Professional Documents
Culture Documents
under this title with a distinct purpose: lawfully made suggests an effort to
distinguish copies that were made lawfully from those that were not, and
under this title sets forth the standard of lawful[ness] (i.e., the U. S.
Copyright Act). This simple reading promotes the traditional copyright
objective of combatting piracy and makes word-by-word linguistic sense. In
contrast, the geographical interpretation bristles with linguistic difficulties.
Wiley first reads under to mean in conformance with the Copyright Act
where the Copyright Act is applicable. Wiley then argues that the Act is
applicable only in the United States. However, neither under nor any other
word in lawfully made under this title means where. Nor can a
geographical limitation be read into the word applicable. The fact that the
Act does not instantly protect an American copyright holder from
unauthorized piracy taking place abroad does not mean the Act is inapplicable
to copies made abroad.
BMW of North America Inc vs. Gore Jr.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a substantive
limit on the size of punitive damages.Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens,
with whom Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Breyerjoined, began his
analysis by focusing on the relationship between Alabama's interests in
punishment and deterrence and the size of the punitive-damages award.
Justice Stevens noted that under the federal system Alabama, like the other
states, has "considerable flexibility in determining the level of punitive
damages that [it] will allow in [various cases]." However, while Alabama
could compel BMW NA to comply with a particular disclosure policy in that
state, Alabama could not punish BMW NA for out-of-state conduct that was
neither unlawful nor detrimental to Alabama's residentswith the intent of
changing the tortfeasors' lawful conduct in other States." 77 Applying this
state-interest analysis, the Court concluded that the $2 million punitive award
was "grossly excessive" in relation to Alabama's legitimate objectives.
The Court developed three "guideposts" for determining whether adequate
notice has been given: (1) the "degree of reprehensibility" of defendant's
conduct; (2) the ratio between the actual or potential harm and the punitive
damages; and (3) the authorized civil or criminal sanctions for comparable
misconduct.80 Using the guideposts, the Court made three key findings. First,
because BMW NA's conduct "evinced no indifference to or reckless disregard
for the health and safety of others," and because the harm that Gore suffered
was "purely economic in nature," BMW NA's conduct was not "sufficiently
reprehensible" to justify the $2 million award.
Second, the punitive damages were 500 times the actual damages as
determined by the jury, and there was no reasonable relationship between
these two types of awards.8 2 Third, the $2 million award was dramatically
greater than the maximum $2000 civil penalty authorized by Alabama for a
violation of its Deceptive Trade Practices Act.8 3 Furthermore, there was no
judicial precedent in which similarly large punitive damages were awarded for
comparable misconduct when BMW NA's nondisclosure policy was first
challenged.
The Relationship Between Reasonableness and Substantive Due Process The
BMW Court declared that when a punitive-damages award is unreasonably
large in relation to a state's legitimate interests in punishment and deterrence,
the award "enter[s] the zone of arbitrariness that violates the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
SPECTOR V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. (03-1388)545 U.S.
119 (2005)
Title III of the ADA applies to foreign-flagged cruise ships doing business in
the United States.
Unless Specifically Exempted by the Statute in Question, Foreign-Flag Cruise
Ships Doing Business Within the Internal Waters and Ports of the United
States Must Comply with All Generally Applicable Laws. It is axiomatic that
activities taking place on United States waters are generally governed by
United States law.
The fact that a cruise ship sails under a foreign flag or is registered in a
foreign country does not exempt it from generally applicable laws of the
countries in which it does business. As this Court has recognized, [i]t is well
When the case instituted is an action in rem or quasi in rem, Philippine courts
already have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because, in actions in
rem and quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the court
acquires jurisdiction over the res. Thus, in such instance, extraterritorial
service of summons can be made upon the defendant. The said extraterritorial
service of summons is not for the purpose of vesting the court with
jurisdiction, but for complying with the requirements of fair play or due
process, so that the defendant will be informed of the pendency of the action
against him and the possibility that property in the Philippines belonging to
him or in which he has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of
the plaintiff, and he can thereby take steps to protect his interest if he is so
minded. On the other hand, when the defendant or respondent does not reside
and is not found in the Philippines, and the action involved is in personam,
Philippine courts cannot try any case against him because of the impossibility
of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in
court.
International shoe co. vs Washington
The activities in behalf of the corporation render it amenable to suit in courts
of the State to recover payments due to the state unemployment compensation
fund. The activities in question established between the State and the
corporation sufficient contacts or ties to make it reasonable and just, and in
conformity to the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment, for
the State to enforce against the corporation an obligation arising out of such
activities.
