TodayisThursday,August11,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.149177November23,2007
KAZUHIROHASEGAWAandNIPPONENGINEERINGCONSULTANTSCO.,LTD.,Petitioners,
vs.
MINORUKITAMURA,Respondent.
DECISION
NACHURA,J.:
BeforetheCourtisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourtassailingtheApril18,
2001 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. SP No. 60827, and the July 25, 2001 Resolution2
denyingthemotionforreconsiderationthereof.
OnMarch30,1999,petitionerNipponEngineeringConsultantsCo.,Ltd.(Nippon),aJapaneseconsultancyfirm
providingtechnicalandmanagementsupportintheinfrastructureprojectsofforeigngovernments,3enteredinto
anIndependentContractorAgreement(ICA)withrespondentMinoruKitamura,aJapanesenationalpermanently
residing in the Philippines.4 The agreement provides that respondent was to extend professional services to
NipponforayearstartingonApril1,1999.5Nipponthenassignedrespondenttoworkastheprojectmanagerof
the Southern Tagalog Access Road (STAR) Project in the Philippines, following the company's consultancy
contractwiththePhilippineGovernment.6
WhentheSTARProjectwasnearcompletion,theDepartmentofPublicWorksandHighways(DPWH)engaged
theconsultancyservicesofNippon,onJanuary28,2000,thistimeforthedetailedengineeringandconstruction
supervision of the BongabonBaler Road Improvement (BBRI) Project.7 Respondent was named as the project
managerinthecontract'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 automatically renewing his ICA. His services
wouldbeengagedbythecompanyonlyuptothesubstantialcompletionoftheSTARProjectonMarch31,2000,
justintimefortheICA'sexpiry.9
Threatenedwithimpendingunemployment,respondent,throughhislawyer,requestedanegotiationconference
anddemandedthathebeassignedtotheBBRIproject.Nipponinsistedthatrespondentscontractwasforafixed
termthathadalreadyexpired,andrefusedtonegotiatefortherenewaloftheICA.10
As he was not able to generate a positive response from the petitioners, respondent consequently initiated on
June1,2000CivilCaseNo.000264forspecificperformanceanddamageswiththeRegionalTrialCourtofLipa
City.11
For their part, petitioners, contending that the ICA had been perfected in Japan and executed by and between
Japanese nationals, moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. They asserted that the claim for
improper pretermination of respondent's ICA could only be heard and ventilated in the proper courts of Japan
followingtheprinciplesoflexlocicelebrationisandlexcontractus.12
Inthemeantime,onJune20,2000,theDPWHapprovedNippon'srequestforthereplacementofKitamurabya
certainY.KotakeasprojectmanageroftheBBRIProject.13
OnJune29,2000,theRTC,invokingourrulinginInsularGovernmentv.Frank14thatmattersconnectedwiththe
performanceofcontractsareregulatedbythelawprevailingattheplaceofperformance,15deniedthemotionto
dismiss.16 The trial court subsequently denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration,17 prompting them to file

