You are on page 1of 14

9/9/2016

G.R.No.149177

THIRDDIVISION

KAZUHIROHASEGAWAandNIPPON
G.R.No.149177
ENGINEERINGCONSULTANTSCO.,

LTD.,
Present:

Petitioners,
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.,

Chairperson,

AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,

CHICONAZARIO,
versus
NACHURA,and

REYES,JJ.

Promulgated:

MINORUKITAMURA,
November23,2007
Respondent.

xx

DECISION

NACHURA,J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
[1]
assailingtheApril18,2001Decision oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.SPNo.60827,
[2]
andtheJuly25,2001Resolution denyingthemotionforreconsiderationthereof.

On March 30, 1999, petitioner Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd. (Nippon), a Japanese
consultancy firm providing technical and management support in the infrastructure projects of
[3]
foreign governments, entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA) with
[4]
respondentMinoruKitamura,aJapanesenationalpermanentlyresidinginthePhilippines. The
agreement provides that respondent was to extend professional services to Nippon for a year
[5]
startingonApril1,1999. Nipponthenassignedrespondenttoworkastheprojectmanagerof
the Southern TagalogAccess Road (STAR) Project in the Philippines, following the company's
[6]
consultancycontractwiththePhilippineGovernment.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

1/14

9/9/2016

G.R.No.149177

When the STAR Project was near completion, the Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH) engaged the consultancy services of Nippon, on January 28, 2000, this time for the
detailed engineering and construction supervision of the BongabonBaler Road Improvement
[7]
(BBRI)Project. Respondentwasnamedastheprojectmanagerinthecontract'sAppendix3.1.
[8]

On February 28, 2000, petitioner Kazuhiro Hasegawa, Nippon's general manager for its
International Division, informed respondent that the company had no more intention of
automaticallyrenewinghisICA. His services would be engaged by the company only up to the
substantialcompletionoftheSTARProjectonMarch31,2000,justintimefortheICA'sexpiry.
[9]

Threatened with impending unemployment, respondent, through his lawyer, requested a


negotiation conference and demanded that he be assigned to the BBRI project. Nippon insisted
thatrespondentscontractwasforafixedtermthathadalreadyexpired,andrefusedtonegotiate
[10]
fortherenewaloftheICA.

Ashewasnotabletogenerateapositiveresponsefromthepetitioners,respondentconsequently
initiatedonJune1,2000CivilCaseNo.000264forspecificperformanceanddamageswiththe
[11]
RegionalTrialCourtofLipaCity.

Fortheirpart,petitioners,contendingthattheICAhadbeenperfectedinJapanandexecutedby
and between Japanese nationals, moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. They
assertedthattheclaimforimproperpreterminationofrespondent'sICAcouldonlybeheardand
ventilatedinthepropercourtsofJapanfollowingtheprinciplesoflexlocicelebrationisand lex
[12]
contractus.

Inthemeantime,onJune20,2000,theDPWHapprovedNippon'srequestforthereplacementof
[13]
KitamurabyacertainY.KotakeasprojectmanageroftheBBRIProject.

[14]
OnJune29,2000,theRTC,invokingourrulinginInsularGovernmentv.Frank
thatmatters
connected with the performance of contracts are regulated by the law prevailing at the place of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

2/14

9/9/2016

G.R.No.149177

[15]
[16]
performance,
denied the motion to dismiss.
The trial court subsequently denied
[17]
petitioners' motion for reconsideration,
prompting them to file with the appellate court, on
August14,2000,theirfirstPetitionforCertiorariunderRule65[docketedasCAG.R.SPNo.
[18]
60205].
OnAugust23,2000,theCAresolvedtodismissthepetitiononproceduralgroundsfor
lackofstatementofmaterialdatesandforinsufficientverificationandcertificationagainstforum
[19]
shopping.
An Entry of Judgment was later issued by the appellate court on September 20,
[20]
2000.

Aggrievedbythisdevelopment,petitionersfiledwiththeCA,onSeptember19,2000,stillwithin
thereglementaryperiod,asecondPetitionforCertiorariunderRule65alreadystatingthereinthe
materialdatesandattachingtheretotheproperverificationandcertification.Thissecondpetition,
whichsubstantiallyraisedthesameissuesasthoseinthefirst,wasdocketedasCAG.R.SPNo.
[21]
60827.

