ESCAGWAPO NOTES – 1 s t exam TSN
Conflicts of law TSN
Atty. Quibod
Define Conflict of Laws (elements).
Conflict of Laws is the part of the municipal law of a state
which directs its courts and administrative agencies,
when confronted with a legal problem involving a foreign
element, whether or not they should apply a foreign law
or laws.
Various conflict of law provisions:
Civil Code
Article 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to
the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are
binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though
living abroad. (9a)
Article 16. Real property as well as personal property is
subject to the law of the country where it is stipulated.
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both
with respect to the order of succession and to the
amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity
of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the
national law of the person whose succession is under
consideration, whatever may be the nature of the
property and regardless of the country wherein said
property may be found. (10a)
Article 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills,
and other public instruments shall be governed by the
laws of the country in which they are executed.
When the acts referred to are executed before the
diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the
Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities
established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their
execution.
Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or
property, and those which have for their object public
order, public policy and good customs shall not be
rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated,
or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a
foreign country.
These are conflicts of law provision which are part of the
municipal law, nasa civil code sya. It directs the courts
and administrative bodies when confronted with a legal
question. So questions of the personal status is governed
by the national law, however if laws of goods, the place
and destination, the issues are laws in your transpo. In
succession, the capacity to succeed is governed by the
national law of the decedent.
So foreign system of law is composed of state and its
juridical subdivisions.
The scope of Conflicts of law: Jurisdiction, Choice of law,
and capability to enforce Foreign Judgement.
Distinctions between Conflict of laws from Public
International Law.
As to persons involved: Public international law governs
sovereign state and entities that are internationally
recognized or possessed of international personality;
while Conflict of Laws governs Private individual or
corporations.
As to nature: Public International Law is international in
character; Conflict of laws is municipal in character.
As to remedies applied: In Public International law, the
concerned states may first resort to peaceful remedies.
If peaceful remedies fail, the states concerned may
resort to forcible remedies and finally, war. In Conflict of
laws, recourse is had to judicial or administrative
tribunals.
Sources of Conflict of Law
Direct Sources: Bilateral and multilateral treaties or
administrative conventions; constitutions; codifications
and statutes; judicial decisions and international
customs.
Indirect sources: Natural moral law, and the writings and
treaties of thinkers and famous writers and jurists on the
subject.
I. JURISDICTION
What does the forum must do if it does not have
Jurisdiction? Dismiss outright.
So if it has jurisdiction, there are two choices:
1. Assume Jurisdiction
2. Refuse Jurisdiction on the grounds of forum non
conveniens.
Jurisdiction in international law is the right of the state
to exercise authority over persons and things within its
territory subject to certain exceptions. Exceptions are
those ambassadors and other international (something.
Persons?)
Three kinds of Jurisdiction:
1. Jurisdiction of the Subject matter – is conferred
by law and is defined as the power to hear and
determine cases of the general class to which the
proceedings in question belong. It is conferred
by law and determined by the allegations in the
complaint.
Saudia Airlines vs CA
Maam: The basis of the complaint of morada is Art. 19,
20 and 21 of the Civil Code. There was an issue of whether
or not our courts can take cognizance of such cases. The
Supreme Court held that the basis of the action is tort
(abuse of rights under art. 19). The Jurisdiction of the
Subject Matter is conferred by law, and the RTC has
jurisdiction to hear and decide such case.
ESCAGWAPO NOTES – 1 s t exam TSN
Held: Although Article 19 merely declares a principle of
law, Article 21 gives flesh to its provisions. Thus, we agree
with private respondents assertion that violations of
Articles 19 and 21 are actionable, with judicially
enforceable remedies in the municipal forum.
Based on the allegations[46] in the Amended Complaint,
read in the light of the Rules of Court on
jurisdiction[47] we find that the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Quezon City possesses jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the suit.[48] Its authority to try and
hear the case is provided for under Section 1 of Republic
Act No. 7691.
Dacasin vs Dacasin
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law
but it cannot enforce it on a ground that it is contrary to
public policy.
2. Jurisdiction over the Person – Jurisdiction over
the plaintiff is acquired the moment he invokes
the power of the court by instituting the action
by the proper pleading. Jurisdiction over the
defendant may be acquired through his
voluntary appearance, or by service in person or
substituted service of summons on him.
3. Jurisdiction over the res – is the jurisdiction over
the particular subject in controversy. It is
acquired by (coercive?) seizure of the court or
through attachment proceedings.