withtheappellatecourt,onAugust14,2000,theirfirstPetitionforCertiorariunderRule65[docketedasCAG.R.
SPNo.60205].18OnAugust23,2000,theCAresolvedtodismissthepetitiononproceduralgroundsforlackof
statementofmaterialdatesandforinsufficientverificationandcertificationagainstforumshopping.19AnEntryof
JudgmentwaslaterissuedbytheappellatecourtonSeptember20,2000.20
Aggrievedbythisdevelopment,petitionersfiledwiththeCA,onSeptember19,2000,stillwithinthereglementary
period,asecond Petition for Certiorariunder Rule 65 already stating therein the material dates and attaching
theretotheproperverificationandcertification.Thissecondpetition,whichsubstantiallyraisedthesameissues
asthoseinthefirst,wasdocketedasCAG.R.SPNo.60827.21
Rulingonthemeritsofthesecondpetition,theappellatecourtrenderedtheassailedApril18,2001Decision22
finding no grave abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss. The CA ruled, among
others,thattheprincipleoflexlocicelebrationiswasnotapplicabletothecase,becausenowhereinthepleadings
was the validity of the written agreement put in issue. The CA thus declared that the trial court was correct in
applyinginsteadtheprincipleoflexlocisolutionis.23
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied by the CA in the assailed July 25, 2001
Resolution.24
Remaining steadfast in their stance despite the series of denials, petitioners instituted the instant Petition for
ReviewonCertiorari25imputingthefollowingerrorstotheappellatecourt:
A. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT
VALIDLY EXERCISED JURISDICTION OVER THE INSTANT CONTROVERSY, DESPITE THE FACT THAT
THE CONTRACT SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS A QUO WAS ENTERED INTO BY AND
BETWEEN TWO JAPANESE NATIONALS, WRITTEN WHOLLY IN THE JAPANESE LANGUAGE AND
EXECUTEDINTOKYO,JAPAN.
B.THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDINOVERLOOKINGTHENEEDTOREVIEW
OUR ADHERENCE TO THE PRINCIPLE OF LEX LOCI SOLUTIONIS IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT
DEVELOPMENT[S]INPRIVATEINTERNATIONALLAWS.26
ThepivotalquestionthatthisCourtiscalledupontoresolveiswhetherthesubjectmatterjurisdictionofPhilippine
courts in civil cases for specific performance and damages involving contracts executed outside the country by
foreignnationalsmaybeassailedontheprinciplesoflexlocicelebrationis,lexcontractus,the"stateofthemost
significantrelationshiprule,"orforumnonconveniens.
However,beforerulingonthisissue,wemustfirstdisposeoftheproceduralmattersraisedbytherespondent.
Kitamuracontendsthatthefinalityoftheappellatecourt'sdecisioninCAG.R.SPNo.60205hasalreadybarred
the filing of the second petition docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 60827 (fundamentally raising the same issues as
thoseinthefirstone)andtheinstantpetitionforreviewthereof.
We do not agree. When the CA dismissed CAG.R. SP No. 60205 on account of the petition's defective
certification of nonforum shopping, it was a dismissal without prejudice.27 The same holds true in the CA's
dismissalofthesaidcaseduetodefectsintheformalrequirementofverification28andintheotherrequirement
inRule46oftheRulesofCourtonthestatementofthematerialdates.29Thedismissalbeingwithoutprejudice,
petitioners can refile the petition, or file a second petition attaching thereto the appropriate verification and
certificationasthey,infactdidandstatingthereinthematerialdates,withintheprescribedperiod30inSection
4,Rule65ofthesaidRules.31
Thedismissalofacasewithoutprejudicesignifiestheabsenceofadecisiononthemeritsandleavestheparties
free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action as though the dismissed action had not been commenced. In
otherwords,theterminationofacasenotonthemeritsdoesnotbaranotheractioninvolvingthesameparties,
onthesamesubjectmatterandtheory.32
Necessarily,becausethesaiddismissaliswithoutprejudiceandhasnoresjudicataeffect,andevenifpetitioners
still indicated in the verification and certification of the second certioraripetition that the first had already been
dismissedonproceduralgrounds,33petitionersarenolongerrequiredbytheRulestoindicateintheircertification
ofnonforumshoppingintheinstantpetitionforreviewofthesecondcertioraripetition,thestatusoftheaforesaid
firstpetitionbeforetheCA.Inanycase,anomissioninthecertificateofnonforumshoppingaboutanyeventthat
willnotconstituteresjudicataandlitispendentia,asinthepresentcase,isnotafataldefect.Itwillnotwarrantthe
dismissalandnullificationoftheentireproceedings,consideringthattheevilssoughttobepreventedbythesaid
certificatearenolongerpresent.34

