To be more specific, a copy of the foreign
therefore entitled to recognition by Philippine courts. judgment may be admitted in evidence and proven as a fact under
Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48(b)
of the Rules of Court. Petitioner may prove the Japanese Family
The Solicitor General agreed with the petition. The Solicitor Court judgment through (1) an official publication or (2) a
General argued that Fujiki, as the spouse of the first marriage, is certification or copy attested by the officer who has custody of the
an injured party who can sue to declare the bigamous marriage judgment. If the office which has custody is in a foreign country
between Marinay and Maekara void. The Solicitor General such as Japan, the certification may be made by the proper
cited Juliano-Llave v. Republic 33 which held that Section 2(a) of diplomatic or consular officer of the Philippine foreign service in
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply in cases of bigamy. Japan and authenticated by the seal of office.

The Solicitor General contended that the petition to recognize the To hold that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies to a petition for
Japanese Family Court judgment may be made in a Rule 108 recognition of foreign judgment would mean that the trial court
proceeding. In Corpuz v. Santo Tomas,this Court held that "[t]he and the parties should follow its provisions, including the form and
recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule contents of the petition, the service of summons,  the investigation
108 proceeding itself, as the object of special proceedings (such as of the public prosecutor,  the setting of pre-trial,  the trial and the
that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to establish the judgment of the trial court. This is absurd because it will litigate
status or right of a party or a particular fact." the case anew. It will defeat the purpose of recognizing foreign
judgments, which is "to limit repetitive litigation on claims and
The Solicitor General asserted that Rule 108 of the Rules of Court issues." The interpretation of the RTC is tantamount to relitigating
is the procedure to record "acts, events and judicial decrees the case on the merits.
concerning the civil status of persons" in the civil registry as

53
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
A foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a
affects the civil status, condition and legal capacity of its status, a right, or a particular fact." Rule 108 creates a remedy to
parties. However, the effect of a foreign judgment is not rectify facts of a person’s life which are recorded by the State
automatic. To extend the effect of a foreign judgment in pursuant to the Civil Register Law or Act No. 3753.
the Philippines, Philippine courts must determine if the
foreign judgment is consistent with domestic public policy Fujiki has the personality to file a petition to recognize the
and other mandatory laws. Thus, the Philippine State may Japanese Family Court judgment nullifying the marriage
require, for effectivity in the Philippines, recognition by Philippine between Marinay and Maekara on the ground of bigamy
courts of a foreign judgment affecting its citizen, over whom it because the judgment concerns his civil status as married
exercises personal jurisdiction relating to the status, condition and to Marinay. For the same reason he has the personality to file a
legal capacity of such citizen. petition under Rule 108 to cancel the entry of marriage between
Marinay and Maekara in the civil registry on the basis of the
A petition to recognize a foreign judgment declaring a decree of the Japanese Family Court.
marriage void does not require relitigation under a
Philippine court of the case as if it were a new petition for There is no doubt that the prior spouse has a personal and
declaration of nullity of marriage. Philippine courts cannot material interest in maintaining the integrity of the marriage he
presume to know the foreign laws under which the foreign contracted and the property relations arising from it. There is also
judgment was rendered. They cannot substitute their judgment on no doubt that he is interested in the cancellation of an entry of a
the status, condition and legal capacity of the foreign citizen who bigamous marriage in the civil registry, which compromises the
is under the jurisdiction of another state. Thus, Philippine public record of his marriage.
courts can only recognize the foreign judgment  as a
fact according to the rules of evidence.
To be sure, a petition for correction or cancellation of an
entry in the civil registry cannot substitute for an action to
Section 48(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that a invalidate a marriage. A direct action is necessary to prevent
foreign judgment or final order against a person creates a circumvention of the substantive and procedural safeguards of
"presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their marriage under the Family Code and other related laws. In other
successors in interest by a subsequent title." Moreover, Section 48 words, a Filipino citizen cannot dissolve his marriage by the mere
of the Rules of Court states that "the judgment or final order may expedient of changing his entry of marriage in the civil registry.
be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to
the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact." Thus,
Philippine courts exercise limited review on foreign However, this does not apply in a petition for correction or
judgments. Courts are not allowed to delve into the merits cancellation of a civil registry entry based on the
of a foreign judgment. Once a foreign judgment is recognition of a foreign judgment annulling a marriage
admitted and proven in a Philippine court, it can only be where one of the parties is a citizen of the foreign country.
repelled on grounds external to its merits,  i.e., "want of There is neither circumvention of the substantive and procedural
jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, safeguards of marriage under Philippine law, nor of the jurisdiction
or clear mistake of law or fact." The rule on limited review of Family Courts under R.A. No. 8369. A recognition of a
embodies the policy of efficiency and the protection of party foreign judgment is not an action to nullify a marriage. It
expectations, as well as respecting the jurisdiction of other states. is an action for Philippine courts to recognize the
effectivity of a foreign judgment,  which presupposes a
case which was already tried and decided under foreign
While the Philippines does not have a divorce law, Philippine law. The procedure in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply in a
courts may, however, recognize a foreign divorce decree under petition to recognize a foreign judgment annulling a bigamous
the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, to marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of the foreign
capacitate a Filipino citizen to remarry when his or her foreign country. Neither can R.A. No. 8369 define the jurisdiction of the
spouse obtained a divorce decree abroad. foreign court.