Ruling on the merits of the second petition, the appellate court rendered the assailed April 18,
[22]
2001Decision
findingnograveabuseofdiscretioninthetrialcourt'sdenialofthemotionto
dismiss.TheCAruled,amongothers,thattheprincipleoflexlocicelebrationiswasnotapplicable
to the case, because nowhere in the pleadings was the validity of the written agreement put in
issue.TheCAthusdeclaredthatthetrialcourtwascorrectinapplyinginsteadtheprincipleoflex
[23]
locisolutionis.

Petitioners'motionforreconsiderationwassubsequentlydeniedbytheCAintheassailedJuly25,
[24]
2001Resolution.

Remainingsteadfastintheirstancedespitetheseriesofdenials,petitionersinstitutedtheinstant
[25]
PetitionforReviewonCertiorari
imputingthefollowingerrorstotheappellatecourt:

A. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE


TRIAL COURT VALIDLY EXERCISED JURISDICTION OVER THE INSTANT
CONTROVERSY,DESPITETHEFACTTHATTHECONTRACTSUBJECTMATTEROFTHE
PROCEEDINGS A QUO WAS ENTERED INTO BY AND BETWEEN TWO JAPANESE
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

3/14

9/9/2016

G.R.No.149177

NATIONALS, WRITTEN WHOLLY IN THE JAPANESE LANGUAGE AND EXECUTED IN


TOKYO,JAPAN.

B. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN OVERLOOKING THE


NEEDTOREVIEWOURADHERENCETOTHEPRINCIPLEOFLEXLOCISOLUTIONISIN
[26]
THELIGHTOFRECENTDEVELOPMENT[S]INPRIVATEINTERNATIONALLAWS.

The pivotal question that this Court is called upon to resolve is whether the subject matter
jurisdiction of Philippine courts in civil cases for specific performance and damages involving
contractsexecutedoutsidethecountrybyforeignnationalsmaybeassailedontheprinciplesoflex
locicelebrationis,lexcontractus,thestateofthemostsignificantrelationshiprule,orforum non
conveniens.

However,beforerulingonthisissue,wemustfirstdisposeoftheproceduralmattersraisedbythe
respondent.

Kitamuracontendsthatthefinalityoftheappellatecourt'sdecisioninCAG.R.SPNo.60205has
alreadybarredthefilingofthesecondpetitiondocketedasCAG.R.SPNo.60827(fundamentally
raisingthesameissuesasthoseinthefirstone)andtheinstantpetitionforreviewthereof.

We do not agree. When the CA dismissed CAG.R. SP No. 60205 on account of the petition's
[27]
defectivecertificationofnonforumshopping,itwasadismissalwithoutprejudice.
Thesame
holds true in the CA's dismissal of the said case due to defects in the formal requirement of
[28]
verification
andintheotherrequirementinRule46oftheRulesofCourtonthestatementof
[29]
thematerialdates.
Thedismissalbeingwithoutprejudice,petitionerscanrefilethepetition,
orfileasecondpetitionattachingtheretotheappropriateverificationandcertificationas they, in
[30]
factdidandstatingthereinthematerialdates,withintheprescribedperiod
inSection4,Rule
[31]
65ofthesaidRules.

The dismissal of a case without prejudice signifies the absence of a decision on the merits and
leavesthepartiesfreetolitigatethematterinasubsequentactionasthoughthedismissedaction
hadnotbeencommenced.Inotherwords,theterminationofacasenotonthemeritsdoesnotbar
[32]
anotheractioninvolvingthesameparties,onthesamesubjectmatterandtheory.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

4/14

9/9/2016

G.R.No.149177

Necessarily, because the said dismissal is without prejudice and has no res judicata effect, and
even if petitioners still indicated in the verification and certification of the second certiorari
[33]
petition that the first had already been dismissed on procedural grounds,
petitioners are no
longerrequiredbytheRulestoindicateintheircertificationofnonforumshoppingintheinstant
petitionforreviewofthesecondcertioraripetition,thestatusoftheaforesaidfirstpetitionbefore
theCA.Inanycase,anomissioninthecertificateofnonforumshoppingaboutanyeventthatwill
notconstituteresjudicataandlitispendentia,asinthepresentcase,isnotafataldefect.Itwillnot
warrantthedismissalandnullificationoftheentireproceedings,consideringthattheevilssought
[34]
tobepreventedbythesaidcertificatearenolongerpresent.