Agilent vs. Integrated Silicon(2004)
The principles regarding the right of a foreign corporation
to bring suit in Philippine courts may thus be condensed
in four statements:
(1) if a foreign corporation does business in the
Philippines without a license, it cannot sue before the
Philippine courts;
(2) if a foreign corporation is not doing business in the
Philippines, it needs no license to sue before Philippine
courts on an isolated transaction or on a cause of action
entirely independent of any business transaction[48];
(3) if a foreign corporation does business in the
Philippines without a license, a Philippine citizen or entity
which has contracted with said corporation may
be estopped from challenging the foreign corporations
corporate personality in a suit brought before Philippine
courts;[49] and
(4) if a foreign corporation does business in the
Philippines with the required license, it can sue before
Philippine courts on any transaction.
Hann vs BMW
Maam: BMW is considered a foreign corporation doing
business in the Philippines without license. There was still
a valid service of summons to BMW because it is made
through the DTI. Even if it has no business license, it can
still be considered as doing business in the country.
Hence, the service of summons to DTI is valid.
Held: Anyway, private respondent need not apprehend
that by responding to the summons it would be waiving
its objection to the trial court's jurisdiction. It is now
settled that. for purposes of having summons served on
a foreign corporation in accordance with Rule 14, 14, it is
sufficient that it be alleged in the complaint that the
foreign corporation is doing business in the Philippines.
The court need not go beyond the allegations of the
complaint in order to determine whether it has
jurisdiction.[18] A determination that the foreign
corporation is doing business is only tentative and is
made only for the purpose of enabling the local court to
acquire jurisdiction over the foreign corporation through
service of summons pursuant to Rule 14, 14. Such
determination does not foreclose a contrary finding
should evidence later show that it is not transacting
business in the country.
Service of Summons of individual persons and natural
persons:
1. Service in person (Rule 14, sec. 2, of the Rules of
Court. Service in person on defendant. —
Whenever practicable, the summons shall be
served by handling a copy thereof to the
defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive
and sign for it, by tendering it to him.)
2. Substituted Service (Rule 14, sec. 7 of the Rules
of Court. Substituted service. — If, for justifiable
causes, the defendant cannot be served within a
reasonable time as provided in the preceding
section, service may be effected (a) by leaving
copies of the summons at the defendant's
residence with some person of suitable age and
discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving
the copies at defendant's office or regular place
of business with some competent person in
charge thereof.)
Q: Is the Substituted Service under Rule 14 the
same with substituted service under Rule 13?
No. Under Rule 13, sec 8. Substituted service. —
If service of pleadings, motions, notices,
resolutions, orders and other papers cannot be
made under the two preceding sections, the
office and place of residence of the party or his
counsel being unknown, service may be made by
delivering the copy to the clerk of court, with
proof of failure of both personal service and
service by mail. The service is complete at the
time of such delivery.
3. Summons by Publication (Rule 14, sec. 14,15
and 16 of the Rules of Court.
Section 14. Service upon defendant whose
identity or whereabouts are unknown. — In any
action where the defendant is designated as an
ESCAGWAPO NOTES – 1 s t exam TSN
unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his
whereabouts are unknown and cannot be
ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by
leave of court, be effected upon him by
publication in a newspaper of general circulation
and in such places and for such time as the court
may order.
Section 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 which is, property within the Philippines, in
which the defendant has or claims a lien or
interest, actual or contingent, or in which the
relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in
excluding the defendant from any interest
therein, or the property of the defendant has
been attached within the Philippines, service
may, by leave of court, be effected out of the
Philippines by personal service as under section
6; or by publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in such places and for such time as the
court may order, in which case a copy of the
summons and order of the court shall be sent by
registered mail to the last known address of the
defendant, or in any other manner the court may
deem sufficient. Any order granting such leave
shall specify a reasonable time, which shall not
be less than sixty (60) days after notice, within
which the defendant must answer. (17a)
Section 16. Residents temporarily out of the
Philippines. — When any action is commenced
against a defendant who ordinarily resides
within the Philippines, but who is temporarily
out of it, service may, by leave of court, be also
effected out of the Philippines, as under the
preceding section. )
Banco do Brasil vs CA
Maam: The plaintiff sought the enforcement of the
salvagor’s lien. It is an action in personam, but the service
of summons was through publication and extraterritorial
service. Here there was no valid service of summons. So
kung in personam, if he has properties in the Philippines,
convert mo muna to quasi in rem, and that is the time
pwede ka na mag summons by publication and
extraterritorial service of summons.