There is therefore no reason to disallow Fujiki to simply Article 26 of the Family Code confers jurisdiction on Philippine
prove as a fact the Japanese Family Court judgment courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino
nullifying the marriage between Marinay and Maekara on spouse without undergoing trial to determine the validity of the
the ground of bigamy. While the Philippines has no divorce dissolution of the marriage. The second paragraph of Article 26 of
law, the Japanese Family Court judgment is fully the Family Code provides that "where a marriage between a
consistent with Philippine public policy, as bigamous Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
marriages are declared void from the beginning under thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating
Article 35(4) of the Family Code. Bigamy is a crime under him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to
Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, Fujiki can prove the remarry under Philippine law." In Republic v. Orbecido, this Court
existence of the Japanese Family Court judgment in accordance recognized the legislative intent of the second paragraph of Article
with Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 26 which is "to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino
48(b) of the Rules of Court. spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a
divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse” under the laws
II. of his or her country. The second paragraph of Article 26 of
the Family Code only authorizes Philippine courts to adopt
Since the recognition of a foreign judgment only requires the effects of a foreign divorce decree precisely because
proof of fact of the judgment, it may be made in a special the Philippines does not allow divorce. Philippine courts
proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the cannot try the case on the merits because it is tantamount
civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Rule 1, to trying a case for divorce.
Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that "a special
54
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
The second paragraph of Article 26 is only a corrective measure to should, by default, recognize the foreign judgment as part
address the anomaly that results from a marriage between a of the comity of nations. Section 48(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of
Filipino, whose laws do not allow divorce, and a foreign citizen, Court states that the foreign judgment is already "presumptive
whose laws allow divorce. The anomaly consists in the Filipino evidence of a right between the parties." Upon recognition of the
spouse being tied to the marriage while the foreign spouse is free foreign judgment, this right becomes conclusive and the judgment
to marry under the laws of his or her country. The correction is serves as the basis for the correction or cancellation of entry in the
made by extending in the Philippines the effect of the foreign civil registry. The recognition of the foreign judgment
divorce decree, which is already effective in the country where it nullifying a bigamous marriage is a subsequent event that
was rendered. The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family establishes a new status, right and fact  that needs to be
Code is based on this Court’s decision in Van Dorn v. reflected in the civil registry. Otherwise, there will be an
Romillo which declared that the Filipino spouse "should not be inconsistency between the recognition of the effectivity of the
discriminated against in her own country if the ends of justice are foreign judgment and the public records in the Philippines. 1âwphi1
to be served."
However, the recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying
The principle in Article 26 of the Family Code applies in a marriage a bigamous marriage is without prejudice to prosecution
between a Filipino and a foreign citizen who obtains a foreign for bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
judgment nullifying the marriage on the ground of bigamy. The The recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying a
Filipino spouse may file a petition abroad to declare the marriage bigamous marriage is not a ground for extinction of