The Court also finds no merit in respondent's contention that petitioner Hasegawa is only
authorizedtoverifyandcertify,onbehalfofNippon,thecertioraripetitionfiledwiththeCAand
[35]
nottheinstantpetition.True,theAuthorization
datedSeptember4,2000,whichisattachedto
the second certiorari petition and which is also attached to the instant petition for review, is
limitedinscopeitswordingsindicatethatHasegawaisgiventheauthoritytosignforandacton
behalfofthecompanyonlyinthepetitionfiledwiththeappellatecourt,andthatauthoritycannot
[36]
extend to the instant petition for review.
In a plethora of cases, however, this Court has
liberallyappliedtheRulesorevensuspendeditsapplicationwheneverasatisfactoryexplanation
[37]
and a subsequent fulfillment of the requirements have been made.
Given that petitioners
[38]
herein sufficiently explained their misgivings on this point and appended to their Reply
an
[39]
updatedAuthorization
forHasegawatoactonbehalfofthecompanyintheinstantpetition,
theCourtfindsthesameassufficientcompliancewiththeRules.

However,theCourtcannotextendthesameliberaltreatmenttothedefectintheverificationand
certification.Asrespondentpointedout,andtowhichweagree,Hasegawaistrulynotauthorized
toactonbehalfofNipponinthiscase.TheaforesaidSeptember4,2000Authorizationandeven
thesubsequentAugust17,2001AuthorizationwereissuedonlybyNippon'spresidentandchief
executiveofficer,notbythecompany'sboardofdirectors.Innotafewcases,wehaveruledthat
corporatepowersareexercisedbytheboardofdirectorsthus,noperson,notevenitsofficers,can
[40]
bindthecorporation,intheabsenceofauthorityfromtheboard.
ConsideringthatHasegawa
verifiedandcertifiedthepetitiononlyonhisbehalfandnotonbehalfoftheotherpetitioner,the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

5/14

9/9/2016

G.R.No.149177

[41]
petition has to be denied pursuant to Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman.
Substantial
[42]
compliance will not suffice in a matter that demands strict observance of the Rules.
While
technicalrulesofprocedurearedesignednottofrustratetheendsofjustice,nonetheless,theyare
intendedtoeffecttheproperandorderlydispositionofcasesandeffectivelypreventtheclogging
[43]
ofcourtdockets.

Further,theCourthasobservedthatpetitionersincorrectlyfiledaRule65petitiontoquestionthe
trialcourt'sdenialoftheirmotiontodismiss.Itisawellestablishedrulethatanorderdenyinga
motion to dismiss is interlocutory, and cannot be the subject of the extraordinary petition for
certiorariormandamus.Theappropriaterecourseistofileananswerandtointerposeasdefenses
the objections raised in the motion, to proceed to trial, and, in case of an adverse decision, to
[44]
elevatetheentirecasebyappealinduecourse.
Whiletherearerecognizedexceptionstothis
[45]
rule,
petitioners'casedoesnotfallamongthem.

Thisbringsustothediscussionofthesubstantiveissueofthecase.

AssertingthattheRTCofLipaCityisaninconvenientforum,petitionersquestionitsjurisdiction
tohearandresolvethecivilcaseforspecificperformanceanddamagesfiledbytherespondent.
The ICA subject of the litigation was entered into and perfected in Tokyo, Japan, by Japanese
nationals, and written wholly in the Japanese language. Thus, petitioners posit that local courts
[46]
have no substantial relationship to the parties
following the [state of the] most significant
[47]
relationshipruleinPrivateInternationalLaw.

TheCourtnotesthatpetitionersadoptedanadditionalbutdifferenttheorywhentheyelevatedthe
[48]
casetotheappellatecourt.IntheMotiontoDismiss
filedwiththetrialcourt,petitionersnever
contended that the RTC is an inconvenient forum. They merely argued that the applicable law
whichwilldeterminethevalidityorinvalidityofrespondent'sclaimisthatofJapan,followingthe
[49]
principles of lex loci celebrationis and lex contractus.
While not abandoning this stance in
theirpetitionbeforetheappellatecourt,petitionersoncertiorarisignificantlyinvokedthedefense
[50]
offorumnonconveniens.
On petition for review before this Court, petitioners dropped their
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

6/14

9/9/2016

G.R.No.149177

other arguments, maintained the forum non conveniens defense, and introduced their new
[51]
argumentthattheapplicableprincipleisthe[stateofthe]mostsignificantrelationshiprule.