"Presence" in the state in this sense has never been doubted when the
activities of the corporation there have not only been continuous and
systematic, but also give rise to the liabilities sued on, even though no consent
to be sued or authorization to an agent to accept service of process has been
given. Conversely, it has been generally recognized that the casual presence
of the corporate agent, or even his conduct of single or isolated items of
activities in a state in the corporation's behalf, are not enough to subject it to
suit on causes of action unconnected with the activities there. To require the
corporation in such circumstances to defend the suit away from its home or
other jurisdiction where it carries on more substantial activities has been
thought to lay too great and unreasonable a burden on the corporation to
comport with due process.
Appellant having rendered itself amenable to suit upon obligations arising out
of the activities of its salesmen in Washington, the state may maintain the
present suit in personam to collect the tax laid upon the exercise of the
privilege of employing appellant's salesmen within the state.
The certificate, subject of the donation, is a personal property. The action filed
by Victoria is therefore a personal action. So in order for the court to acquire
jurisdiction over the respondents, summons must be served upon them.
Further, the certificate is indivisible, Cynthias and Teresas interests thereto
can only be determined if both are summoned in court.
In personal actions, if the respondents are residents of the Philippines, they
may be served summons in the following order:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Personal Service;
If (1) is not possible, Substituted Service;
If respondent cant be found because he is abroad but still a
resident of the Philippines, by publication with leave of court.
In personal actions still, if the respondents are non-residents,
they may be served summons in the following manner:
Limited
v.
Lepanto
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the power of a
state court to render a valid personal judgment against a nonresident
defendant. A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void in the
rendering State and is not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere.
A state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant
only so long as there exist "minimum contacts" between the defendant and the
forum State. . It protects the defendant against the burdens of litigating in a
distant or inconvenient forum. And it acts to ensure that the States through
their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their
status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system.
Thus, the Due Process Clause "does not contemplate that a state may make
binding a judgment in personam against an individual or corporate defendant
with which the state has no contacts, ties, or relations." The defendant's
contacts with the forum State must be such that maintenance of the suit does
not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, and the
relationship between the defendant and the forum must be such that it is
"reasonable . . . to require the corporation to defend the particular suit which is
brought there."
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the power of a
state court to exert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. "[T]he
constitutional touchstone" of the determination whether an exercise of
personal jurisdiction comports with due process "remains whether the
defendant purposefully established minimum contacts' in the forum State."
At the time of the filing of the complaints, the jurisdiction of the RTC in civil
cases under Batas PambansaBlg. 129, as amended by RA 7691, In all other
cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in
controversy exceed P100K or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the
demand, exclusive of the abovementioned items exceeds P200K. It is clear
that the claim for damages is the main cause of action and that the total
amount sought in the complaints is approximately P2.7 million for each of the
plaintiff claimants. The RTCs unmistakably have jurisdiction over the cases
filed in General Santos City and Davao City.
The NLRC was not in a position to determine whether the Tiannamen Square
incident truly adversely affected operations of the Palace Hotel as to justify
respondent Santos' retrenchment.
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 employer, the Palace Hotel. The Palace Hotel is
a corporation incorporated under the laws of China and was not even served
with summons. Jurisdiction over its person was not acquired. If Santos were
an "overseas contract worker", a Philippine forum, specifically the POEA, not
the NLRC, would protect him.
This Court has also 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.
CRESCENT PETROLEUM, LTD., vs. M/V LOK MAHESHWARI
Out of the seven basic factors listed in the case of Lauritzen, Philippine law
only falls under one the law of the forum. All other elements are foreign
Canada is the place of the wrongful act, of the allegiance or domicile of the
addition, courts would have to interpret the law of foreign districts, which
would pose a lot of problems and inconsistencies. This is why there is a
doctrine of forum non conveniens, to get rid of this kind of confusion.
Giving the plaintiffs interests less weight is justified when the plaintiffs are
foreign. Under this circumstance, the choice of forum is not necessarily
convenient. The connections with Scotland were not necessarily
overwhelming, but the District Court correctly found that there would be
fewer evidentiary problems. If Defendants had to prove exactly what persons
it would be difficult to identify and bring as witnesses, Defendants required
expenditures would defeat the purpose of their motion. Even if Scottish law
would not apply, the other public interest factors would be sufficient to
support dismissal. There is a local interest. The American interest is not
sufficient.