void on the ground of bigamy. The principle in the second criminal liability under Articles 89 and 94 of the Revised
paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code applies because the Penal Code. Moreover, under Article 91 of the Revised Penal
foreign spouse, after the foreign judgment nullifying the marriage, Code, "[t]he term of prescription [of the crime of bigamy] shall not
is capacitated to remarry under the laws of his or her country. If run when the offender is absent from the Philippine archipelago."
the foreign judgment is not recognized in the Philippines, the
Filipino spouse will be discriminated—the foreign spouse can WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. The Order dated 31
remarry while the Filipino spouse cannot remarry. January 2011 and the Resolution dated 2 March 2011 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 107, Quezon City, in Civil Case No. Q-
Under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, 11-68582 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial
Philippine courts are empowered to correct a situation where the Court is ORDERED to REINSTATE the petition for further
Filipino spouse is still tied to the marriage while the foreign spouse proceedings in accordance with this Decision. SO ORDERED.
is free to marry. Moreover, notwithstanding Article 26 of the
Family Code, Philippine courts already have jurisdiction to extend BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS SECURITIES
the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines to the extent CORPORATION vs. EDGARDO V. GUEVARA
that the foreign judgment does not contravene domestic public
policy. A critical difference between the case of a foreign
divorce decree and a foreign judgment nullifying a Facts: Ayala Corporation, a holding company, and its subsidiaries
bigamous marriage is that bigamy, as a ground for the are engaged in a wide array of businesses including real estate,
nullity of marriage, is fully consistent with Philippine financial services, telecommunications, water and used water,
public policy as expressed in Article 35(4) of the Family electronics manufacturing services, automotive dealership and
Code and Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. The Filipino distributorship, business process outsourcing, power, renewable
spouse has the option to undergo full trial by filing a petition for energy, and transport infrastructure.
declaration of nullity of marriage under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, but
this is not the only remedy available to him or her. Philippine Ayala Corporation was the majority stockholder of Ayala
courts have jurisdiction to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying Investment and Development Corporation (AIDC). AIDC, in turn,
a bigamous marriage, without prejudice to a criminal prosecution wholly owned Philsec Investment Corporation (PHILSEC), a
for bigamy. domestic stock brokerage firm, which was subsequently bought by
BPI.
In the recognition of foreign judgments, Philippine courts are
incompetent to substitute their judgment on how a case was Edgardo Guevara was hired by Ayala Corporation. Respondent
decided under foreign law. They cannot decide on the "family later became the Head of the Legal Department of Ayala
rights and duties, or on the status, condition and legal capacity" of Corporation and then the President of PHILSEC. Thereafter, he
the foreign citizen who is a party to the foreign judgment. Thus, served as Vice-President of Ayala Corporation until his retirement.
Philippine courts are limited to the question of whether to
extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines.
While PHILSEC President, one of respondent's obligations was to
In a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage
resolve the outstanding loans of Ventura O. Ducat (Ducat), which
involving a citizen of a foreign country, Philippine courts
the latter obtained separately from PHILSEC and AIFL. Although
only decide whether to extend its effect to the Filipino
Ducat constituted a pledge of his stock portfolio valued at
party, under the rule of lex nationalii  expressed in Article
approximately US$1.4 million, Ducat's loans already amounted to
15 of the Civil Code.
US$3.1 million.

