HAZEGAWA VS.

KITAMURA

Facts:
Nippon Engineering Consultants a Japanese firm, was contracted by the
DPWH to supervise the construction of the Southern Tagalog Access
Road.
Nippon entered into an independent contractor agreement (ICA) with
Minoru Kitamura for project. The contract was effective for a period of 1
year.
But in February 2000, Kazuhiro Hasegawa, the general manager of
Nippon informed Kitamura that they are pre-terminating his contract.
Kitamura sought to reconsider but Nippon refused to negotiate.
Kitamura then filed a complaint for specific performance and damages in
the RTC of Lipa.
Hasegawa filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the contract was
entered in Japan hence, applying the principle of lex loci celebracionis,
should be cognizable only by Japanese courts.
The trial court denied the motion. Nippon filed a petition for certiorari with
the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the complaint against Nippon should be dismissed.

RULING:
 HELD: No. In the first place, the case filed by Kitamura is a complaint
for specific performance and damages. Such case is incapable of
pecuniary estimation; such cases are within the jurisdiction of the regional
trial court.
Hasegawa filed his motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non
conveniens contending that the case should be tried in Japan in Lex Loci
Celebrationis. However, such ground is not one of those provided for by
the Rules as a ground for dismissing a civil case.
The Supreme Court also emphasized that the contention that Japanese
laws should apply is premature.
In conflicts cases, there are three phases and each next phase
commences when one is settled, to wit:

Jurisdiction – Where should litigation be initiated? Court must have

jurisdiction over the subject matter, the parties, the issues, the property,
the res. Also 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.
Choice of Law – Which law will the court apply? Once a local court takes
cognizance, it does not mean that the local laws must automatically apply.
The court must determine which substantive law when applied to the
merits will be fair to both parties.

Recognition and Enforcement of Judgment – Where can the resulting

judgment be enforced?
This case is not yet in the second phase because upon the RTC’s taking
cognizance of the case, Hasegawa immediately filed a motion to dismiss,
which was denied(not in the grounds under rules of court). He filed a
motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. Then he bypassed the
proper procedure by immediately filing a petition for certiorari. The
question of which law should be applied should have been settled in the
trial court had Hasegawa not improperly appealed the interlocutory order
denying his MFR.