SINOCHEM INTL CO. v. MALAYSIA INTL SHIPPINGCORP
The Court ruled 9-0 that "a court need not resolve whether it has personal
jurisdiction over the defendant if it determines that a foreign tribunal is plainly
the more suitable arbiter of the merits of the case." The opinion by Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg held that while the first step of a court is normally to
determine whether it has jurisdiction, a court can dismiss a case for forum non
conveniens without establishing subject-matter or personal jurisdiction. The
Court held that determination of jurisdiction is only important when there is a
chance that the court will rule on the merits of the case. When it is clear that
the case would be more conveniently tried in a foreign court, a court should
immediately dismiss for forum non conveniens rather than undergo a
burdensome and unnecessary determination of jurisdiction before dismissing
the case anyway.
Philsec Investment Corp. vs. CA
The trial courts refusal to take cognizance of the case is not justifiable under
the principle of forum non conveniens.
First, a motion to dismiss is limited to the grounds under Rule 16, 1, which
does not include forum non conveniens. The propriety of dismissing a case
based on this principle requires a factual determination, hence, it is more
properly considered a matter of defense. Second, 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 courts desistance.
In this case, the trial court abstained from taking jurisdiction solely on the
basis of the pleadings filed by private respondents in connection with the
motion to dismiss. It failed to consider that one of the plaintiffs (PHILSEC) is
a domestic corporation and one of the defendants (Ventura Ducat) is a
Filipino, and that it was the extinguishment of the latters debt which was the
object of the transaction under litigation.
Manila Hotel Corporation vs. NLRC, Marcelo Santos
The main aspects of the case transpired in two foreign jurisdictions and the
case involves purely foreign elements. The only link that the Philippines has
with the case is that respondent Santos is a Filipino citizen. The Palace Hotel
and MHICL are foreign corporations. Not all cases involving our citizens can
be tried here.
Under the rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court or agency may
assume jurisdiction over the 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 to
the law and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine court has or is likely to have
power to enforce its decision. The conditions are unavailing in the case at bar.
the court should determine which state has the most substantial connection to
the occurrence and the parties. In a case involving a contract, the court should
consider where the contract was made, was negotiated, was to be performed,
and the domicile, place of business, or place of incorporation of the parties.
This rule takes into account several contacts and evaluates them according to
their relative importance with respect to the particular issue to be resolved.
Before determining which law should apply, first there should exist a conflict
of laws situation requiring the application of the conflict of laws rules. Also,
when the law of a foreign country is invoked to provide the proper rules for
the solution of a case, the existence of such law must be pleaded and proved.
It should be noted that when a conflicts case, one involving a foreign element,
is brought before a court or administrative agency, there are three alternatives
open to the latter in disposing of it: (1) dismiss the case, either because of lack
of jurisdiction or refusal to assume jurisdiction over the case; (2) assume
jurisdiction over the case and apply the internal law of the forum; or (3)
assume jurisdiction over the case and take into account or apply the law of
some other State or States. The courts power to hear cases and controversies
is derived from the Constitution and the laws. While it may choose to
recognize laws of foreign nations, the court is not limited by foreign sovereign
law short of treaties or other formal agreements, even in matters regarding
rights provided by foreign sovereigns.
The "Employment Agreement" between Norse and the late Abordo states that
compensation shall be paid under Philippine Law or the law of registry of
petitioners' vessel, whichever is greater. Since RestitutaAbordo was offered
P30k only by the petitioners, Singapore law was properly applied in this case.
Article 20, Labor Code of the Philippines, provides that the National Seamen
Board has original and exclusive jurisdiction over all matters or cases
including money claims, involving er-ee relations, arising out of or by virtue
of any law or contracts involving Filipino seamen for overseas employment.
Thus, it is safe to assume that the Board is familiar with pertinent Singapore
maritime laws relative to workmen's compensation. Moreover, the Board may
apply the rule on judicial notice and, "in administrative proceedings, the
technical rules of procedure particularly of evidence applied in judicial
trials, do not strictly apply."
Finally, Article IV of the Labor Code provides that "all doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this code, including its
implementing rules and resolved in favor of labor.
EDI-Staffbuilders International, Inc. vs National Labor Relations
Commission
In cases involving OFWs, the rights and obligations among and between the
OFW, the local recruiter/agent, and the foreign employer/principal are
governed by the employment contract. A contract freely entered into is
considered law between the parties; and hence, should be respected. In
formulating the contract, the parties may establish such stipulations, clauses,
injured and the place of contract; India is the law of the flag and the allegiance
of the defendant shipowner. Balancing these basic interests, it is inconceivable
that the Philippine court has any interest in the case that outweighs the
interests of Canada or India for that matter
Applying P.D. No. 1521,a maritime lien exists would not promote the public
policy behind the enactment of the law to develop the domestic shipping
industry. Opening up our courts to foreign suppliers by granting them a
maritime lien under our laws even if they are not entitled to a maritime lien
under their laws will encourage forum shopping.