For this purpose, Philippine courts will only determine (1)

Ducat proposed to settle his debts by an exchange of assets.
whether the foreign judgment is inconsistent with an
Ducat owned several pieces of real estate in Houston, Texas, in
overriding public policy in the Philippines; and (2) whether
partnership with Drago Daic, President of 1488, Inc., a U.S.-based
any alleging party is able to prove an extrinsic ground to
corporation. Guevara relayed Ducat's proposal to Enrique Zobel,
repel the foreign judgment, i.e. want of jurisdiction, want of
the Chief Executive Officer of Ayala Corporation. Zobel advised
notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
respondent to send Thomas Gomez to evaluate Ducat's properties.
If there is neither inconsistency with public policy nor
adequate proof to repel the judgment, Philippine courts
55
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
William Craig, a former owner of the Harris County property, its issuance of the Order, thus, said Order is unenforceable in this
conducted the appraisal of the market value of the said property. jurisdiction.
Craig estimated the fair market value of the Harris County
property at US$3,365,000. According to BPI, it had reasonable grounds to implead Guevara in
Civil Action No. H-86-440 so the sanction imposed upon it under
Negotiations culminated in an Agreement, under the Agreement, Rule 11 of the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was
the total amount of Ducat's debts was reduced from US$3.1 unjustified. If the Rule 11 sanction was imposed upon BPI as
million to US$2.5 million. The series of transactions per the punishment for impleading a party (when it had reasonable basis
Agreement was eventually executed. However, after acquiring the for doing so) and not prevailing against said party, then, BPI
Harris County property, ATHONA had difficulty selling the same. claims that such a sanction is against Philippine public policy and
Despite repeated demands by 1488, Inc., ATHONA failed to pay its should not be enforced in this jurisdiction. Settled in this
promissory note for the balance of the purchase price for the jurisdiction that there should be no premium attached to the right
Harris County property, and PHILSEC and AIFL refused to release to litigate, otherwise parties would be very hesitant to assert a
the remainder of Ducat's stock portfolio, claiming that they were claim in court.
defrauded into believing that the said property had a fair market
value higher than it actually had. Issue No. 1: Whether or not the court can enforce the
Order of the U.S. District Court. Yes
1488, Inc. instituted a suit against PHILSEC, AIFL, and ATHONA
for misrepresentation and fraud. The suit was docketed as Civil Held:
Action No. H-86-440 before the U.S. District Court.

In Mijares v. Rañada, the Court extensively discussed the

PHILSEC, AIFL, and ATHONA filed counterclaims against 1488, underlying principles for the recognition and enforcement of
Inc., Daic, Craig, Ducat, and Guevara, for the recovery of damages foreign judgments in Philippine jurisdiction:
and excess payment or, in the alternative, the rescission of the
sale of the Harris County property, alleging fraud, negligence, and
conspiracy on the part of counter-defendants who knew or should There is no obligatory rule derived from treaties or conventions
have known that the value of said property was less than the that requires the Philippines to recognize foreign judgments, or
appraisal value assigned to it by Craig. allow a procedure for the enforcement thereof. 1âwphi1 However,
generally accepted principles of international law, by virtue of the
incorporation clause of the Constitution, form part of the laws of
The U.S. District Court dropped Guevara as counter-defendant for the land even if they do not derive from treaty obligations. The
lack of evidence to support the allegations against him. Guevara classical formulation in international law sees those customary
then moved in open court to sanction BPI, AIFL, and ATHONA rules accepted as binding result from the combination two
based on Rule 11 of the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. elements: the established, widespread, and consistent practice on
the part of States; and a psychological element known as the
In its Order dated March 13, 1990, the U.S. District Court ruled opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity).
favorably on Guevara's pending motion for sanction, thus: Implicit in the latter element is a belief that the practice in
question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law
…the Court concluded that the defendants' counterclaims requiring it.
against Edgardo V. Guevara are frivolous and brought
against him simply to humiliate and embarrass him. It is While the definite conceptual parameters of the recognition and
the opinion of the Court that the defendants, Philsec enforcement of foreign judgments have not been authoritatively
Investment Corporation, A/K/A BPI Securities, Inc., and established, the Court can assert with certainty that such an
Ayala International Finance Limited, should be sanctioned undertaking is among those generally accepted principles of
appropriately based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and the Court's international law. As earlier demonstrated, there is a widespread
inherent powers to punish unconscionable conduct. Based practice among states accepting in principle the need for such
upon the motion and affidavit of Edgardo V. Guevara, the recognition and enforcement, albeit subject to limitations of
Court finds that $49,450 is reasonable punishment. varying degrees. The fact that there is no binding universal treaty
governing the practice is not indicative of a widespread rejection
The Order of the U.S. District Court attained finality as it was no of the principle, but only a disagreement as to the imposable
longer appealed by BPI, AIFL, and ATHONA. specific rules governing the procedure for recognition and
enforcement.