Held: Clear from the foregoing, extrajudicial service of
summons apply only where the action is in rem, an action
against the thing itself instead of against the person, or
in an action quasi in rem, where an individual is named
as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to
subject his interest therein to the obligation or loan
burdening the property. This is so inasmuch as, in in
rem and quasi in rem actions, 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.
It must be stressed that any relief granted in rem or quasi
in rem actions must be confined to the res, and the court
cannot lawfully render a personal judgment against the
defendant.61[Villareal v. Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA
511, 525 [1998].] Clearly, the publication of summons
effected by private respondent is invalid and ineffective
for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over the person
of petitioner, since by seeking to recover damages from
petitioner for the alleged commission of an injury to his
person or property62 [The Dial
Corporation v. Soriano, supra. at 742 citing Hernandez v.
Development Bank of the Phil., 71 SCRA 290, 292-293
[1976].] caused by petitioners being a nuisance
defendant, private respondents action became in
personam. Bearing in mind the in personam nature of the
action, personal or, if not possible, substituted service of
summons on petitioner, and not extraterritorial service,
is necessary to confer jurisdiction over the person of
petitioner and validly hold it liable to private respondent
for damages.
When may extraterritorial service of summons be
effected? Rule 14, sec. 15 provides for the four instances
wherein extraterritorial service of summons may be
made, namely:
1. When the defendant does not reside and is
not found in the Philippines, and the action
affects the personal status of the plaintiff;
2. When the defendant does not reside and is
not found in the Philippines, and the action
relates to, or the subject of which is,
property within the Philippines, in which the
defendant has or claims a lien or interest,
actual or contingent;
3. When the defendant is a non-resident but
the subject of the action is property located
in the Philippines, in which the relief
demanded consists, wholly or in part, in
excluding the defendant from any interest
therein;
4. When the property of the defendant has
been attached within the Philippines.
How may extraterritorial service be effected?
Service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the
Philippines;
1. By service in person abroad;
2. By publication, but the copy of the summons and
the order of the court must be sent by registered
mail to the defendant’s last known address;
3. In any other manner that the court may deemed
sufficient. ( can also be effected outside of the
Philippines.)
Valmonte vs CA
Maam: Ito yung sa asawa binigay yung summons.
Still not considered valid service of summons,
ESCAGWAPO NOTES – 1 s t exam TSN
because non-resident not found yung wife nya. It was
based on an action for partition, quasi-in rem.
Regardless, the supreme court held that if you seek
to avail extraterritorial service or summons by
publication, it has to be with leave of court. Mag
paalam ka sa court. In this case, they did not seek for
leave of court and that the 3rd mode, yung service sa
husband was done here in the Philippines but again,
yung 3rd mode, must be done outside of the
Philippines.
Held: Since in the case at bar, the service of summons
upon petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte was not done
by means of any of the first two modes, the question
is whether the service on her attorney, petitioner
Alfredo D. Valmonte, can be justified under the third
mode, namely, in any . . . manner the court may
deem sufficient.
We hold it cannot. This mode of service, like the first two,
must be made outside the Philippines, such as through
the Philippine Embassy in the foreign country where the
defendant resides.[8] Moreover, there are several
reasons why the service of summons on Atty. Alfredo D.
Valmonte cannot be considered a valid service of
summons on petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte. In the first
place, service of summons on petitioner Alfredo D.
Valmonte was not made upon the order of the court as
required by Rule 14, 17 and certainly was not a mode
deemed sufficient by the court which in fact refused to
consider the service to be valid and on that basis declare
petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte in default for her failure
to file an answer.
In the second place, service in the attempted manner on
petitioner was not made upon prior leave of the trial
court as required also in Rule 14, 17. As provided in 19,
such leave must be applied for by motion in writing,
supported by affidavit of the plaintiff or some person on
his behalf and setting forth the grounds for the
application.
Finally, and most importantly, because there was no
order granting such leave, petitioner Lourdes A.
Valmonte was not given ample time to file her Answer
which, according to the rules, shall be not less than sixty
(60) days after notice. It must be noted that the period to
file an Answer in an action against a resident defendant
differs from the period given in an action filed against a
nonresident defendant 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 at least sixty (60) days from notice.
Strict compliance with these requirements alone can
assure observance of due process. That is why in one
case,[9] although the Court considered publication in
the Philippines of the summons (against the contention
that it should be made in the foreign state where
defendant was residing) sufficient, nonetheless the
service was considered insufficient because no copy of
the summons was sent to the last known correct address
in the Philippines.