It is clear that Canada has the most significant interest in this dispute. The
injured party is a Canadian corporation, the sub-charterer which placed the
orders for the supplies is also Canadian, the entity which physically delivered
the bunker fuels is in Canada, the place of contracting and negotiation is in
Canada, and the supplies were delivered in Canada.
Lex loci celebrationis relates to the "law of the place of the ceremony" or the
law of the place where a contract is made.,The doctrine of lexcontractus or lex
loci contractus means the "law of the place where a contract is executed or to
be performed." It controls the nature, construction, and validity of the contract
and it may pertain to the law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties or the law
intended by them either expressly or implicitly. Under the "state of the most
significant relationship rule," to ascertain what state law to apply to a dispute,
Section 25, Rule 132, to wit: Proof of public or official record An official
record or an entry therein, when admissible for any purpose, may be
evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the
officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that
such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in a
foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any
officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country
in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.
It cannot be overemphasized that the required certification of an officer in the
foreign service under Section 24 refers only to the documents enumerated in
Section 19(a), to wit: written official acts or records of the official acts of the
sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers of the
Philippines or of a foreign country. The SC agrees w/ the CA that had the
Court intended to include notarial documents as one of the public documents
contemplated by the provisions of Section 24, it should not have specified
only the documents referred to under paragraph (a) of Section 19.
WILDVALLEY SHIPPING CO., LTD. petitioner, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS
It is well-settled that foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction
and our courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any
other fact, they must be alleged and proved.
The two Venezuelan Laws were not duly proven as fact before the court. Only
mere photocopies of the laws were presented as evidence. For a copy of a
foreign public document to be admissible, the following requisites are
mandatory:
(1) It must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or by
his deputy; and
(2) It must be accompanied by a certificate by a secretary of the embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice consular or consular agent or foreign
service officer, and with the seal of his office.
And in case of unwritten foreign laws, the oral testimony of expert witnesses
is admissible, as are printed and published books of reports of decisions of the
courts of the country concerned if proved to be commonly admitted in such
courts.
DEUTSCHE
GESELLSCHAFT
FR
TECHNISCHE
ZUSAMMENARBEIT, also known as GERMAN AGENCY FOR
TECHNICAL COOPERATION, (GTZ) HANS PETER PAULENZ and
ANNE NICOLAY, Petitioners, vs CA
The principle of state immunity from suit, whether a local state or a foreign
state, is reflected in Section 9, Article XVI of the Constitution, which states
terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.
In the present case, the employment contract signed by Gran specifically
states that Saudi Labor Laws will govern matters not provided for in the
contract (e.g. specific causes for termination, 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.
In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a
dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign law. The foreign law is
treated as a question of fact to be properly pleaded and proved as the judge or
labor arbiter cannot take judicial notice of a foreign law. He is presumed to
know only domestic or forum law.
Unfortunately for petitioner, it did not prove the pertinent Saudi laws on the
matter; thus, the International Law doctrine ofpresumed-identity
approach or processual presumption comes into play. Where a foreign law is
not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign
law is the same as ours. Thus, we apply Philippine labor laws in determining
the issues presented before us.
Heirs of the Deceased Spouses Vicente Arcilla v. Teodoro
Adopting the provisions of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 as part and parcel
thereof. The parties to a contract may select the law by which it is to be
governed. In such a case, the foreign law is adopted as a system to regulate
the relations of the parties, including questions of their capacity to enter into
the contract, the formalities to be observed by them, matters of performance,
and so forth. Instead of adopting the entire mass of the foreign law, the parties
may just agree that specific provisions of a foreign statute shall be deemed
incorporated into their contract as a set of terms. By such reference to the
provisions of the foreign law, the contract does not become a foreign contract
to be governed by the foreign law. The said law does not operate as a statute
but as a set of contractual terms deemed written in the contract. A basic policy
of contract is to protect the expectation of the parties. Such party expectation
is protected by giving effect to the parties own choice of the applicable law.
The choice of law must, however, bear some relationship the parties or their
transaction. There is no question that the contracts sought to be enforced by
claimants have a direct connection with the Bahrain law because the services
were rendered in that country.
As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be applied in the forum
(local court), Procedural matters, such as service of process, joinder of
actions, period and requisites for appeal, and so forth, are governed by the
laws of the forum. This is true even if the action is based upon a foreign
substantive law. A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict of
Laws in the sense that it may be viewed either as procedural or substantive,
depending on the characterization given such a law.