Bethatasitmay,thisCourtisnotinclinedtodenythispetitionmerelyonthebasisofthechange
[52]
in theory, as explained in Philippine Ports Authority v. City of Iloilo.
We only pointed out
petitioners' inconstancy in their arguments to emphasize their incorrect assertion of conflict of
lawsprinciples.

To elucidate, in the judicial resolution of conflicts problems, three consecutive phases are
involved: jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement of judgments.
Correspondingtothesephasesarethefollowingquestions:(1)Wherecanorshouldlitigationbe
initiated? (2) Which law will the court apply? and (3) Where can the resulting judgment be
[53]
enforced?

[54]
Analytically, jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct concepts.
Jurisdiction considers
whetheritisfairtocauseadefendanttotraveltothisstatechoiceoflawasksthefurtherquestion
whethertheapplicationofasubstantivelawwhichwilldeterminethemeritsofthecaseisfairto
bothparties.Thepowertoexercisejurisdictiondoesnotautomaticallygiveastateconstitutional
authoritytoapplyforumlaw.Whilejurisdictionandthechoiceofthelexforiwilloftencoincide,
the minimum contacts for one do not always provide the necessary significant contacts for the
[55]
other.
The question of whether the law of a state can be applied to a transaction is different
[56]
fromthequestionofwhetherthecourtsofthatstatehavejurisdictiontoenterajudgment.

Inthiscase,onlythefirstphaseisatissuejurisdiction.Jurisdiction,however,hasvariousaspects.
Foracourttovalidlyexerciseitspowertoadjudicateacontroversy,itmusthavejurisdictionover
theplaintifforthepetitioner,overthedefendantortherespondent,overthesubjectmatter,over
theissuesofthecaseand,incasesinvolvingproperty,overtheresorthethingwhichisthesubject
[57]
of the litigation.
In assailing the trial court's jurisdiction herein, petitioners are actually
referringtosubjectmatterjurisdiction.

Jurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterinajudicialproceedingisconferredbythesovereignauthority
whichestablishesandorganizesthecourt.Itisgivenonlybylawandinthemannerprescribedby
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

7/14

9/9/2016

G.R.No.149177

[58]
law.
It is further determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespective of whether the
[59]
plaintiffisentitledtoallorsomeoftheclaimsassertedtherein.
Tosucceedinitsmotionfor
[60]
the dismissal of an action for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim,
the
movantmustshowthatthecourtortribunalcannotactonthemattersubmittedtoitbecauseno
[61]
lawgrantsitthepowertoadjudicatetheclaims.

Intheinstantcase,petitioners,intheirmotiontodismiss,donotclaimthatthetrialcourtisnot
properlyvestedbylawwithjurisdictiontohearthesubjectcontroversyfor,indeed,CivilCaseNo.
000264forspecificperformanceanddamagesisonenotcapableofpecuniaryestimationandis
[62]
properlycognizablebytheRTCofLipaCity.
Whattheyratherraise as grounds to question
subjectmatterjurisdictionaretheprinciplesoflexlocicelebrationisandlex contractus, and the
stateofthemostsignificantrelationshiprule.

TheCourtfindstheinvocationofthesegroundsunsound.
[63]
Lexlocicelebrationisrelatestothelawoftheplaceoftheceremony
orthelawoftheplace
[64]
whereacontractismade.
Thedoctrineoflexcontractusorlexlocicontractusmeansthelaw
[65]
of the place where a contract is executed or to be performed.
It controls the nature,
[66]
construction,andvalidityofthecontract
anditmaypertaintothelawvoluntarilyagreedupon
[67]
bythepartiesorthelawintendedbythemeitherexpresslyorimplicitly.
Underthestateofthe
mostsignificantrelationshiprule,toascertainwhatstatelawtoapplytoadispute,thecourtshould
determinewhichstatehasthemostsubstantialconnectiontotheoccurrenceandtheparties.Ina
caseinvolvingacontract,thecourtshouldconsiderwherethecontractwasmade,wasnegotiated,
wastobeperformed,andthedomicile,placeofbusiness,orplaceofincorporationoftheparties.
[68]
This rule takes into account several contacts and evaluates them according to their relative
[69]
importancewithrespecttotheparticularissuetoberesolved.

