HASEGAWA V.

KITAMURA, 538 SCRA 26, (2007)

FACTS
Kitamura, initiated an action for specific performance and damages against
Hasegawa and Nippon with the RTC of Lipa City. Nippon and Hasegawa moved to
dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, contending that the contract being
enforced by Kitamura had been perfected in Japan, between and among Japanese
nationals. They assert that the action shall be heard in the proper courts in Japan
following the principle of lex loci celebrationis and lex contractus. Thus, petitioners
posit that local courts have no substantial relationship to the parties following the
state of the most significant relationship rule in Private International Law. RTC
denied the MTD, and subsequently denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.
On a petition for certiorari to CA, it dismissed the petition. CA ruled that the
principle of lex loci celebrationis was not applicable to the case, because nowhere in
the pleadings was the validity of the written agreement put in issue. CA declared
that the trial court was correct in applying instead the principle of lex loci solutionis.
Having their motion for reconsideration denied, the petitioners interposed this
petition for review.
ISSUE:
Whether the trial court validly exercised jurisdiction over the instant
controversy, despite the fact that the contract subject matter of the proceedings
was entered into by and between Japanese nationals, written wholly in the Japanese
language and executed in Japan?
RULING: 1. YES, THE TRIAL COURT VALIDLY ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE
INSTANT CASE. In the instant case, petitioners, in their MTD, do not claim that the
trial court is not properly vested by law with jurisdiction to hear the subject
controversy for, indeed, an action for specific performance and damages is one not
capable of pecuniary estimation and is properly cognizable by the RTC of Lipa City.
What they rather raise as grounds to question subject matter jurisdiction are the
principles of lex loci celebrationis and lex contractus, and the state of the most
significant relationship rule. The Court finds the invocation of these grounds
unsound. The Court is not inclined to deny this petition merely on the basis of the
change in theory, as explained in Philippine Ports Authority v. City of Iloilo

RAYTHEON INTERNATIONAL V. STOCKTON W. ROUZIE, JR., G.R. NO. 162894,

(FEBRUARY 26, 2008), 546 SCRA 555
FACTS
Brand Marine Services, Inc. (BMSI), a corporation duly organized & existing under
the laws of Connecticut, & Stockton Rouzie, Jr., an American citizen, entered into a
contract. BMSI hired Rouzie as its representative to negotiate the sale of services in

several government projects in the Philippines for an agreed remuneration of 10%

of the gross receipts. Rouzie secured a service contract w/ the Rep. of Phil. on
behalf of BMSI for the dredging of rivers affected by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption &
mudflows. Rouzie filed before the NLRC a suit against BMSI and Rust International
(Rust) for alleged nonpayment of commissions, illegal termination, & breach of
employment contract. The Labor Arbiter ordered BMSI & Rust to pay Rouzies money
claims. Upon appeal, the NLRC reversed & dismissed Rouzies complaint on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction. Rouzie filed an action for damages before the RTC of
La Union (where he was a resident) against Raytheon International. He reiterated
that he was not paid the commissions due him from the Pinatubo dredging project
w/c he secured on behalf of BMSI. The complaint also averred that BMSI, RUST and
Raytheon had combined & functioned as 1 company. RAYTHEON SOUGHT THE
DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUNDS OF FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE
OF ACTION & FORUM NON CONVENIENS & PRAYED FOR DAMAGES BY WAY OF
COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM.
ISSUE W/N the complaint should be dismissed on the ground of forum non
conveniens.
RULING NO. UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, A COURT, IN
CONFLICTS-OF-LAWS CASES, MAY REFUSE IMPOSITIONS ON ITS JURISDICTION
WHERE IT IS NOT THE MOST CONVENIENT OR AVAILABLE FORUM AND THE
PARTIES ARE NOT PRECLUDED FROM SEEKING REMEDIES ELSEWHERE. Raytheons
averments of the foreign elements are not sufficient to oust the RTC of its
jurisdiction over the case and the parties involved. Moreover, the propriety of
dismissing a case based on the principle of forum non conveniens requires a factual
determination; hence, it is more properly considered as a matter of defense. While it
is w/c 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 courts desistance.