The courts of the forum (local Court) will not enforce any foreign claim
obnoxious to the forums public policy. To enforce the one-year prescriptive
period of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 as regards the claims in question
would contravene the public policy on the protection to labor.
The state affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the
rights of workers and promote their welfare (Sec. 18).
that "the State may not be sued without its consent." If the instant suit had
been brought directly against the Federal Republic of Germany, there would
be no doubt that it is a suit brought against a State, and the only necessary
inquiry is whether said State had consented to be sued. However, the present
suit was brought against GTZ. It is necessary for us to understand what
precisely are the parameters of the legal personality of GTZ.
Where suit is filed not against the government itself or its officials but against
one of its entities, it must be ascertained whether or not the State, as the
principal that may ultimately be held liable, has given its consent to be sued.
This ascertainment will depend in the first instance on whether the
government agency impleaded is incorporated or unincorporated.
If the agency is incorporated, the test of its suability is found in its charter.
The simple rule is that it is suable if its charter says so, and this is true
regardless of the functions it is performing. Municipal corporations, for
example, like provinces and cities, are agencies of the State when they are
engaged in governmental functions and therefore should enjoy the sovereign
immunity from suit.
Had GTZ obtained such certification from the DFA, it would have provided
factual basis for its claim of immunity that would, at the very least, establish a
disputable evidentiary presumption that the foreign party is indeed immune
which the opposing party will have to overcome with its own factual
evidence.
NLRC applied the Amiri Deere, No. 23 of 1976, which provides for greater
benefits than those stipulated in the overseas-employment contracts of the
claimants. It was of the belief that where the laws of the host country are more
favorable and beneficial to the workers, then the laws of the host country shall
form part of the overseas employment contract. It approved the observation of
the POEA Administrator that in labor proceedings, all doubts in the
implementation of the provisions of the Labor Code and its implementing
regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor.
state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over the claims of nonresident
class members constituted a vital step in the process of ensuring the full and
fair litigation of multistate class actions. A decision otherwise would have
denied judicial access to multistate class action plaintiffs with small monetary
claims, thus contradicting the explicit purpose of class action adjudications.
Although precedent supports the Court's conclusion, the Court's analysis in
reaching this conclusion was inadequate. Generally, restrictions are placed
upon a state court's exercise of personal jurisdiction for two reasons: first, to
guarantee protection of the personal liberty interests of the parties to the
litigation;second, to protect state sovereignty concerns. The Shutts Court,
however, based its decision primarily on matters of convenience,'" rather than
conducting a complete analysis of the controversial aspects of personal
jurisdiction.
The minimum contacts test is premised on the theory that due process permits
state courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants who
have certain contacts with the forum state. Thus, the minimum contacts
requirement ensures that the maintenance of the action in a forum does not
offend the "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Included in these notions of fair play and substantial justice is the principle of
interstate federalism embodied in the Constitution." Accordingly, the
minimum contacts requirement limits a state court's jurisdictional powers in
order to protect the personal liberty interests of nonresident parties in
obtaining a fair adjudication of their claims. In addition, the minimum
contacts requirement guarantees the concept of state sovereignty"
Our starting point of analysis here is not a legal relation, but a factual
situation, event, or operative fact. An essential element of conflict rules is the
indication of a test or connecting factor or point of contact. Choice-of-law
rules invariably consist of a factual relationship (such as property right,
contract claim) and a connecting factor or point of contact, such as the situs of
the res, the place of celebration, the place of performance, or the place of
wrongdoing.
Note that one or more circumstances may be present to serve as the possible
In Article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights, the 1987 Constitution
provides: Sec. 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and
overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and
equality of employment opportunities for all.
Doubtless a state may prohibit the enjoyment by persons within its borders of
rights acquired elsewhere which violate its laws or public policy, and, under
some circumstances, it may refuse to aid in the enforcement of such rights.
But the Mexican corporation never was in Texas, and neither it nor the
garnishees invoked the aid of the Texas courts or the Texas laws.
And, in the absence of a contractual provision, the local statute of limitation
may be applied to a right created in another jurisdiction even where the
remedy in the latter is barred. In such cases, the rights and obligations of the
parties are not varied. When, however, the parties have expressly agreed upon
a time limit on their obligation, a statute which invalidates the agreement and
directs enforcement of the contract after the time has expired increases their
obligation and imposes a burden not contracted for.
The Texas statute as here construed and applied deprives the garnishees of
property without due process of law. A state may prohibit and declare invalid
the making of certain contracts within its borders. It may prohibit performance
within its borders. Even of contracts validly made elsewhere, if they are
required to be performed within the state and their performance would violate
its laws. But, in the case at bar, nothing in any way relating to the policy sued
on, or to the contracts of reinsurance, was ever done or required to be done in
Texas. All acts relating to the making of the policy and contracts of
reinsurance were done in Mexico or in New York.