Sincethesethreeprinciplesinconflictoflawsmakereferencetothelawapplicabletoadispute,
[70]
theyarerulesproperforthesecondphase,thechoiceoflaw.
Theydeterminewhichstate'slaw
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

8/14

9/9/2016

G.R.No.149177

[71]
istobeappliedinresolvingthesubstantiveissuesofaconflictsproblem.
Necessarily,asthe
onlyissueinthiscaseisthatofjurisdiction,choiceoflawrulesarenotonlyinapplicablebutalso
notyetcalledfor.

Further,petitioners'prematureinvocationofchoiceoflawrulesisexposedbythefactthatthey
have not yet pointed out any conflict between the laws of Japan and ours. Before determining
which law should apply, first there should exist a conflict of laws situation requiring the
[72]
applicationoftheconflictoflawsrules.
Also,whenthelawofaforeigncountryisinvokedto
providetheproperrulesforthesolutionofacase,theexistenceofsuchlawmustbepleadedand
[73]
proved.

Itshouldbenotedthatwhenaconflictscase,oneinvolvingaforeignelement,isbroughtbeforea
courtoradministrativeagency,therearethreealternativesopentothelatterindisposingofit:(1)
dismiss the case, either because of lack of jurisdiction or refusal to assume jurisdiction over the
case(2)assumejurisdictionoverthecaseandapplytheinternallawoftheforumor(3)assume
[74]
jurisdictionoverthecaseandtakeintoaccountorapplythelawofsomeotherStateorStates.
ThecourtspowertohearcasesandcontroversiesisderivedfromtheConstitutionandthelaws.
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
[75]
providedbyforeignsovereigns.

[76]
Neithercantheothergroundraised,forumnonconveniens,
beusedtodeprivethetrial
court of its jurisdiction herein. First, it is not a proper basis for a motion to dismiss because
[77]
Section1,Rule16oftheRulesofCourtdoesnotincludeitasaground.
Second, whether a
suitshouldbeentertainedordismissedonthebasisofthesaiddoctrinedependslargelyuponthe
[78]
factsoftheparticularcaseandisaddressedtothesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt.
In this
case,theRTCdecidedtoassumejurisdiction.Third,theproprietyofdismissingacasebasedon
this principle requires a factual determination hence, this conflicts principle is more properly
[79]
consideredamatterofdefense.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

9/14

9/9/2016

G.R.No.149177

Accordingly,sincetheRTCisvestedbylawwiththepowertoentertainandhearthecivilcase
filed by respondent and the grounds raised by petitioners to assail that jurisdiction are
inappropriate,thetrialandappellatecourtscorrectlydeniedthepetitionersmotiontodismiss.
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thepetitionforreviewoncertiorariisDENIED.

SOORDERED.

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice

RUBENT.REYES
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewas
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,
I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