TheCourtalsofindsnomeritinrespondent'scontentionthatpetitionerHasegawaisonlyauthorizedtoverifyand
certify, on behalf of Nippon, the certiorari petition filed with the CA and not the instant petition. True, the
Authorization35 dated September 4, 2000, which is attached to the second certioraripetition and which is also
attached to the instant petition for review, is limited in scopeits wordings indicate that Hasegawa is given the
authoritytosignforandactonbehalfofthecompanyonlyinthepetitionfiledwiththeappellatecourt,andthat
authoritycannotextendtotheinstantpetitionforreview.36Inaplethoraofcases,however,thisCourthasliberally
applied the Rules or even suspended its application whenever a satisfactory explanation and a subsequent
fulfillment of the requirements have been made.37 Given that petitioners herein sufficiently explained their
misgivingsonthispointandappendedtotheirReply38anupdatedAuthorization39forHasegawatoactonbehalf
ofthecompanyintheinstantpetition,theCourtfindsthesameassufficientcompliancewiththeRules.
However,theCourtcannotextendthesameliberaltreatmenttothedefectintheverificationandcertification.As
respondent pointed out, and to which we agree, Hasegawa is truly not authorized to act on behalf of Nippon in
this case. The aforesaid September 4, 2000 Authorization and even the subsequent August 17, 2001
AuthorizationwereissuedonlybyNippon'spresidentandchiefexecutiveofficer,notbythecompany'sboardof
directors.Innotafewcases,wehaveruledthatcorporatepowersareexercisedbytheboardofdirectorsthus,
no person, not even its officers, can bind the corporation, in the absence of authority from the board.40
Considering that Hasegawa verified and certified the petition only on his behalf and not on behalf of the other
petitioner, the petition has to be denied pursuant to Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman.41 Substantial
compliance will not suffice in a matter that demands strict observance of the Rules.42 While technical rules of
procedure are designed not to frustrate the ends of justice, nonetheless, they are intended to effect the proper
andorderlydispositionofcasesandeffectivelypreventthecloggingofcourtdockets.43
Further, the Court has observed that petitioners incorrectly filed a Rule 65 petition to question the trial court's
denial of their motion to dismiss. It is a wellestablished rule that an order denying a motion to dismiss is
interlocutory,andcannotbethesubjectoftheextraordinarypetitionforcertiorariormandamus.Theappropriate
recourseistofileananswerandtointerposeasdefensestheobjectionsraisedinthemotion,toproceedtotrial,
and, in case of an adverse decision, to elevate the entire case by appeal in due course.44 While there are
recognizedexceptionstothisrule,45petitioners'casedoesnotfallamongthem.
Thisbringsustothediscussionofthesubstantiveissueofthecase.
Asserting that the RTC of Lipa City is an inconvenient forum, petitioners question its jurisdiction to hear and
resolve the civil case for specific performance and damages filed by the respondent. 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 have no substantial relationship to the parties46
followingthe[stateofthe]mostsignificantrelationshipruleinPrivateInternationalLaw.47
The Court notes that petitioners adopted an additional but different theory when they elevated the case to the
appellatecourt.IntheMotiontoDismiss48filedwiththetrialcourt,petitionersnevercontendedthattheRTCisan
inconvenient forum. They merely argued that the applicable law which will determine the validity or invalidity of
respondent'sclaimisthatofJapan,followingtheprinciplesoflexlocicelebrationisandlexcontractus.49Whilenot
abandoningthisstanceintheirpetitionbeforetheappellatecourt,petitionersoncertiorarisignificantlyinvokedthe
defense of forum non conveniens.50 On petition for review before this Court, petitioners dropped their other
arguments,maintainedtheforumnonconveniensdefense,andintroducedtheirnewargumentthattheapplicable
principleisthe[stateofthe]mostsignificantrelationshiprule.51
Bethatasitmay,thisCourtisnotinclinedtodenythispetitionmerelyonthebasisofthechangeintheory,as
explained in Philippine Ports Authority v. City of Iloilo.52 We only pointed out petitioners' inconstancy in their
argumentstoemphasizetheirincorrectassertionofconflictoflawsprinciples.
To elucidate, in the judicial resolution of conflicts problems, three consecutive phases are involved: jurisdiction,
choiceoflaw,andrecognitionandenforcementofjudgments.Correspondingtothesephasesarethefollowing
questions:(1)Wherecanorshouldlitigationbeinitiated?(2)Whichlawwillthecourtapply?and(3)Wherecan
theresultingjudgmentbeenforced?53
Analytically, jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct concepts.54 Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair to
cause a defendant to travel to this state choice of law asks the further question whether the application of a
substantive law which will determine the merits of the case is fair to both parties. The power to exercise
jurisdiction does not automatically give a state constitutional authority to apply forum law. While jurisdiction and
thechoiceofthelexforiwilloftencoincide,the"minimumcontacts"foronedonotalwaysprovidethenecessary
"significantcontacts"fortheother.55Thequestionofwhetherthelawofastatecanbeappliedtoatransactionis
differentfromthequestionofwhetherthecourtsofthatstatehavejurisdictiontoenterajudgment.56