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague
The decedent was a member of Minnesota's workforce. The State of
employment has police power responsibilities towards non-resident
employees that are analogous to those it has towards residents; as such
employees use state services and amenities and may call upon state facilities
in appropriate circumstances. Also, the State's interest in its commuting nonresident employees, such as respondent's decedent, reflects a state concern for
the safety and wellbeing of its workforce and the concomitant effect on
Minnesota employers. That the decedent was not killed while commuting to
work or while in Minnesota does not dictate a different result, since
vindication of the rights of the estate of a Minnesota employee is an important
state concern. Nor does the decedent's residence in Wisconsin constitutionally
mandate application of Wisconsin law to the exclusion of forum law.
Employment status is not a sufficiently less important status than residence,
when combined with the decedent's daily commute across state lines and the
other Minnesota contacts present, to prohibit the choice of law result in this
case on constitutional grounds.
Petitioner was at all times present and doing business in Minnesota. By virtue
of such presence, petitioner can hardly claim unfamiliarity with the laws of
the host jurisdiction and surprise that the state courts might apply forum law
to litigation in which the company is involved. Moreover, such presence gave
Minnesota an interest in regulating the company's insurance obligations
insofar as they affected both a Minnesota resident and court-appointed
representative (respondent) and a longstanding member of Minnesota's
workforce (respondent's decedent).
In addition to the other contacts, respondent became a Minnesota resident
prior to institution of the instant litigation. She subsequently moved to Savage,
Minn., after marrying a Minnesota resident who operated an automobile
service station in Bloomington, Minn.
aliens. Marriage of an alien woman to a Filipino husband does not ipso facto
make her a Filipino citizen and does not excuse her from her failure to depart
from the country upon the expiration of her extended stay here as an alien.
Under Section 9 of the Immigration Act of 1940, it is not mandatory for the
CID to admit any alien who applies for a visitor's visa. Once admitted into the
country, the alien has no right to an indefinite stay. Under Section 13 of the
law, an alien allowed to stay temporarily may apply for a change of status and
"may be admitted" as a permanent resident. Among those considered qualified
to apply for permanent residency if the wife or husband of a Philippine citizen
(Immigration Act of 1940, Sec. 13[a]). The entry of aliens into the country and
their admission as immigrants is not a matter of right, even if they are legally
married to Filipino citizens. Indonesian wife can be deported.
test for the determination of the applicable law. These test factors or points of
contact or connecting factors could be any of the following:
(1) The nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, his place of
sojourn, or his origin;
(2) the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation;
(3) the situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is deemed to be
situated. In particular, the lexsitus is decisive when real rights are involved;
(4) the place where an act has been done, the locus actus, such as the place
where a contract has been made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort
committed. The lex loci actus is particularly important in contracts and torts;
(5) the place where an act is intended to come into effect, e.g., the place of
performance of contractual duties, or the place where a power of attorney is to
be exercised;
(6) the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern
their agreement, the lex loci intentionis;
(7) the place where judicial or administrative proceedings are instituted or
done. The lexforithe law of the forumis particularly important because, as we
have seen earlier, matters of procedure not going to the substance of the claim
involved are governed by it; and because the lexfori applies whenever the
content of the otherwise applicable foreign law is excluded from application
in a given case for the reason that it falls under one of the exceptions to the
applications of foreign law; and
(8) the flag of a ship, which in many cases is decisive of practically all legal
relationships of the ship and of its master or owner as such. It also covers
contractual relationships particularly contracts of affreightment.
Considering that the complaint in the court a quo is one involving torts, the
connecting factor or point of contact could be the place or places where the
tortious conduct or lex loci actus occurred. And applying the torts principle in
a conflicts case, we find that the Philippines could be said as a situs of the tort
(the place where the alleged tortious conduct took place). This is because it is
in the Philippines where petitioner allegedly deceived private respondent, a
Filipina residing and working here. According to her, she had honestly
believed that petitioner would, in the exercise of its rights and in the
performance of its duties, act with justice, give her her due and observe
honesty and good faith.
Considering that it was the petitioner who was invoking the applicability of
the law of Saudi Arabia, thus the burden was on it [petitioner] to plead and to
establish what the law of Saudi Arabia is.
