I. .

a. The conflict is whether or not the CBA or the POEA employment

contract governs the tort liability. Here, Jollibee suffered an injury
while working. Accordingly, he is entitled to a claim for damages.
b. No. Well established is the rule that the most important component
of a conflict of law problem is the presence of a Foreign Element. What
is asked in this case is whether or not the CBA or the POEA
employment contract should govern the tort liability of the employer.
Hence, it merely requires the application of the pertinent domestic
law to resolve the dispute.
c. No. It has been ruled that when there are conflicting findings between
the company doctor and the preferred doctor of the laborer, is the
duty of the employee asking for disability benefits to secure the
opinion of a third doctor. Here, since Jollibee did not seek the opinion
of a third doctor, the findings of the company doctor prevail. Hence,
the POEA employment contract governs tort liability, in the absence
of a more beneficial stipulation in the CBA covering temporary
disability.
II. .
a. The conflict in this case involves Breach of Contract.
b. Yes. Since one of the parties is a French National and the subject
property is situated in the Philippines, it calls for the application of the
conflict of law doctrine of lex rei sitae under Article 16 of the Civil
Code.
c. No. The sale is valid and the contract of lease is not violated. While it
is true that Cardo financed the purchase of the lot, Marie is still the
rightful owner of land since Non-Filipinos are prohibited from owning
lands in the Philippines. Accordingly, Marie can validly sell the land.
The contract of lease in so far as the land is concerned is void since
Cardo was not the owner of land, thus has no right to lease the land to
Marie in the first place.
III. .
a. No. The ground of forum non convieniens is not proper because it can
only be used as a defense in the Answer not as ground for dismissal.
b. No. Since SAUDIA has an office in Tuguegarao, the defense of forum
non-convieniens is not proper because both parties are in the
Philippines and the court has adequate judicial machinery to resolve
the case.
c. .
i. The matter can be better tried elsewhere because the main
aspects of the case transpired in the foreign jurisdiction
ii. The plaintiff committed forum shopping
iii. When dockets are overcrowded
iv. Inadequacy to effect the right sought to be maintained
v. Difficulty of ascertaining foreign law
d. It must be based on established facts. Thus, a defendant must also
plead that the plaintiff has committed forum shopping. Also, he must
prove the same.
e. Jeddah Law governs. The contract was perfected in Jeddah and in
accordance with the doctrine of lex loci contractus, Jeddah law
governs.
f. Yes. Jeddah law and Philippine law have different grounds of
termination. The Constitution provides full protection to labor. Hence,
Philippine law prevails since it gives more rights to Filipinos in the labor
sector.
g. Yes. There is illegal dismissal if the termination was not due to Just
Causes and Authorized Causes provided by the Labor Code of the
Philippines. Since pregnancy is not a ground for termination under said
law, SAUDIA is liable for illegal dismissal.
IV. .
a. No. In the case of Fujiki vs Maranay, the court held that A.M. No. 02-
11-10-SC does not apply in a petition to recognize a foreign judgment
relating to the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a
foreigner. To apply it would result in relitigating the case on the
merits.
 b. The petitioner only needs to prove the foreign judgment as a fact
under the Rules of Court. Petitioner may prove the Japanese Family
Court judgment through (1) an official publication or (2) a certification
or copy attested by the officer who has custody of the judgment. If the
office which has custody is in a foreign country such as Japan, the
certification may be made by the proper diplomatic or consular officer
of the Philippine foreign service in Japan and authenticated by the seal
of office.
c. No. Mars cannot use the foreign judgment as a subterfuge for the
crime of Bigamy.
d. Yes. The rules of court provide that any person interested in the civil
status of persons may file a verified petition for the cancellation or
correction of any entry relating thereto. Bruno has the personality to
petition because it concerns his civil status as married to Mars.
e. Foreigners may petition for the recognition of foreign divorce so long
as foreign judgment affects his status or condition as a person.
V. .
a. Yes. Estoppel prevents a person from alleging facts that are contrary
to his previous actions. SSS knew that Pining Garcia was a minor when
they entered into contract with him. Hence, they are estopped from
questioning his minority.
b. Only the law of Nationality governs the capacity of Pining Garcia’s
capacity. The Philippines follow Lex Nationali regarding the intrinsic
validity of contracts such as capacity of the parties. Lex Celabrationis
cannot govern capacity since it pertains to extrinsic validity such the
form of the contract.
c.
i. I can prove it in court by an official publication
ii. or by a copy of the public document or law attested to by the
officer having legal custody of the record. The copy must be
accompanied with a certificate that the attesting officer has the
legal custody thereof. The certificate may be issued by any of
the authorized Philippine embassy or consular officials
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his office. Further, the attestation
 must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the
original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be, and must
be under the official seal of the attesting officer.
d. Since Pining Garcia is a citizen of Ohio, his capacity is governed by the
law of Ohio in accordance with the principile of Lex Nationali.
VI. .
a. No. The case cannot be dismissed. Forum non conveniens is not a
ground for a motion to dismiss.
b. No. Gina Lao (Phils) is liable since it is one and the same with Gina Lao
(China). Piercing the veil of corporate entity is resorted to when a
corporation is a mere alter ego of a person or another corporation.
Since the officers of Gina Lao (Phils) are the same with that of Gina Lao
(China), the corporate veil can be pierced.
c. Yes. The twin notice requirement is mandatory to afford the employee
his right to due process. Without doing so, the employee is illegally
dismissed. Hence, Antonio is entitled him to reinstatement,
backwages and damages.
VII. .
a. Yes. In the case of Dole vs Maritime Company, the court held that
COGSA governs in this case with similar facts.
b. No. The extrajudicial claim for damages did not toil the running of the
prescriptive period. The COGSA expressly provides that the carrier
shall be discharged from all liability unless a suit is brought within one
year after delivery of the goods. Specific provisions of the COGSA
prevails over the general provision of the Civil Code.
c. No. Subrogation under Article 2207 of the Civil Code gives rise to a
cause of action created by law. For purposes of the law on the
prescription of actions, the period of limitation is ten years. Hence, the
insurer can bring a suit within 10 years from June 30, 1973.