Romualdez vs Licaros
Maam: It is the court who require the service to DFA. Ito
yung “any other manner the court may deem sufficient.”
This is the 3rd mode. It is considered valid. In long line of
cases decided by the supreme court, the 3rd mode, similar
with the first and second mode must be done outside of
the Philippines.
Held: Applying the foregoing rule, the trial court required
extraterritorial service of summons to be effected on
Margarita in the following manner:
x x x, service of Summons by way of publication in a
newspaper of general circulation once a week for three
(3) consecutive weeks, at the same time, furnishing
respondent copy of this Order as well as the
corresponding Summons and copy of the petition at her
given address at No. 96 Mulberry Lane, Atherton,
California, U.S.A., thru the Department of Foreign Affairs,
all at the expense of petitioner.[15] (Emphasis ours)
The trial courts prescribed mode of extraterritorial
service does not fall under the first or second mode
specified in Section 15 of Rule 14, but under the third
mode. This refers to any other means that the judge may
consider sufficient.
The Process Servers Return of 15 July 1991 shows that the
summons addressed to Margarita together with the
complaint and its annexes were sent by mail to the
Department of Foreign Affairs with acknowledgment of
receipt. The Process Servers certificate of service of
summons is prima facie evidence of the facts as set out in
the certificate.[16] Before proceeding to declare the
marriage between Margarita and Abelardo null and void,
the trial court stated in its Decision dated 8 November
1991 that compliance with the jurisdictional
requirements hav(e) (sic) been duly established. We hold
that delivery to the Department of Foreign Affairs was
sufficient compliance with the rule. After all, this is
exactly what the trial court required and considered as
sufficient to effect service of summons under the third
mode of extraterritorial service pursuant to Section 15 of
Rule 14.
Rule 14, Section 12. Service upon foreign private juridical
entities. — When the defendant is a foreign private
juridical entity which has transacted business in the
Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent
designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or,
if there be no such agent, on the government official
designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers
or agents within the Philippines.
Northwest Airlines vs CA
Maam: The Processual Presumption was applied here.
Sharp is a domestic corporation, considered a foreign
corporation in japan. So if you are a foreign corporation,
Service must be made pursuant to Rule 14, sec. 12 of the
Rules of court. A resident agent, any government office
designated for such purpose or any other agent. Here the
service must be to the head of office in manila of the DFA.
ESCAGWAPO NOTES – 1 s t exam TSN
Held: Alternatively in the light of the absence of proof
regarding Japanese law, the presumption of identity or
similarity or the so-called processual presumption may
be invoked. Applying it, the Japanese law on the matter
is presumed to be similar with the Philippine law on
service of summons on a private foreign corporation
doing business in the Philippines. Section 14, Rule 14 of
the Rules of Court provides that if the defendant is a
foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines,
service may be made: (1) on its resident agent designated
in accordance with law for that purpose, or, (2) if there is
no such resident agent, on the government official
designated by law to that effect; or (3) on any of its
officers or agents within the Philippines.
If the foreign corporation has designated an agent to
receive summons, the designation is exclusive, and
service of summons is without force and gives the court
no jurisdiction unless made upon him.
Wildvalley vs CA
Ito yung drowning of a vessel. They failed to prove the
Venezuelan law. Hence, processual presumption applies.
Here the vessel and the captain is not considered liable
because they exercise diligence of a good father of the
family.
Asiavest vs CA
Maam: If an action in personam how do you serve?
Personal service. Can it be done in by service by
publication? No. What do you do to allow service by
publication? You have to convert it into a quasi in rem
through attachment proceedings. If he didn’t answer the
summons by publication, can it still be valid service? Still
valid, because the requirement is merely to comply with
due process. What if hindi sya nag answer, can the court
grant damages? The court cannot grant damages,
because the requirement is merely to comply with due
process. Kahit I convert mo sya into quasi in rem, still if
he didn’t answer the summons by publication, the court
cannot grant damages. However, it is a different story, if
its summons by publication or in personam convert into
quasi in rem through attachment, so summons by
publication is allowed. If he answers that summons by
publication, that is the time the court can grant damages.
The grant of damages can not be disputed in an action in
personam and it done by summons by publications.