10/14

9/9/2016

G.R.No.149177

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeBienvenidoL.Reyes,withthelateAssociateJusticeEubuloG.VerzolaandAssociateJusticeMarinaL.
Buzon,concurringrollo,pp.3744.
[2]
Id.at4647.
[3]
CArollo(CAG.R.SPNo.60827),p.84.
[4]
Id.at116120.
[5]
Id.at3236.
[6]
Id.at85.
[7]
Id.at121148.
[8]
Id.at166171.
[9]
Id.at38.
[10]
Id.at3941.
[11]
Id.at109.
[12]
Id.at5357.
[13]
Id.at4243.
[14]
13Phil.236(1909).
[15]
InsularGovernmentv.Frank,id.at240.
[16]
CArollo(CAG.R.SPNo.60827),pp.2526.
[17]
Id.at2728.
[18]
CArollo(CAG.R.SPNo.60205),pp.242.
[19]
Id.at44.TheAugust23,2000ResolutionpennedbyAssociateJusticeDelilahVidallonMagtolis(retired),withtheconcurrenceof
AssociateJusticesEloyR.Bello,Jr.(retired)andElviJohnS.Asuncion(dismissed)pertinentlyprovidesasfollows:
Acursoryreadingofthepetitionindicatesnostatementastothedatewhenthepetitionersfiledtheirmotionforreconsideration
andwhentheyreceivedtheorderofdenialthereof,asrequiredinSection3,paragraph2,Rule46ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedureas
amendedbyCircularNo.3998datedAugust18,1998oftheSupremeCourt.Moreover,theverificationandcertificationofnonforum
shoppingwasexecutedbypetitionerKazuhiroHasegawaforbothpetitionerswithoutanyindicationthatthelatterhadauthorizedhim
tofilethesame.
WHEREFORE,the[petition]isDENIEDduecourseandDISMISSEDoutright.
SOORDERED.
[20]
Id.at45.
[21]
CArollo(CAG.R.SPNo.60827),pp.224.
[22]
Supranote1.
[23]
Id.at222.
[24]
Supranote2.
[25]
Rollo,pp.335.
[26]
Id.at15.
[27]
SeeSpousesMelov.CourtofAppeals,376Phil.204,213214(1999),inwhichtheSupremeCourtruledthatcompliancewiththe
certification against forum shopping is separate from, and independent of, the avoidance of forum shopping itself. Thus, there is a
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

11/14

9/9/2016

G.R.No.149177

differenceinthetreatmentintermsofimposablesanctionsbetweenfailuretocomplywiththecertificationrequirementandviolationof
theprohibitionagainstforumshopping.Theformerismerelyacauseforthedismissal,withoutprejudice,ofthecomplaintorinitiatory
pleading, while the latter is a ground for summary dismissal thereof and constitutes direct contempt. See also Philippine Radiant
Products,Inc.v.MetropolitanBank&TrustCompany,Inc.,G.R.No.163569,December9,2005,477SCRA299,314,inwhichthe
Courtruledthatthedismissalduetofailuretoappendtothepetitiontheboardresolutionauthorizingacorporateofficertofilethesame
forandinbehalfofthecorporationiswithoutprejudice.Soisthedismissalofthepetitionforfailureofthepetitionertoappendthereto
therequisitecopiesoftheassailedorder/s.
[28]
SeeTorresv.SpecializedPackagingDevelopmentCorporation,G.R.No.149634,July6,2004,433SCRA455,463464,inwhich
the Court made the pronouncement that the requirement of verification is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and
noncompliancetherewithdoesnotnecessarilyrenderitfatallydefective.
[29]
Section3,Rule46oftheRulesofCourtpertinentlystatesthatxxx[i]nactionsfiledunderRule65,thepetitionshallfurther
indicatethematerialdatesshowingwhennoticeofthejudgmentorfinalorderorresolutionsubjectthereofwasreceived,whenamotion