Guevara demanded that BPI Securities Corporation pay the

amount of US$49,450.00 awarded by the U.S. District Court in its Aside from the widespread practice, it is indubitable that the
Order dated March 13, 1990. Given the continuous failure and/or procedure for recognition and enforcement is embodied in the
refusal of BPI to comply with the said Order of the U.S. District rules of law, whether statutory or jurisprudential, adopted in
Court, Guevara instituted an action for the enforcement of the various foreign jurisdictions. In the Philippines, this is evidenced
same. primarily by Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which has
existed in its current form since the early 1900s. Certainly, the
Philippine legal system has long ago accepted into its
BPI Securities Corporation opposed the enforcement of the Order. jurisprudence and procedural rules the viability of an action for
It contends that it was not accorded by the Court of Appeals the enforcement of foreign judgment, as well as the requisites for
right to refute the foreign judgment pursuant to Rule 39, Section such valid enforcement, as derived from internationally accepted
48 of the Rules of Court because the appellate court gave the doctrines. Again, there may be distinctions as to the rules adopted
effect of res judicata to the said foreign judgment. It asserts that by each particular state, but they all prescind from the premise
the U.S. District Court committed a clear mistake of law and fact in that there is a rule of law obliging states to allow for, however

56
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
generally, the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment. The filing of a civil complaint is an appropriate measure for such
The bare principle, to our mind, has attained the status of opinio purpose. A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the
juris in international practice. enforcement or protection of a right, and clearly an action to
enforce a foreign judgment is in essence a vindication of a right
This is a significant proposition, as it acknowledges that the prescinding either from a "conclusive judgment upon title" or the
procedure and requisites outlined in Section 48, Rule 39 derive "presumptive evidence of a right." Absent perhaps a statutory
their efficacy not merely from the procedural rule, but by virtue of grant of jurisdiction to a quasi-judicial body, the claim for
the incorporation clause of the Constitution. xx enforcement of judgment must be brought before the regular
courts.

It is an established international legal principle that final

judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are There are distinctions, nuanced but discernible, between the cause
reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious subject to certain of action arising from the enforcement of a foreign judgment, and
conditions that vary in different countries. In the Philippines, a that arising from the facts or allegations that occasioned the
judgment or final order of a foreign tribunal cannot be enforced foreign judgment. They may pertain to the same set of facts, but
simply by execution. Such judgment or order merely creates a there is an essential difference in the right-duty correlatives that
right of action, and its non-satisfaction is the cause of action by are sought to be vindicated. For example, in a complaint for
which a suit can be brought upon for its enforcement. An action damages against a tortfeasor, the cause of action emanates from
for the enforcement of a foreign judgment or final order in this the violation of the right of the complainant through the act or
jurisdiction is governed by Rule 39, Section 48 of the Rules of omission of the respondent. On the other hand, in a complaint for
Court, which provides: the enforcement of a foreign judgment awarding damages from
the same tortfeasor, for the violation of the same right through
the same manner of action, the cause of action derives not from
SEC. 48.Effect of foreign judgments or final orders. - The effect of the tortious act but from the foreign judgment itself.
a judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having
jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order is as follows:
As stated in Section 48, Rule 39, the actionable issues are
generally restricted to a review of jurisdiction of the foreign court,
(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific the service of personal notice, collusion, fraud, or mistake of fact
thing, the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the or law. The limitations on review [are] in consonance with a strong
title to the thing; and and pervasive policy in all legal systems to limit repetitive litigation
on claims and issues. Otherwise known as the policy of
(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a preclusion, it seeks to protect party expectations resulting from
person, the judgment or final order is presumptive previous litigation, to safeguard against the harassment of
evidence of a right as between the parties and their defendants, to insure that the task of courts not be increased by
successors in interest by a subsequent title. never-ending litigation of the same disputes.