Held: Accordingly, since HERAS was not a resident of
Hong Kong and the action against him was, indisputably,
one in personam, summons should have been personally
served on him in Hong Kong. The extraterritorial service
in the Philippines was therefore invalid and did not confer
on the Hong Kong court jurisdiction over his person. It
follows that the Hong Kong court judgment cannot be
given force and effect here in the Philippines for having
been rendered without jurisdiction.
Even assuming that HERAS was formerly a resident of
Hong Kong, he was no longer so in November 1984 when
the extraterritorial service of summons was attempted to
be made on him. As declared by his secretary, which
statement was not disputed by ASIAVEST, HERAS left
Hong Kong in October 1984 "for good." 40 His absence in
Hong Kong must have been the reason why summons
was not served on him therein; thus, ASIAVEST was
constrained to apply for leave to effect service in the
Philippines, and upon obtaining a favorable action on the
matter, it commissioned the Sycip Salazar Hernandez &
Gatmaitan law firm to serve the summons here in the
Philippines.
In Brown v. Brown, 41 the defendant was previously a
resident of the Philippines. Several days after a criminal
action for concubinage was filed against him, he
abandoned the Philippines. Later, a proceeding quasi in
rem was instituted against him. Summons in the latter
case was served on the defendant's attorney-in-fact at
the latter's address. The Court held that under the facts
of the case, it could not be said that the defendant was
"still a resident of the Philippines because he ha[d]
escaped to his country and [was] therefore an absentee
in the Philippines." As such, he should have been
"summoned in the same manner as one who does not
reside and is not found in the Philippines."
Similarly, HERAS, who was also an absentee, should have
been served with summons in the same manner as a non-
resident not found in Hong Kong. Section 17, Rule 14 of
the Rules of Court providing for extraterritorial service
will not apply because the suit against him was in
personam. Neither can we apply Section 18, which allows
extraterritorial service on a resident defendant who is
temporarily absent from the country, because even if
HERAS be considered as a resident of Hong Kong, the
undisputed fact remains that he left Hong Kong not only
"temporarily" but "for good."
Pioneer vs Guadis
Maam: There is a Service of summons to a foreign
corporations doing business in the Philippines. The
service was made in favor of the employee of the agent,
and it was not considered valid as supposed to sec. 11,
domestic corporation – summons must be served to the
secretary of the president.
Held: At present, Section 11 of Rule 14 provides that
when the defendant is a domestic private juridical entity,
service may be made on the "president, managing
partner, general manager, corporate secretary,
treasurer, or in-house counsel." The previous version of
Section 11 allowed for the service of summons on the
"president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of
its directors." The present Section 11 qualified "manager"
to "general manager" and "secretary" to "corporate
secretary." The present Section 11 also removed "cashier,
agent, or any of its directors" from the exclusive
enumeration.
When summons is served on a foreign juridical entity,
there are three prescribed ways: (1) service on its resident
agent designated in accordance with law for that
purpose, (2) service on the government official
designated by law to receive summons if the corporation
does not have a resident agent, and (3) service on any of
ESCAGWAPO NOTES – 1 s t exam TSN
the corporation’s officers or agents within the
Philippines.30
In the present case, service of summons on PIL failed to
follow any of the prescribed processes. PIL had no
resident agent in the Philippines. Summons was not
served on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),
the designated government agency,31 since PIL is not
registered with the SEC. Summons for PIL was served on
De Leon, Klepzig’s Executive Assistant. Klepzig is PIL’s
"agent within the Philippines" because PIL authorized
Klepzig to notify Todaro of the cessation of his
consultancy (Annexes "H" and "I").32 The authority given
by PIL to Klepzig to notify Todaro implies that Klepzig was
likewise authorized to receive Todaro’s response to PIL’s
notice. Todaro responded to PIL’s notice by filing a
complaint before the trial court.
However, summons was not served personally on Klepzig
as agent of PIL. Instead, summons was served on De
Leon, Klepzig’s Executive Assistant. In this instance, De
Leon was not PIL’s agent but a mere employee of Klepzig.
In effect, the sheriff33 resorted to substituted service. For
symmetry, we apply the rule on substituted service of
summons on a natural person and we find that no reason
was given to justify the service of PIL’s summons on De
Leon.
Thus, we rule that PIL transacted business in the
Philippines and Klepzig was its agent within the
Philippines. However, there was improper service of
summons on PIL since summons was not served
personally on Klepzig.
Refusal to Assume Jurisdiction (cases thereof are the
exercise of a sovereign right and Forum non conveniens)
NA-C-B-Fs-Ni-O-I-D
Manila Hotel vs NLRC –
Philippine Courts may assume Jurisdiction provided that
these three factors are present:
1. The forum is one to which the parties may
conveniently resort to.