fornewtrialorreconsideration,ifany,wasfiledandwhennoticeofthedenialthereofwasreceived.xxx
[30]
Estrerav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.Nos.15423536,August16,2006,499SCRA86,95andSpousesMelov.CourtofAppeals,
supranote27,at214.
[31]
TheRulesofCourtpertinentlyprovidesinSection4,Rule65that[t]hepetitionmaybefilednotlaterthansixty(60)daysfrom
noticeofthejudgment,orderorresolution.Incaseamotionforreconsiderationornewtrialistimelyfiled,whethersuchmotionis
requiredornot,thesixty(60)dayperiodshallbecountedfromnoticeofthedenialofsaidmotion.xxx
[32]
Delgadov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.137881,December21,2004,447SCRA402,415.
[33]
CArollo(CAG.R.SPNo.60827),p.21.
[34]
Fuentebellav.Castro,G.R.No.150865,June30,2006,494SCRA183,193194seeRoxasv.CourtofAppeals,415Phil.430
(2001).
[35]
Rollo,p.33CArollo(CAG.R.SPNo.60827),p.23.TheAuthorizationdatedSeptember4,2000pertinentlyreads:
I,KENTAKAGI,PresidentandChiefExecutiveOfficerofNIPPONENGINEERINGCONSULTANTSCO.,LTD.,acorporationduly
organized and existing in accordance with the corporation laws of Japan, with principal address at 3231 Komagome, Toshimaku
Tokyo,Japan,herebyauthorizeitsInternationalDivisionGeneralManager,Mr.KazuhiroHasegawa,tosignandactforandinbehalfof
NipponEngineeringConsultantsCo.,Ltd.,forpurposesoffilingaPetitionforCertioraribeforethepropertribunalinthecaseentitled:
KazuhiroHasegawaandNipponEngineeringConsultantsCo.,Ltd.vs.MinoruKitamuraandHon.AvelinoC.DemetriaoftheRegional
TrialCourt,FourthJudicialRegionBranch85,LipaCity,andtodosuchotherthings,actsanddealswhichmaybenecessaryandproper
fortheattainmentofthesaidobjectives[Underscoringours].
[36]
Cf.Orbetav.Sendiong,G.R.No.155236,July8,2005,463SCRA180,199200,inwhichtheCourtruledthattheagent'ssigning
thereinoftheverificationandcertificationisalreadycoveredbytheprovisionsofthegeneralpowerofattorneyissuedbytheprincipal.
[37]
Barcenasv.Tomas,G.R.No.150321,March31,2005,454SCRA593,604.
[38]
DatedOctober11,2001rollo,pp.192203.
[39]
DatedAugust17,2001,id.at202.
[40]
SanPabloManufacturingCorporationv.CommissionerofInternalRevenue,G.R.No.147749,June22,2006,492SCRA192,
197LDPMarketing,Inc.v.Monter,G.R.No.159653,January25,2006,480SCRA137,142Expertravel&Tours,Inc.v.Courtof
Appeals,G.R.No.152392,May26,2005,459SCRA147,160.
[41]
392Phil.596,603604(2000).
[42]
Loquiasv.OfficeoftheOmbudsman,id.at604.
[43]
Santosv.CourtofAppeals,413Phil.41,54(2001).
[44]
Yutingcov.CourtofAppeals,435Phil.83,92(2002).
[45]
Bank of America NT & SA v. Court of Appeals, 448 Phil. 181, 193 (2003). As stated herein, under certain situations resort to
certiorariisconsideredappropriatewhen:(1)thetrialcourtissuedtheorderwithoutorinexcessofjurisdiction(2)thereispatentgrave
abuseofdiscretionbythetrialcourtor(3)appealwouldnotprovetobeaspeedyandadequateremedyaswhenanappealwouldnot
promptly relieve a defendant from the injurious effects of the patently mistaken order maintaining the plaintiffs baseless action and
compellingthedefendantsneedlesslytogothroughaprotractedtrialandcloggingthecourtdocketswithanotherfutilecase.
[46]
Rollo,p.228.
[47]
Id.at234245.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