Inthiscase,onlythefirstphaseisatissuejurisdiction. Jurisdiction,however,hasvariousaspects.Foracourt
tovalidlyexerciseitspowertoadjudicateacontroversy,itmusthavejurisdictionovertheplaintifforthepetitioner,
overthedefendantortherespondent,overthesubjectmatter,overtheissuesofthecaseand,incasesinvolving
property,overtheres or the thing which is the subject of the litigation.57 In assailing the trial court's jurisdiction
herein,petitionersareactuallyreferringtosubjectmatterjurisdiction.
1 w p h i1

Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a judicial proceeding is conferred by the sovereign authority which
establishes and organizes the court. It is given only by law and in the manner prescribed by law.58 It is further
determinedbytheallegationsofthecomplaintirrespectiveofwhethertheplaintiffisentitledtoallorsomeofthe
claimsassertedtherein.59Tosucceedinitsmotionforthedismissalofanactionforlackofjurisdictionoverthe
subjectmatteroftheclaim,60themovantmustshowthatthecourtortribunalcannotactonthemattersubmitted
toitbecausenolawgrantsitthepowertoadjudicatetheclaims.61
Intheinstantcase,petitioners,intheirmotiontodismiss,donotclaimthatthetrialcourtisnotproperlyvestedby
lawwithjurisdictiontohearthesubjectcontroversyfor,indeed,CivilCaseNo.000264forspecificperformance
and damages is one not capable of pecuniary estimation and is properly cognizable by the RTC of Lipa City.62
Whattheyratherraiseasgroundstoquestionsubjectmatterjurisdictionaretheprinciplesoflexlocicelebrationis
andlexcontractus,andthe"stateofthemostsignificantrelationshiprule."
TheCourtfindstheinvocationofthesegroundsunsound.
Lexlocicelebrationisrelatestothe"lawoftheplaceoftheceremony"63orthelawoftheplacewhereacontract
ismade.64Thedoctrineoflexcontractusorlexlocicontractusmeansthe"lawoftheplacewhereacontractis
executed or to be performed."65 It controls the nature, construction, and validity of the contract66 and it may
pertain to the law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties or the law intended by them either expressly or
implicitly.67 Under the "state of the most significant relationship rule," to ascertain what state law to apply to a
dispute, the court should determine which state has the most substantial connection to the occurrence and the
parties.Inacaseinvolvingacontract,thecourtshouldconsiderwherethecontractwasmade,wasnegotiated,
was to be performed, and the domicile, place of business, or place of incorporation of the parties.68 This rule
takesintoaccountseveralcontactsandevaluatesthemaccordingtotheirrelativeimportancewithrespecttothe
particularissuetoberesolved.69
Sincethesethreeprinciplesinconflictoflawsmakereferencetothelawapplicabletoadispute,theyarerules
properforthesecondphase,thechoiceoflaw.70Theydeterminewhichstate'slawistobeappliedinresolving
the substantive issues of a conflicts problem.71 Necessarily, as the only issue in this case is that of jurisdiction,
choiceoflawrulesarenotonlyinapplicablebutalsonotyetcalledfor.
Further, petitioners' premature invocation of choiceoflaw rules is exposed by the fact that they have not yet
pointed out any conflict between the laws of Japan and ours. Before determining which law should apply, first
thereshouldexistaconflictoflawssituationrequiringtheapplicationoftheconflictoflawsrules.72Also,whenthe
lawofaforeigncountryisinvokedtoprovidetheproperrulesforthesolutionofacase,theexistenceofsuchlaw
mustbepleadedandproved.73
It should be noted that when a conflicts case, one involving a foreign element, is brought before a court or
administrativeagency,therearethreealternativesopentothelatterindisposingofit:(1)dismissthecase,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
applythelawofsomeotherStateorStates.74Thecourtspowertohearcasesandcontroversiesisderivedfrom
theConstitutionandthelaws.Whileitmaychoosetorecognizelawsofforeignnations,thecourtisnotlimitedby
foreignsovereignlawshortoftreatiesorotherformalagreements,eveninmattersregardingrightsprovidedby
foreignsovereigns.75
Neithercantheothergroundraised,forumnonconveniens,76beusedtodeprivethetrialcourtofitsjurisdiction
herein.First,itisnotaproperbasisforamotiontodismissbecauseSection1,Rule16oftheRulesofCourtdoes
notincludeitasaground.77Second,whetherasuitshouldbeentertainedordismissedonthebasisofthesaid
doctrinedependslargelyuponthefactsoftheparticularcaseandisaddressedtothesounddiscretionofthetrial
court.78Inthiscase,theRTCdecidedtoassumejurisdiction.Third,theproprietyofdismissingacasebasedon
thisprinciplerequiresafactualdeterminationhence,thisconflictsprincipleismoreproperlyconsideredamatter
ofdefense.79
Accordingly,sincetheRTCisvestedbylawwiththepowertoentertainandhearthecivilcasefiledbyrespondent
and the grounds raised by petitioners to assail that jurisdiction are inappropriate, the trial and appellate courts
correctlydeniedthepetitionersmotiontodismiss.