In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by Recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment or final order
evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, requires only proof of fact of the said judgment or final order. In
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. an action in personam, as in the case at bar, the foreign judgment
or final order enjoys the disputable presumption of validity. It is
the party attacking the foreign judgment or final order that is
The Court expounded in Mijares on the application of the
tasked with the burden of overcoming its presumptive validity. A
provision:
foreign judgment or final order may only be repelled on grounds
external to its merits, particularly, want of jurisdiction, want of
There is an evident distinction between a foreign judgment in an notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
action in rem and one in personam. For an action in rem, the
foreign judgment is deemed conclusive upon the title to the thing,
The fact of a foreign final order in this case is not disputed. It was
while in an action in personam, the foreign judgment is
duly established by evidence submitted to the RTC that the U.S.
presumptive, and not conclusive, of a right as between the parties
District Court issued an Order on March 13, 1990 in Civil Action
and their successors in interest by a subsequent title. However, in
No. H-86-440 ordering petitioner, AIFL, and ATHONA, to pay
both cases, the foreign judgment is susceptible to impeachment in
respondent the sum of US$49,450.00.
our local courts on the grounds of want of jurisdiction or notice to
the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Thus,
the party aggrieved by the foreign judgment is entitled to defend The Order dated March 13, 1990 of the U.S. District Court in Civil
against the enforcement of such decision in the local forum. It is Action No. H-86-440 is presumptive evidence of the right of
essential that there should be an opportunity to challenge the respondent to demand from petitioner the payment of
foreign judgment, in order for the court in this jurisdiction to US$49,450.00 even in this jurisdiction.
properly determine its efficacy.
Issue No. 2: Whether petitioner was able to discharge the
It is clear then that it is usually necessary for an action to be filed burden of overcoming the presumptive validity of said
in order to enforce a foreign judgment, even if such judgment has Order. No
conclusive effect as in the case of in rem actions, if only for the
purpose of allowing the losing party an opportunity to challenge BPI opposes the enforcement of the Order of the U.S. District
the foreign judgment, and in order for the court to properly Court on the very same allegations, arguments, and evidence
determine its efficacy. Consequently, the party attacking a foreign presented before and considered by the U.S. District Court when it
judgment has the burden of overcoming the presumption of its rendered its verdict imposing the Rule 11 sanction against BPI. BPI
validity. attempts to convince the Court that it is necessary to look into the

57
 CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DIGEST 2018
based on the Outline of Atty. Jessa G. Wong –Cantano
IV MANRESA 2018-2019
merits because the U.S. District Court committed clear mistake of
law and fact in issuing the same.

The Court, however, is not convinced. A Philippine court will not

substitute its own interpretation of any provision of the law or
rules of procedure of another country, nor review and pronounce
its own judgment on the sufficiency of evidence presented before
a competent court of another jurisdiction. Any purported mistake
petitioner attributes to the U.S. District Court in the latter's
issuance of the Order dated March 13, 1990 would merely
constitute an error of judgment in the exercise of its legitimate
jurisdiction, which could have been corrected by a timely appeal
before the U.S. Court of Appeals.

BPI was unable to lay the basis, whether in U.S. or Philippine

jurisdiction, for the use of the "reasonable grounds standard" for
determining a party's liability for or exemption from the sanctions
imposed for violations of Rule 11 of the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Equally baseless is petitioner's assertion that the Rule
11 sanction is contrary to public policy and in effect, puts a
premium on the right to litigate.

Additional Issue:

BPI likewise argued that the US District Court committed a clear

mistake of law or fact and in support thereof "show that
[respondent] Guevara was either directly involved in the
conspiracy against the Houston defendants in submitting to the
latter a fraudulent appraisal and that the Houston defendants had
reasonable basis to implead him as a defendant in the Houston
Case on account of his participation in the conspiracy or his fault
of responsibility for the injury suffered by them."

However, none of the documents show that Guevara had any

neither participation nor knowledge in the execution, custody or
other intervention. Thus, said Exhibits "10" to "18" are irrelevant
and immaterial to the issue of the enforceability of a foreign
judgment. It must be emphasized that the imposition of the
sanctions under US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure did not flow
from the merits of the civil case in the US District Court but from
the lack of even an iota of evidence against Guevara.

PART IV. SPECIFIC CONFLICT RULES

1) NATIONALITY
2) DOMICILE
3) RENVOI
4) MARRIAGE AND ITS INCIDENTS
5) PATERNITY/FILIATION/ADOPTION
6) PROPERTY
7) WILLS AND SUCCESSION
8) CONTRACTS
9) CORPORATION
10) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
11) TORTS/DAMAGES AND CRIMES

58