12/14

9/9/2016

G.R.No.149177

[48]
DatedJune5,2000CArollo(CAG.R.SPNo.60827),pp.5357.
[49]
Id.at55.
[50]
Id.at14.
[51]
Rollo,pp.1928.
[52]
453Phil.927,934(2003).
[53]
Scoles,Hay,Borchers,Symeonides,ConflictofLaws,3rd ed.(2000),p.3.
[54]
CoquiaandAguilingPangalangan,ConflictofLaws,1995ed.,p.64.
[55]
Supranote53,at162,citingHay,TheInterrelationofJurisdictionalChoiceofLawinU.S.ConflictsLaw,28Int'l.&Comp.L.Q.
161(1979).
[56]
Shafferv.Heitner,433U.S.186,21597S.Ct.2569,2585(1977),citingJusticeBlack'sDissentingOpinioninHansonv.Denckla,
357U.S.235,25878S.Ct.1228,1242(1958).
[57]
SeeRegalado,RemedialLawCompendium,Vol.1,8th RevisedEd.,pp.78.

[58]
U.S.v.DeLaSanta,9Phil.22,2526(1907).
[59]
Bokingov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.161739,May4,2006,489SCRA521,530TomasClaudioMemorialCollege,Inc.v.Court
ofAppeals,374Phil.859,864(1999).
[60]
SeeRULESOFCOURT,Rule16,Sec.1.
[61]
SeeInRe:Calloway,1Phil.11,12(1901).
[62]
Bokingov.CourtofAppeals,supranote59,at531533RadioCommunicationsofthePhils.Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,435Phil.62,
6869(2002).
[63]
Garciav.Recio,418Phil.723,729(2001)BoardofCommissioners(CID)v.DelaRosa,G.R.Nos.9512223,May31,1991,197
SCRA853,888.
[64]

<http://web2.westlaw.com/search/default.wl?rs=WLW7.10&action=Search&fn=_top&sv=Split&
method=TNC&query=CA(+lex+loci+celebrationis+)&db=DIBLACK&utid=%7bD0AE3BEE91BC4B2BB788
3FB4D963677B%7d&vr=2.0&rp=%2fsearch%2fdefault.wl&mt=WLIGeneralSubscription>(visitedOctober22,2007).
[65]

<http://web2.westlaw.com/search/default.wl?rs=WLW7.10&action=Search&fn=_top&sv=Split&
method=TNC&query=CA(+lex+loci+contractus+)&db=DIBLACK&utid=%7bD0AE3BEE91BC4B2BB788
3FB4D963677B%7d&vr=2.0&rp=%2fsearch%2fdefault.wl&mt=WLIGeneralSubscription>(visitedOctober22,2007).
[66]
Id.
[67]
PhilippineExportandForeignLoanGuaranteeCorporationv.V.P.EusebioConstruction,Inc.,G.R.No.140047,July13,2004,
434SCRA202,214215.
[68]

<http://web2.westlaw.com/search/default.wl?rs=WLW7.10&action=Search&fn=_top&sv=Split&
method=TNC&query=CA(+most+significant+relationship+)&db=DIBLACK&utid=%7bD0AE3BEE91BC4B2BB788
3FB4D963677B%7d&vr=2.0&rp=%2fsearch%2fdefault.wl&mt=WLIGeneralSubscription>(visitedOctober22,2007).
[69]
SaudiArabianAirlinesv.CourtofAppeals,358Phil.105,127(1998).Thecontactswhichweretakenintoaccountinthiscaseare
thefollowing:(a)theplacewheretheinjuryoccurred(b)theplacewheretheconductcausingtheinjuryoccurred(c)thedomicile,
residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties and (d) the place where the relationship, if any,
betweenthepartiesiscentered.
[70]
SeeAutenv.Auten,308N.Y155,159160(1954).
[71]
Supranote53,at117118supranote54,at6465.
[72]
Laurelv.Garcia,G.R.Nos.92013and92047,July25,1990,187SCRA797,810811.
[73]
InternationalHarvesterCompanyinRussiav.HamburgAmericanLine,42Phil.845,855(1918).
[74]
Salonga,PrivateInternationalLaw,1995ed.,p.44.
[75]
Veitz,Jr.v.UnisysCorporation,676F.Supp.99,101(1987),citingRandallv.ArabianAm.Oil.Co.,778F.2d1146(1985).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

13/14

9/9/2016

G.R.No.149177

[76]
Underthisrule,acourt,inconflictscases,mayrefuseimpositionsonitsjurisdictionwhereitisnotthemostconvenientoravailable
forumandthepartiesarenotprecludedfromseekingremedieselsewhere(BankofAmericaNT&SAv.CourtofAppeals,supranote45,
at196).Thecourtmayrefusetoentertainacaseforanyofthefollowingpracticalreasons:(1)thebeliefthatthemattercanbebettertried
anddecidedelsewhere,eitherbecausethemainaspectsofthecasetranspiredinaforeignjurisdictionorthematerialwitnesseshavetheir
residencethere(2)thebeliefthatthenonresidentplaintiffsoughttheforum,apracticeknownasforumshopping,merelytosecure
proceduraladvantagesortoconveyorharassthedefendant(3)theunwillingnesstoextendlocaljudicialfacilitiestononresidentsor
alienswhenthedocketmayalreadybeovercrowded(4)theinadequacyofthelocaljudicialmachineryforeffectuatingtherightsought
tobemaintainedand(5)thedifficultyofascertainingforeignlaw(Puyatv.Zabarte,405Phil.413,432[2001]).
[77]
PhilsecInvestmentCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.103493,June19,1997,274SCRA102,113.
[78]
BankofAmericaNT&SAv.CourtofAppeals,supranote45,at196.
[79]
BankofAmericaNT&SAv.CourtofAppeals,supranote45,at197.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

14/14