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thepetitionforreviewoncertiorariisDENIED.
SOORDERED.
ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice

RUBENT.REYES
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION
IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedto
thewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1PennedbyAssociateJusticeBienvenidoL.Reyes,withthelateAssociateJusticeEubuloG.Verzolaand

AssociateJusticeMarinaL.Buzon,concurringrollo,pp.3744.
2Id.at4647.
3CArollo(CAG.R.SPNo.60827),p.84.
4Id.at116120.
5Id.at3236.
6Id.at85.
7Id.at121148.
8Id.at166171.
9Id.at38.
10Id.at3941.
11Id.at109.
12Id.at5357.

13Id.at4243.
1413Phil.236(1909).
15InsularGovernmentv.Frank,id.at240.
16CArollo(CAG.R.SPNo.60827),pp.2526.
17Id.at2728.
18CArollo(CAG.R.SPNo.60205),pp.242.
19 Id. at 44. The August 23, 2000 Resolution penned by Associate Justice Delilah VidallonMagtolis

(retired), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Eloy R. Bello, Jr. (retired) and Elvi John S. Asuncion
(dismissed)pertinentlyprovidesasfollows:
"Acursoryreadingofthepetitionindicatesnostatementastothedatewhenthepetitionersfiledtheir
motionforreconsiderationandwhentheyreceivedtheorderofdenialthereof,asrequiredinSection
3, paragraph 2, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as amended by Circular No. 3998
dated August 18, 1998 of the Supreme Court. Moreover, the verification and certification of non
forum shopping was executed by petitioner Kazuhiro Hasegawa for both petitioners without any
indicationthatthelatterhadauthorizedhimtofilethesame.
"WHEREFORE,the[petition]isDENIEDduecourseandDISMISSEDoutright.
"SOORDERED."
20Id.at45.
21CArollo(CAG.R.SPNo.60827),pp.224.
22Supranote1.
23Id.at222.
24Supranote2.
25Rollo,pp.335.
26Id.at15.
27SeeSpousesMelov.CourtofAppeals,376Phil.204,213214(1999),inwhichtheSupremeCourtruled

that compliance with the certification against forum shopping is separate from, and independent of, the
avoidance of forum shopping itself. Thus, there is a difference in the treatmentin terms of imposable
sanctionsbetween failure to comply with the certification requirement and violation of the prohibition
againstforumshopping.Theformerismerelyacauseforthedismissal,withoutprejudice,ofthecomplaint
or initiatory pleading, while the latter is a ground for summary dismissal thereof and constitutes direct
contempt.SeealsoPhilippineRadiantProducts,Inc.v.MetropolitanBank&TrustCompany,Inc.,G.R.No.
163569,December9,2005,477SCRA299,314,inwhichtheCourtruledthatthedismissalduetofailure
to append to the petition the board resolution authorizing a corporate officer to file the same for and in
behalfofthecorporationiswithoutprejudice.Soisthedismissalofthepetitionforfailureofthepetitionerto
appendtheretotherequisitecopiesoftheassailedorder/s.
28 See Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation, G.R. No. 149634, July 6, 2004, 433