While the Fifth Amendment contains no equal protection clause, it does forbid
discrimination that is so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process. A
native-born citizen is free to reside abroad indefinitely without suffering loss
of citizenship. The discrimination aimed at naturalized citizens drastically
limits their rights to live and work abroad in a way that other citizens may. It
creates indeed a second-class citizenship. Living abroad, whether the citizen
be naturalized or native born, is no badge of lack of allegiance, and in no way
evidences a voluntary renunciation of nationality and allegiance. It may
indeed be compelled by family, business, or other legitimate reasons
Trop vs Dulles
Section 401(g), the statute that decrees the forfeiture of this petitioner's
citizenship, is based directly on a Civil War statute, which provided that a
deserter would lose his "rights of citizenship." The meaning of this phrase was
not clear. Citizenship is not subject to the general powers of the National
Government, and therefore cannot be divested in the exercise of those powers.
The right may be voluntarily relinquished or abandoned either by express
language or by language and conduct that show a renunciation of citizenship.
Under these principles, this petitioner has not lost his citizenship. Desertion in
wartime, though it may merit the ultimate penalty, does not necessarily signify
allegiance to a foreign state. Section 401(g) is not limited to cases of desertion
to the enemy, and there is no such element in this case. This soldier committed
a crime for which he should be and was punished, but he did not involve
himself in any way with a foreign state. There was no dilution of his
allegiance to this country.
equivalence between two expectant mothers who are citizens abroad if one
chooses to reenter for the childs birth and the other chooses not to return, or
does not have the means to do so. This equivalence is not a factor if the single
citizen parent living abroad is the father. For, unlike the unmarried mother, the
unmarried father as a general rule cannot control where the child will be born.
Second, although 1409(a)(4) requires certain conduct to occur before the child
of a citizen father born out of wedlock and abroad reaches 18 years of age, it
imposes no limitation on when an individual who qualifies under the statute
can claim citizenship. The statutory treatment of citizenship is identical in this
respect wether the citizen parent is the mother of the father. A person born to a
citizen parent of either gender may assert citizenship, assuming compliance
with statutory preconditions regardless of his or her age. And while the
conditions necessary for a citizen mother to transmit citizenship under 1409(c)
exist at birth, citizen father and/or their children have 18 years to satisfy the
requirements of 1409(a)(4).
Section 18.5 of R.A. No. 9189, with respect only to the votes of the President
and Vice-President, and not to the votes of the Senators and party-list
representatives, is violative of Art. VII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution.
Section 4 of R.A. No. 9189 provides that the overseas absentee voter may vote
for president, vice-president, senators, and party-list representatives.
Section 18.5 of the same Act provides:
Sec. 18.On-Site Counting and Canvassing.
xxx
xxx
xxx
18.5 The canvass of votes shall not cause the delay of the proclamation of a
winning candidate if the outcome of the election will not be affected by the
results thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission is empowered
to order the proclamation of winning candidates despite the fact that the
scheduled election has not taken place in a particular country or countries, if
the holding of elections therein has been rendered impossible by events,
factors and circumstances peculiar to such country or countries, in which
events, factors and circumstances are beyond the control or influence of the
Commission.
Petitioner claims that the provision of Section 18.5 of R.A. No. 9189
empowering the COMELEC to order the proclamation of winning candidates
for President and Vice-President is unconstitutional and violative of the
following provisions of Section 4 of Article VII of the Constitution:
Sec. 4.
xxx
xxx
xxx
The returns of every election for President and Vice-President, duly certified
by the board of canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the
Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the
certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty
days after the day of the election, open all the certificates in the presence of
the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public session, and the
Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in
the manner provided by law, canvass the votes.
The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected,
but in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one
of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members
of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.
MACALINTAL,
petitioner
BONCODIN, respondents
VS. COMELEC,
ROMULO,
and
Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189 is not violative of Art. V, Sec. 1 of the
Constitution.
Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189, entitled An Act Providing for a System of
Overseas Absentee Voting by Qualified Citizens of the Philippines Abroad,
Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes, provides:
Sec. 5. Disqualifications.The following shall be disqualified from voting
under this Act: xxxxxxxxx
It was clearly shown from the said discussions that the Constitutional
Commission intended to enfranchise as much as possible all Filipino citizens
abroad who have not abandoned their domicile of origin, which is in the
Philippines. The Commission even intended to extend to young Filipinos who
reach voting age abroad whose parents domicile of origin is in the
Philippines, and consider them qualified as voters for the first time.
COMELEC itself admits that the Citizenship Retention and ReAcquisition Act
expanded the coverage of overseas absentee voting. According to the poll
body with the passage of RA 9225 the scope of overseas absentee voting has
been consequently expanded so as to include Filipinos who are also citizens of
other countries, subject, however, to the strict prerequisites indicated in the
pertinent provisions of RA 9225.