2. The forum is in a position to make an intelligent
decision as to the law and facts; and
3. The courts has likely to have the power to
enforce its decision. (Principle of effectiveness)
Manila Hotel vs NLRC
Maam: As to Forum non conveniens, all the contracts
and other material aspects of the case happen
outside the Philippines, and the witness does not
reside in the Philippines. It was one of the few cases
in which the court refuse to assume jurisdiction. If
you notice in the cases, sige lang assume ang court
except in this case.
Held: We note that the main aspects of the case
transpired in two foreign jurisdictions and the case
involves purely foreign elements. The only link that
the Philippines has with the case is that respondent
Santos is a Filipino citizen. The Palace Hotel and
MHICL are foreign corporations. Not all cases
involving our citizens can be tried here.
Not Convenient. — We fail to see how the NLRC is a
convenient forum given that all the incidents of the
case — from the time of recruitment, to employment
to dismissal occurred outside the Philippines. The
inconvenience is compounded by the fact that the
proper defendants, the Palace Hotel and MHICL are
not nationals of the Philippines. Neither .are they
"doing business in the Philippines." Likewise, the
main witnesses, Mr. Shmidt and Mr. Henk are non-
residents of the Philippines.
Philsec Investment vs CA
Maam: The suit was filed in Texas, and it was also filed a
case in the RTC of Makati. Forum shopping can be a
ground for forum non conveniens. The SC also held that
dismissing a case based on this ground is based on the
sound discretion of the court. So it requires factual
determination in order for it to be raised as a matter of
defense.
Held: First, a motion to dismiss is limited to the grounds
under Rule 16, §1, which does not include forum non
conveniens. 16 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
court's desistance. 17
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 latter's debt which was the
object of the transaction under litigation. The trial court
arbitrarily dismissed the case even after finding that
Ducat was not a party in the U.S. case.
Puyat vs Zabarte
Maam: So hindi ground as a motion to dismiss ang forum
non conveniens when you seek the enforcement of a
foreign judgement.
Raytheon vs Rouzie
Maam: The allegation of foreign element is not sufficient
to oust the court of jurisdiction. Just because there is a
foreign element in the case, it is not a ground for a forum
non conveniens to oust the court of his jurisdiction. So the
court may only invoke forum non conveniens if it has
jurisdiction. It cannot raise forum non conveniens if it has
no jurisdiction in the first place.
Held: Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a
court, in conflicts-of-laws cases, may refuse impositions
ESCAGWAPO NOTES – 1 s t exam TSN
on its jurisdiction where it is not the most "convenient" or
available forum and the parties are not precluded from
seeking remedies elsewhere.34 Petitioner’s averments of
the foreign elements in the instant case are not sufficient
to oust the trial court of its jurisdiction over Civil Case No.
No. 1192-BG 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 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.
II. CHOICE OF LAW
Either apply the Foreign Law or the Lex Fori (Law of the
forum)
Three instances when the law of the forum (internal or
domestic law) has to be applied.
1. When it is expressly provided in the conflict
rules, ie. Art. 15,16 and 17
2. When the Foreign law has not been properly
pleaded or proved;
3. When the case involves any exception to the
application of the appropriate foreign law.
(exceptions to comity)
How is Foreign law proved?
If the law is written, it may be proved by:
1. An Official Publication thereof; or
2. A copy of the law attested by the officer having
custody of the records, or by his deputy,
accompanied by a certificate of any Philippine
embassy, consular, or foreign service officer in
the foreign country where the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his office.
If the law is unwritten, it may be proved by:
1. Oral testimony of expert witnesses; or
2. By printed and published books of reports of
decisions of the country involved, if proved to
commonly admitted in its courts.
Maam: there are two cases here wherein the testimony
of the lawyer. In the other case it was admitted because
the lawyer is presented in court and the other party has
the opportunity to cross-examine such lawyer. However
in the latest case, the lawyer was not presented, it was
merely an exparte affidavit of such lawyer. It was not
considered valid by the Supreme Court.
In re: Estate of Suntay
Maam: Here what is presented was the consul-general.
The consul-general was not considered as an expert
witness.
Held: The unverified answers to the questions
propounded by counsel for the appellant to the Consul
General of the Republic of China set forth in Exhibits R-1
and R-2, objected to by counsel for the appellee, are
inadmissible, because apart from the fact that the office
of Consul General does not qualify and make the person
who holds it an expert on the Chinese law on procedure
in probate matters, if the same be admitted, the adverse
party would be deprived of his right to confront and
cross-examine the witness. Consuls are appointed to
attend to trade matters.
Yap vs Solicitor general?
The consul-general was considered as an expert witness.
Again, in your Rules of Court, rules do not apply in
naturalization proceedings. Here, it was a naturalization
case and hence, the courts or the quasi-judicial agency
can take judicial notice of foreign law.
GR: Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of a
foreign law.
EXC: (1) Exception in instances when the said laws are
already within the actual knowledge of the court, such as
when they are well and generally known or (2) they have
been actually ruled upon in other cases before it and
none of the parties concerned do not claim otherwise.
(di nag object ang parties) – PCIB vs ESCOLIN
Dumez vs NLRC
Maam: Administrative bodies are not strictly bound by
the rules of evidence. Hence, they may take judicial notice
of foreign law. Here, they fail to prove in the POEA, the
forum here was POEA. POEA being a quasi-judicial
agency, is not bound to the technical rules on evidence.
Hence, it may take judicial notice of foreign law
regardless of whether or not it was properly pleaded and
proven.
Held: The POEA Administrator, in finding petitioners
liable to private respondent for medical benefits accruing
to the latter under the Social Insurance Law of Saudi
Arabia, took judicial notice of the said law. To this extent,
the POEA Administrator's actuations are legally
defensible. We have earlier ruled in Norse Management
Co. (PTE) vs. National Seamen Board[12] that evidence is
usually a matter of procedure of which a mere quasi-
judicial body is not strict about. Although in a long line of
cases, we have ruled that a foreign law, being a matter
of evidence must be alleged and proved, in order to be
recognized and applied in a particular controversy
involving conflicts of laws, jurisprudence on this matter
was not meant to apply to cases before administrative or
quasi-judicial bodies in the light of the well-settled rule
that administrative and quasi-judicial bodies are not
bound strictly by technical rules.[13] Nonetheless, only to
ESCAGWAPO NOTES – 1 s t exam TSN
this extent were the acts of the POEA Administrator
amply supported by the law. Her actual application
thereof, however, is starkly erroneous.
What is the effect of failure to plead or prove the
foreign law?
1. Dismiss the case with judgement in favor of the
defendant on the ground that the plaintiff has
failed to prove the his case.
2. Processual Presumption – When the proper
foreign has not properly proved, the court of the
forum may presume that said foreign law is the
same as its local or domestic law.
Exceptions to the application of a foreign law. (The rule
is that the foreign law cannot be applied and the courts
should instead apply the domestic or local law.) Cs-U-P-
Pe-F-In-E-R
1. When the application of the foreign law would
run counter to a sound and established public
policy of the forum. (Cadalin vs CA)
2. When the Foreign law is contrary to the almost
universal conceded principles of morality (contra
bonos mores)
3. When the foreign law involves procedural
matters
4. When the foreign law involves penal laws.
5. When the foreign law is pure fiscal (ie. Revenue
producing) or administrative in nature
6. When the foreign law might work undeniable
injustice to the citizen or residents of the forum
7. When the application of the foreign law would
endanger the vital interests of the State.
8. When the case involves real or personal property
located in our country, following the doctrine of
lex situs or lex rei sitae.
When does foreign law be applied?
1. When agreed into by the parties in the contract.
Lex loci contractus
2. When the law of the forum expressly so
provides. Ie (borrowing statue)
3. When none of the instances justifying the
application of the internal law.
Theories that justify the application of the foreign law:
1. Theory of comity or convenience - so that our
citizens in the other country could be given the
same benefit. It is the reciprocal courtesy which
the members of the family of nations owe to one
another.
2. Theory of vested rights – our courts enforce not
the foreign law or foreign judgement but the
right or rights that have been vested under such
law or judgement.
3. Theory of local law –we apply the foreign law
not because its foreign, but because our own law
requires us to do so. Yan din yung sinasabi nating
borrowing statue that is already provided in the
law of the forum.
4. Theory of harmony of laws – identical or similar
problems should be given identical or similar
solutions, thus resulting to the harmony of laws.
(maam: you apply the foreign law, so when it is
the decided, the solution would approximately
be the same. )
5. The theory of justice – the purpose of the law is
the dispensation of justice.
III. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF
JUDGEMENT
Distinguish enforcement from recognition of foreign
judgement.