SCRA 455, 463464, in which the Court made the pronouncement that the requirement of verification is
simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and noncompliance therewith does not necessarily
renderitfatallydefective.
29Section3,Rule46oftheRulesofCourtpertinentlystatesthat"xxx[i]nactionsfiledunderRule65,the

petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or
resolutionsubjectthereofwasreceived,whenamotionfornewtrialorreconsideration,ifany,wasfiledand
whennoticeofthedenialthereofwasreceived.xxx"
30Estrera v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 15423536, August 16, 2006, 499 SCRA 86, 95 and Spouses

Melov.CourtofAppeals,supranote27,at214.

31 The Rules of Court pertinently provides in Section 4, Rule 65 that "[t]he petition may be filed not later

thansixty(60)daysfromnoticeofthejudgment,orderorresolution.Incaseamotionforreconsiderationor
newtrialistimelyfiled,whethersuchmotionisrequiredornot,thesixty(60)dayperiodshallbecounted
fromnoticeofthedenialofsaidmotion.xxx"
32Delgadov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.137881,December21,2004,447SCRA402,415.
33CArollo(CAG.R.SPNo.60827),p.21.
34Fuentebellav.Castro,G.R.No.150865,June30,2006,494SCRA183,193194seeRoxasv.Courtof

Appeals,415Phil.430(2001).
35 Rollo, p. 33 CA rollo (CAG.R. SP No. 60827), p. 23. The Authorization dated September 4, 2000

pertinentlyreads:
"I, KEN TAKAGI, President and Chief Executive Officer of NIPPON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
CO., LTD., a corporation duly organized and existing in accordance with the corporation laws of
Japan,withprincipaladdressat3231Komagome,ToshimakuTokyo,Japan,herebyauthorizeits
InternationalDivisionGeneralManager,Mr.KazuhiroHasegawa,tosignandactforandinbehalfof
Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd., for purposes of filing a Petition for Certiorari before the
proper tribunal in the case entitled: "Kazuhiro Hasegawa and Nippon Engineering Consultants Co.,
Ltd. vs. Minoru Kitamura and Hon. Avelino C. Demetria of the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial
RegionBranch85,LipaCity,"andtodosuchotherthings,actsanddealswhichmaybenecessary
andproperfortheattainmentofthesaidobjectives"[Underscoringours].
36Cf. Orbeta v. Sendiong, G.R. No. 155236, July 8, 2005, 463 SCRA 180, 199200, in which the Court

ruledthattheagent'ssigningthereinoftheverificationandcertificationisalreadycoveredbytheprovisions
ofthegeneralpowerofattorneyissuedbytheprincipal.
37Barcenasv.Tomas,G.R.No.150321,March31,2005,454SCRA593,604.
38DatedOctober11,2001rollo,pp.192203.
39DatedAugust17,2001,id.at202.
40SanPabloManufacturingCorporationv.CommissionerofInternalRevenue,G.R.No.147749,June22,

2006,492SCRA192,197LDPMarketing,Inc.v.Monter,G.R.No.159653,January25,2006,480SCRA
137,142Expertravel&Tours,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.152392,May26,2005,459SCRA147,
160.
41392Phil.596,603604(2000).
42Loquiasv.OfficeoftheOmbudsman,id.at604.
43Santosv.CourtofAppeals,413Phil.41,54(2001).
44Yutingcov.CourtofAppeals,435Phil.83,92(2002).
45BankofAmericaNT&SAv.CourtofAppeals,448Phil.181,193(2003).Asstatedherein,undercertain

situationsresorttocertiorariisconsideredappropriatewhen:(1)thetrialcourtissuedtheorderwithoutor
inexcessofjurisdiction(2)thereispatentgraveabuseofdiscretionbythetrialcourtor(3)appealwould
notprovetobeaspeedyandadequateremedyaswhenanappealwouldnotpromptlyrelieveadefendant
from the injurious effects of the patently mistaken order maintaining the plaintiffs baseless action and
compellingthedefendantsneedlesslytogothroughaprotractedtrialandcloggingthecourtdocketswith
anotherfutilecase.
46Rollo,p.228.
47Id.at234245.
48DatedJune5,2000CArollo(CAG.R.SPNo.60827),pp.5357.
49Id.at55.