The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates.
Congress could not have allowed the COMELEC to usurp a power that
constitutionally belongs to it or, as aptly stated by petitioner, to encroach on
the power of Congress to canvass the votes for President and Vice-President
and the power to proclaim the winners for the said positions.
Section 25 of R.A. No. 9189, with respect only to the second sentence in its
second paragraph allowing Congress to exercise the power to review, revise,
amend, and approve the IRR that the COMELEC shall promulgate, is
violative of Art. IX-A, Sec. 1 of the Constitution.
Lopez vs Comelec
While respondent was able to regain his Filipino Citizenship by virtue of the
Dual Citizenship Law when he took his oath of allegiance before the Vice
Consul of the Philippine Consulate Generals Office in Los Angeles,
California, the same is not enough to allow him to run for a public office. The
above-quoted provision of law mandates that a candidate with dual citizenship
must make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath. There is
no evidence presented that will show that respondent complied with the
provision of R.A. No. 9225. Absent such proof we cannot allow respondent to
run for Barangay Chairman of Barangay Bagacay.
Such act of using a foreign passport does not divest Arnado of his Filipino
citizenship, which he acquired by repatriation. However, by representing
himself as an American citizen, Arnado voluntarily and effectively reverted to
his earlier status as a dual citizen. Such reversion was not retroactive; it took
place the instant Arnado represented himself as an American citizen by using
his US passport. This act of using a foreign passport after renouncing ones
foreign citizenship is fatal to Arnados bid for public office, as it effectively
imposed on him a disqualification to run for an elective local position. In
effect, Arnado was solely and exclusively a Filipino citizen only for a period
of eleven days, or from 3 April 2009 until 14 April 2009, on which date he
first used his American passport after renouncing his American citizenship.
American law does not govern in this jurisdiction. Instead, Section 40(d) of
the Local Government Code calls for application in the case before us, given
the fact that at the time Arnado filed his certificate of candidacy, he was not
only a Filipino citizen but, by his own declaration, also an American citizen. It
is the application of this law and not of any foreign law that serves as the basis
for Arnados disqualification to run for any local elective position. This
requirement of renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship, when read
together with Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code which disqualifies
those with dual citizenship from running for any elective local position,
indicates a policy that anyone who seeks to run for public office must be
solely and exclusively a Filipino citizen. To allow a former Filipino who
reacquires Philippine citizenship to continue using a foreign passport which
indicates the recognition of a foreign state of the individual as its national
even after the Filipino has renounced his foreign citizenship, is to allow a
complete disregard of this policy.
xxx for Reyes to reacquire her Filipino citizenship and become eligible for
public office the law requires that she must have accomplished the following
acts: (1) take the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before
R.A. No. 9225 allows the retention and re-acquisition of Filipino citizenship
for natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by taking
an oath of allegiance to the Republic. The oath is an abbreviated repatriation
process that restores ones Filipino citizenship and all civil and political rights
and obligations concomitant therewith, subject to certain conditions imposed
in Section 5.
Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 compels natural-born Filipinos, who
have been naturalized as citizens of a foreign country, but who reacquired or
retained their Philippine citizenship (1) to take the oath of allegiance under
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, and (2) for those seeking elective public
offices in the Philippines, to additionally execute a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before an authorized public
officer prior or simultaneous to the filing of their certificates of candidacy, to
qualify as candidates in Philippine elections.
Foreign laws are not a matter of judicial notice. Like any other
fact, they must be alleged and proven. To prove a foreign law, the
party invoking it must present a copy thereof and comply with Sections 24
and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court which reads:
Sec. 24. Proof of official record. The record of public documents referred to
in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be
evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the
officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that
such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in a
foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice- consul, or consular agent or by any
officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country
in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.
(Emphasis ours)
The Court has admitted certain exceptions to the above rules and held that the
existence of a foreign law may also be established through: (1) a testimony
under oath of an expert witness such as an attorney-at-law in the country
where the foreign law operates wherein he quotes verbatim a section of the
law and states that the same was in force at the time material to the facts at
hand; and (2) likewise, in several naturalization cases, it was held by the Court
that evidence of the law of a foreign country on reciprocity regarding the
acquisition of citizenship, although not meeting the prescribed rule of practice,
may be allowed and used as basis for favorable action, if, in the light of all the
circumstances, the Court is "satisfied of the authenticity of the written proof
offered.
the Consul-General of the Philippine Consulate in the USA; and (2) make a
personal and sworn renunciation of her American citizenship before any
public officer authorized to administer an oath." In the case at bar, there is no
showing that Reyes complied with the aforesaid requirements.