1. Enforcement means that the plaintiff or
petitioner wants the court to positively carry out
and make effective the foreign judgement
(Maam: For example, A filed a case against B and
it was granted in his favor, However, A does not
have properties in newyork. B then filed a case in
the Philippines for the enforcement of the
foreign judgement) while recognition means
that the defendant or respondent is presenting
the foreign judgement merely as a defense, on
the basis of res judicata. (Maam: you can raise it
in your motion to dismiss or in your answer as a
affirmative defense. For example, A file a case
against B in Newyork court, the case was
dismissed. A file a new case against B in the
Philippines. B can use this defense of the foreign
judgement of the newyork court dismissing the
case as a ground in his motion to dismiss.)
2. Enforcement implies act of sovereignty;
recognition involves a sense of justice.
3. Enforcement requires a separate action or
proceedings (Maam: in the case of Mejares vs
Ranada, the court ruled that there is no specific
provision in the rules of court as to the filing of
the petition for the enforcement of foreign
judgement, so you just have to follow your
ordinary rules and you have to prove it the same
way in the ordinary cases), while recognition,
does not require a separate action or Special
proceedings (maam: Kasi nga you just raise it in
your motion to dismiss or as a defense or an
affirmative allegation in your answer.)
4. Enforcement cannot exist without recognition,
while recognition does not need or does not
require enforcement.
There are reasons may a local court in the Philippines
refuse to recognize foreign judgement:
1. The requisite proof of the foreign law may not
have been adequate.
ESCAGWAPO NOTES – 1 s t exam TSN

2. The foreign judgement may contravene a
recognized and established policy in our country.
(such as in the case of Cadalin vs POEA, it is valid
in Saudi Arabia however it cannot be enforced in
the Philippines kasi nga hindi pa nag prescribe
ang case.)
3. The foreign judgements contradict one another.
4. The administration of justice in the country
where the foreign judgement came from may be
shockingly corrupt.
5. The judgement is (resting? ) on the government
claiming foreign courts.
Conditions or requirements before a local court in the
Philippines can enforce or recognize a foreign
judgement:
1. There must be adequate proof of foreign
judgement.
2. The judgement must be on a civil or commercial
matter, not criminal, revenue, or administrative
matter.
3. There must be no lack of jurisdiction, no want of
notice, no collusion, no clear mistake of law and
fact. (Maam: this are the only grounds that you
can question the foreign judgement)
4. Foreign judgement must not contravene a sound
and established public policy of the forum.
5. The Judgement must be res judicata. --Req: The
judgement must be final; the foreign court must
have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties; the judgement must be on merits; and
there was identity of parties, subject matter, and
cause of action. (Maam: If you realize in your
cases in jurisdiction, diba ang gina seek nila ang
enforcement of foreign judgment, always use
the ground that the court has no jurisdiction
because of failure to serve summons or
improper service of summons. It cannot be
considered res judicata, if there was no valid
service of summons. Then you cannot enforce a
foreign judgement if it not res judicata.)
most important function of law; hence, a law, or
judgment or contract that is obviously unjust negates the
fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws
Under Rule 39, sec. 50, on the effect of foreign
judgement.
The judgment in a specific thing or action in rem is
conclusive upon the title of the thing and if it is an action
in personam, it is a presumptive evidence of a right
between the parties and their successors in interest by a
subsequent title. Both instances can be repelled by
evidence of want of jurisdiction on the part of the foreign
court, want of notice to the defendant, collusion, fraud
or clear mistake of law or fact.
Sec. 48, Rule 39, ROC
“The effect of a judgement or final order of a tribunal of
a foreign country, having jurisdiction to render the
judgement or final order, is as follows:
(a) In case of a judgement or final order upon a
specific thing, the judgment or final order is
conclusive upon the title to the thing; and
(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a
person, the judgement or final order is
presumptive evidence of a right as between the
parties and their successors in interest by a
subsequent title.
In either case, the judgement or final
order may be repelled by evidence of a
want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the
party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake
of law or fact.”

Bank of America vs American Realty

Maam: Filing of case in the other country and filing of

foreclosure of mortgage. It was considered splitting of
causes of action. If you split causes of action it is
considered a violation of public policy.

Held: The public policy sought to be protected in the

instant case is the principle imbedded in our jurisdiction
proscribing the splitting up of a single cause of action.

Section 4, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is

pertinent -

If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same

cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the
merits in any one is available as a ground for the
dismissal of the others.

Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when its

application would work undeniable injustice to the
citizens or residents of the forum. To give justice is the