50Id.at14.
51Rollo,pp.1928.
52453Phil.927,934(2003).
53Scoles,Hay,Borchers,Symeonides,ConflictofLaws,3rded.(2000),p.3.
54CoquiaandAguilingPangalangan,ConflictofLaws,1995ed.,p.64.
55Supranote53,at162,citingHay,TheInterrelationofJurisdictionalChoiceofLawinU.S.ConflictsLaw,

28Int'l.&Comp.L.Q.161(1979).
56 Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 215 97 S.Ct. 2569, 2585 (1977), citing Justice Black's Dissenting

OpinioninHansonv.Denckla,357U.S.235,25878S.Ct.1228,1242(1958).
57SeeRegalado,RemedialLawCompendium,Vol.1,8thRevisedEd.,pp.78.
58U.S.v.DeLaSanta,9Phil.22,2526(1907).
59 Bokingo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161739, May 4, 2006, 489 SCRA 521, 530 Tomas Claudio

MemorialCollege,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,374Phil.859,864(1999).
60SeeRULESOFCOURT,Rule16,Sec.1.
61SeeInRe:Calloway,1Phil.11,12(1901).
62Bokingov.CourtofAppeals,supranote59,at531533RadioCommunicationsofthePhils.Inc.v.Court

ofAppeals,435Phil.62,6869(2002).
63 Garcia v. Recio, 418 Phil. 723, 729 (2001) Board of Commissioners (CID) v. Dela Rosa, G.R. Nos.

9512223,May31,1991,197SCRA853,888.
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> (visited October
22,2007).
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).
66Id.
67PhilippineExportandForeignLoanGuaranteeCorporationv.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=%7bD0AE3BEE91BC
4B2BB7883FB4D963677B%7d&vr=2.0&rp=%2fsearch%2fdefault.wl&mt=
WLIGeneralSubscription>
(visitedOctober22,2007).
69Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Court of Appeals, 358 Phil. 105, 127 (1998). The contacts which were taken

intoaccountinthiscasearethefollowing:(a)theplacewheretheinjuryoccurred(b)theplacewherethe
conduct causing the injury occurred (c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and
place of business of the parties and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is
centered.
70SeeAutenv.Auten,308N.Y155,159160(1954).
71Supranote53,at117118supranote54,at6465.
72Laurelv.Garcia,G.R.Nos.92013and92047,July25,1990,187SCRA797,810811.

73InternationalHarvesterCompanyinRussiav.HamburgAmericanLine,42Phil.845,855(1918).
74Salonga,PrivateInternationalLaw,1995ed.,p.44.
75Veitz,Jr.v.UnisysCorporation,676F.Supp.99,101(1987),citingRandallv.ArabianAm.Oil.Co.,778

F.2d1146(1985).
76Underthisrule,acourt,inconflictscases,mayrefuseimpositionsonitsjurisdictionwhereitisnotthe

most"convenient"oravailableforumandthepartiesarenotprecludedfromseekingremedieselsewhere
(BankofAmericaNT&SAv.CourtofAppeals,supranote45,at196).Thecourtmayrefusetoentertaina
caseforanyofthefollowingpracticalreasons:(1)thebeliefthatthemattercanbebettertriedanddecided
elsewhere,eitherbecausethemainaspectsofthecasetranspiredinaforeignjurisdictionorthematerial
witnesses have their residence there (2) the belief that the nonresident plaintiff sought the forum, a
practice known as forum shopping, merely to secure procedural advantages or to convey or harass the
defendant(3)theunwillingnesstoextendlocaljudicialfacilitiestononresidentsoralienswhenthedocket
may already be overcrowded (4) the inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for effectuating the right
soughttobemaintainedand(5)thedifficultyofascertainingforeignlaw(Puyatv.Zabarte,405Phil.413,
432[2001]).
77PhilsecInvestmentCorporationv.CourtofAppeals, G.R. No. 103493, June 19, 1997, 274 SCRA 102,

113.
78BankofAmericaNT&SAv.CourtofAppeals,supranote45,at196.
79BankofAmericaNT&SAv.CourtofAppeals,supranote45,at197.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation