State immunity applies to US naval base

?CONFLICT OF LAWS 5.
Pioneer vs Guadiz (2007) - pertinent issues are

already discussed by Kaye in her digest
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW
6. NEW CASE: Express Padala Italia vs ocampo
(2017) KAE BAUCAN DONE
MEMBERS:
1. Alano, Dave Abby
Principle of Effectiveness
2. Ambrocio, Eunice
1. Manila Hotel vs NLRC (2000) DONE
3. Alaba, Mishing
2. Puyat vs Zabarte (2001) DONE
4. Baucan, Kareen
3. Pioneer vs Guadiz (2007) DONE
5. Cagampang, Vinaaaaaa Aranetaaaa, patrol ng
4. Raytheon vs Rouzie (2008) DONE
Pilipino
5. Hasegawa vs Kitamura (2007) VINA DONE
6. Canedo, Gretchen
6. Bank of America vs CA (2003) - DONE
7. Laurente, Kaye
7. Philsec Investment vs CA (1997) - DONE
8. NEW CASE: Philippine National Construction Corp
I. Introduction to Conflict of Laws
vs Asiavest Merchant Bankers (2015) - DONE
9. NEW CASE: Saudi Arabian Airlines vs Rebesencio
Conflict of Laws vs. Law of Nations
(2015) MISHING DONE
1. Baer v. Tito Tizon (1974) DONE
2. Southeast Asian Fisheries vs NLRC (1993) DONE
BATCH 1 (present digest pool)
Sources of Conflict of Laws

BATCH 2 (para di mag hang)
3. Saudi Arabian Airlines vs Court of Appeals (1998)
DONE
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EZf8-
GrxAG2ZRsS1uHXyFXPBTY09q9o_GL1unYQ4H0Q/edit
II. What do Tribunals of the Forum Must Do
Jurisdiction
1. Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. CA (1998) DONE
2. Hasegawa vs Kitamura (2007) DAVE DONE
Jurisdiction, How Acquired (Rules of Court)

1. Northwest Orient vs CA (1995) DONE
2. Valmonte vs CA (1996) DONE
3. Asiavest vs CA (1998) DONE
4. Banco du Brazil vs CA (2000) DONE
5. Romualdes vs Licaros (2003) EUNICE DONE
6. Gomez vs CA (2004) DONE
7. St Aviation vs Grand Air (2006) DONE
8. Pioneer vs Guadiz (2007) DONE
9. Regner vs Logarta (2007) DONE
Jurisdiction over Foreign Corporations

1. MR Holdings vs Bajar (2002) KAYE LAURENTE
DONE
2. Hahn vs CA and BMW (1997) DONE
3. European vs Ingenieuburo Birkhan (2004) DONE
4. Agilent vs Integrated Silicon (2004) DONE
Conflict of Laws (Private International Law) by Atty. Kristine Mae M. Quibod, EnP
JMC College of Law A.Y. 2017-2018 | Case Digest Compilation by: #TeamDreamworks Page 1
States authorities on military matters of mutual concern,' It
G.R. No. L-24294 May 3, 1974 Issue: Whether or not the doctrine of state immunity may was advised in writing that:
apply in favor of Donald Baer?
DONALD BAER, Commander U.S. Naval Base, Subic Bay, "The enclosed map shows that the area
Olongapo, Zambales, petitioner, Held: YES. The petition for certiorari is granted, and the in which Mr. Gener was logging definitely falls within
vs. writ of preliminary injunction issued by respondent judge the boundaries of the base. This map also depicts
HON. TITO V. TIZON, as Presiding Judge of the Court of in favor of private respondent Gener is nullified and set certain contiguous and overlapping areas whose
First Instance of Bataan, and EDGARDO GENER, aside. functional usage would be interfered with by the
respondents. logging operations.'
[Read the case for a detailed history on previous
Quick Facts: decisions on the doctrine of state immunity]
● Logger Gener filed a writ of preliminary injunction
vs. Donald Baer, a commander of the US Naval What was sought by private respondent and what was
Base. granted by respondent Judge amounted to an interference
● Baer invoked state immunity, and resorted to a with the performance of the duties of petitioner in the base
certiorari to set aside the writ. area in accordance with the powers possessed by him under
● Held in favor of Petitioner Baer. the Philippine-American Military Bases Agreement.
Facts: Respondent Edgardo Gener, as plaintiff, filed a His point was made clear in these words: "Assuming, for
complaint for injunction with the Court of First Instance of purposes of argument, that the Philippine Government,
Bataan against petitioner, Donald Baer, Commander of the through the Bureau of Forestry, possesses the "authority to
United States Naval Base in Olongapo. Gener alleged that he issue a Timber License to cut logs" inside a military base, the
was engaged in the business of logging in an area situated in Bases Agreement subjects the exercise of rights under a
Barrio Mabayo, Bataan and that the American Naval Base timber license issued by the Philippine Government to the
authorities stopped his logging operations. He prayed for a exercise by the United States of its rights, power and authority
writ of preliminary injunction restraining petitioner from of control within the bases; and the findings of the Mutual
interfering with his logging operations. Defense Board, an agency of both the Philippine and United
States Governments, that "continued logging operation by Mr.
Donald Baer’s counsel, upon instructions of the American Gener within the boundaries of the U.S. Naval Base would not
Ambassador to the Philippines, entered their appearance for be consistent with the security and operation of the Base," is
the purpose of contesting the jurisdiction of respondent Judge conclusive upon the respondent Judge.
on the ground that the suit was one against a foreign
sovereign without its consent. It was further averred that the The doctrine of state immunity is not limited to cases which
cessation of logging operations by respondent Gener within would result in a pecuniary charge against the sovereign or
the Naval Base, petitioner was entirely within the scope of his would require the doing of an affirmative act by it. Prevention
authority and official duty, the maintenance of the security of of a sovereign from doing an affirmative act pertaining directly
the Naval Base and of the installations therein. Respondent and immediately to the most important public function of any
Judge, despite such averments, still granted the writ of government - the defense of the state — is equally as
preliminary injunction. untenable as requiring it to do an affirmative act."
Hence, this petition for certiorari to the SC. Private respondent Furthermore, Gener failed to refute the findings and
Gener, argues that "a private citizen claiming title and right of advisories of the Mutual Defense Board, a joint Philippines-
possession of certain property may, to recover possession of United States agency established pursuant to an exchange of
said property, sue as individuals, officers and agents of the diplomatic notes between the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and
Government, who are said to be illegally withholding the same the United States Ambassador to provide "direct liaison and
from him, though in doing so, said officers and agents claim consultation between appropriate Philippine and United
that they are acting for the Government."
G.R. Nos. 97468-70 September 2, 1993 has, however, impliedly, if not expressly, waived its immunity Being an intergovernmental organization,
by belatedly raising the issue of jurisdiction. SEAFDEC including its Departments (AQD), enjoys
SOUTHEAST ASIAN FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CENTER functional independence and freedom from control
represented by its Chief, DR. FLOR J. LACANILAO, Issue: Whether or not petitioner may invoke sovereign of the state in whose territory its office is located.
petitioner, immunity from suit?
vs. The said case also discussed the relevance of the sovereign
DANILO ACOSTA in his capacity as Labor Arbiter of the Held: YES. immunity granted to international organizations:
National Labor Relations Commission, Regional
Arbitration, Branch VI, CORAZON CANTO, DAN BALIAO, It is beyond question that petitioner SEAFDEC is an One of the basic immunities of an
ELIZABETH SUPETRAN, CARMELITA FERRER, international agency enjoying diplomatic immunity. This, we international organization is immunity from local
CATHRYN CONTRADOR, and DORIC VELOSO, have already held in Southeast Asian Fisheries Development jurisdiction, i.e., that it is immune from the legal
respondents. Center-Aquaculture Department vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 86773, writs and processes issued by the tribunals of the
206 SCRA 283/1992; in such case, the SC held that: country where it is found. (See Jenks, Id., pp. 37-
Quick Facts: 44). The obvious reason for this is that the
● Two labor cases were filed by private respondents Petitioner Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center- subjection of such an organization to the authority
against SEAFDEC. Aquaculture Department (SEAFDEC-AQD) is an international of the local courts would afford a convenient
agency beyond the jurisdiction of public respondent NLRC.
● SEAFDEC invoked the defense of sovereign medium thru which the host government may
immunity. interfere in their operations or even influence or
It was established by the Governments of Burma, Kingdom of
● Defense of immunity from suit was timely raised. Cambodia, Republic of Indonesia, Japan, Kingdom of Laos, control its policies and decisions of the
SEAFDEC is a recognized international Malaysia, Republic of the Philippines, Republic of Singapore, organization; besides, such objection to local
organization enjoying immunity from local Kingdom of Thailand and Republic of Vietnam . jurisdiction would impair the capacity of such body
jurisdiction, as pronounced by decided cases by the to discharge its responsibilities impartially on behalf
SC, as well as inputs by Justice Isagani Cruz. The Republic of the Philippines became a signatory to the of its member-states.
Agreement establishing SEAFDEC on January 16, 1968. Its
purpose is as follows:
Facts: Two labor cases were filed by the herein private As aptly pointed out by Associate Justice Isagani Cruz of this
respondents against the petitioner, Southeast Asian Fisheries The purpose of the Center is to contribute to the Court—
Development Center (SEAFDEC), before the National Labor promotion of the fisheries development in Southeast
Relations Commission (NLRC), Regional Arbitration Branch, Asia by mutual co-operation among the member Certain administrative bodies created by
Iloilo City. In these cases, the private respondents claim governments of the Center, hereinafter called the agreement among states may be vested with
having been wrongfully terminated from their employment by 'Members', and through collaboration with international international personality when two conditions
the petitioner. organizations and governments external to the Center. concur, to wit:, that their purposes are mainly non-
political and that they are autonomous, i.e., not
The petitioner, contending to be an international inter- (Agreement Establishing the SEAFDEC, Art. subject to the control of any state.
government organization, composed of various Southeast 1; . . .).
Asian countries, filed a Motion to Dismiss, challenging the Issue (2): Whether or not the defense of sovereign immunity
jurisdiction of the public respondent in taking cognizance of SEAFDEC-AQD was organized during the Sixth was timely raised?
the above cases. Council Meeting of SEAFDEC on July 3-7, 1973 in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia as one of the principal Held (2): YES. Anent the issue of waiver of immunity, suffice
The public respondent Labor Arbiter Danilo Acosta issued the departments of SEAFDEC. . . . to be established in it to say at the moment that the petitioner has timely raised
assailed order denying the Motion to Dismiss. In due course, Iloilo for the promotion of research in aquaculture. the issue of jurisdiction. While the petitioner did not question
a Motion for Reconsideration was interposed but the same, in Paragraph 1, Article 6 of the Agreement the public respondent's lack of jurisdiction at the early stages
an order was likewise denied. establishing mandates: of the proceedings, it, nevertheless, did so before it rested its
case and certainly well before the proceedings thereat had
The private respondents, as well as respondent labor arbiter, 1. The Council shall be the supreme terminated.
allege that the petitioner is not immune from suit and organ of the Center and all powers of the Center
assuming that if, indeed, it is an international organization, it shall be vested in the Council.
G.R. No. 122191 October 8, 1998 Miniewy for further investigation. Plaintiff did so after receiving Issue (1): Whether or not the case involves a conflict of laws?
SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES, petitioner, assurance from SAUDIA's Manila manager, Aslam Saleemi,
vs. that the investigation was routinary and that it posed no Held (1): YES. There is a foreign element in this case,
COURT OF APPEALS, MILAGROS P. MORADA and HON. danger to her. She was interrogated by a Saudi judge about hence it is a case involving conflict of laws. Where the
RODOLFO A. ORTIZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge the incident. factual antecedents satisfactorily establish the existence of a
of Branch 89, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, foreign element, we agree with petitioner that the problem
respondents. When she was about to take her flight back to the Philippines, herein could present a "conflicts" case.
she was forbidden to take her flight, and was escorted to the
Facts: Defendant SAUDIA hired (Milagros Morada) Morada same court where she was interrogated, to which she was The forms in which this foreign element may appear are
as a Flight Attendant for its airlines based in Jeddah, Saudi sentenced to five months imprisonment and 286 lashes due to many. The foreign element may simply consist in the fact that
Arabia. violation of islamic laws on dancing, music, and socializing one of the parties to a contract is an alien or has a foreign
with men. domicile, or that a contract between nationals of one State
While on a lay-over in Jakarta, Indonesia, Morada went to a involves properties situated in another State. In other cases,
disco dance with fellow crew members Thamer Al-Gazzawi She then asked the Philippine Embassy in Jeddah to help her the foreign element may assume a complex form.
and Allah Al-Gazzawi (Thamer and Allah, respectively), both while her case is on appeal. Meanwhile, to pay for her
Saudi nationals. Because it was almost morning when they upkeep, she worked on the domestic flight of SAUDIA, while In the instant case, the foreign element consisted in the fact
returned to their hotels, they agreed to have breakfast Thamer and Allah continued to serve in the international that private respondent Morada is a resident Philippine
together at the room of Thamer. Thamer attempted to rape flights. national, and that petitioner SAUDIA is a resident foreign
plaintiff. Fortunately, a roomboy and several security corporation. Also, by virtue of the employment of Morada with
personnel heard her cries for help and rescued her. Later, the Because she was wrongfully convicted, the Prince of Makkah the petitioner Saudia as a flight stewardess, events did
Indonesian police came and arrested Thamer and Allah Al- dismissed the case against her and allowed her to leave transpire during her many occasions of travel across national
Gazzawi, the latter as an accomplice. Saudi Arabia. Shortly before her return to Manila, she was borders, particularly from Manila, Philippines to Jeddah, Saudi
terminated from the service by SAUDIA, without her being Arabia, and vice versa, that caused a "conflicts" situation to
When plaintiff returned to Jeddah a few days later, several informed of the cause. arise.
SAUDIA officials interrogated her about the Jakarta incident.
They then requested her to go back to Jakarta to help arrange Hence, plaintiff Morada filed a case for damages against We thus find private respondent's assertion that the case is
the release of Thamer and Allah. In Jakarta, SAUDIA Legal SAUDIA and its country manager. SAUDIA filed a motion to purely domestic, imprecise. A conflicts problem presents itself
Officer Sirah Akkad and base manager Baharini negotiated dismiss, contending that: (1) that the Complaint states no here, and the question of jurisdiction confronts the court a
with the police for the immediate release of the detained crew cause of action against Saudia; (2) that defendant Al-Balawi is quo.
members but did not succeed because plaintiff refused to not a real party in interest; (3) that the claim or demand set
cooperate. forth in the Complaint has been waived, abandoned or Issue (2): Whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction over
otherwise extinguished; and (4) that the trial court has no the case
Plaintiff learned that, through the intercession of the Saudi jurisdiction to try the case.
Arabian government, the Indonesian authorities agreed to Held (2): YES. In order to protect the private interest of
deport Thamer and Allah after two weeks of detention. The trial court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss. the litigant, the case may proceed with the trial court.
Eventually, they were again put in service by defendant Furthermore, SAUDIA has voluntarily submitted to the
SAUDI (sic). Defendant SAUDIA transferred plaintiff to On the order denying the motion to dimiss, SAUDIA filed a jurisdiction of the trial court due to filing multiple
Manila. motion for reconsideration alleging that the trial court has no motions.
jurisdiction to hear and try the case on the basis of Article 21
In one instance, plaintiff’s superiors requested to see her, of the Civil Code, since the proper law applicable is the law of Pragmatic considerations, including the convenience of the
brought her to a police station, took her passport, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The motion for reconsideration parties, also weigh heavily in favor of the RTC Quezon City
questioned her about the Jakarta incident. She was pressured was likewise dismissed. assuming jurisdiction. Paramount is the private interest of the
to drop the case against Thamer and Allah, which she litigant. Enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained is quite
eventually did to get back her passport. SAUDIA filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, with obvious. Relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial are
prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, but was equally important. Plaintiff may not, by choice of an
Years passed and defendant SAUDIA summoned plaintiff to subsequently denied. Hence this petition. inconvenient forum, "vex", "harass", or "oppress" the
report to Jeddah once again and see Chief Legal Officer Mr. defendant, e.g. by inflicting upon him needless expense or
disturbance. But unless the balance is strongly in favor of the in a conflicts rule." The purpose of "characterization" is to
defendant, the plaintiffs choice of forum should rarely be enable the forum to select the proper law. (2) the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a
disturbed. corporation;
Our starting point of analysis here is not a legal relation, but a
Weighing the relative claims of the parties, the court a quo factual situation, event, or operative fact. An essential (3) the situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is,
found it best to hear the case in the Philippines. Had it refused element of conflict rules is the indication of a "test" or or is deemed to be situated. In particular, the lex situs is
to take cognizance of the case, it would be forcing plaintiff "connecting factor" or "point of contact". Choice-of-law rules decisive when real rights are involved;
(private respondent now) to seek remedial action elsewhere, invariably consist of a factual relationship (such as property
i.e. in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia where she no longer right, contract claim) and a connecting factor or point of (4) the place where an act has been done, the locus
maintains substantial connections. That would have caused a contact, such as the situs of the res, the place of celebration, actus, such as the place where a contract has been
fundamental unfairness to her. the place of performance, or the place of wrongdoing. made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort
committed. The lex loci actus is particularly important in
Moreover, by hearing the case in the Philippines no The relevant point of contact in this case is Lex Loci Actus. contracts and torts;
unnecessary difficulties and inconvenience have been shown
by either of the parties. The choice of forum of the plaintiff (4) the place where an act has been (5) the place where an act is intended to come into
(now private respondent) should be upheld. done, the locus actus, such as the place where effect, e.g., the place of performance of contractual
a contract has been made, a marriage duties, or the place where a power of attorney is to be
Similarly, the trial court also possesses jurisdiction over the celebrated, a will signed or a tort committed. exercised;
persons of the parties herein. By filing her Complaint and The lex loci actus is particularly important in
Amended Complaint with the trial court, private respondent contracts and torts. (6) the intention of the contracting parties as to the law
has voluntary submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the court. that should govern their agreement, the lex loci
Similarly, SAUDIA has filed several motions asking the court Considering that the complaint in the court a quo is one intentionis;
for relief. This indicates that petitioner indeed has submitted to involving torts, the "connecting factor" or "point of contact"
the jurisdiction of the Trial court. could be the place or places where the tortious conduct or lex (7) the place where judicial or administrative proceedings
loci actus occurred. And applying the torts principle in a are instituted or done. The lex forithe law of the forumis
Discussion as to what applicable law in case of conflict conflicts case, we find that the Philippines could be said as a particularly important because, as we have seen earlier,
of laws; Choice-of-laws situs of the tort (the place where the alleged tortious conduct matters of procedure not going to the substance of the
took place). This is because it is in the Philippines where claim involved are governed by it; and because the lex
As to the choice of applicable law, we note that choice-of-law petitioner allegedly deceived private respondent, a Filipina fori applies whenever the content of the otherwise
problems seek to answer two important questions: (1) What residing and working here. applicable foreign law is excluded from application in a
legal system should control a given situation where some of given case for the reason that it falls under one of the
the significant facts occurred in two or more states; and (2) to According to her, she had honestly believed that petitioner exceptions to the applications of foreign law; and
what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the would, in the exercise of its rights and in the performance of
situation. its duties, "act with justice, give her due and observe honesty (8) the flag of a ship, which in many cases is decisive of
and good faith." Instead, petitioner failed to protect her, she practically all legal relationships of the ship and of its
Several theories have been propounded in order to identify claimed. That certain acts or parts of the injury allegedly master or owner as such. It also covers contractual
the legal system that should ultimately control. Although occurred in another country is of no moment. For in our view relationships particularly contracts of affreightment
ideally, all choice-of-law theories should intrinsically advance what is important here is the place where the over-all harm or
both notions of justice and predictability, they do not always the totality of the alleged injury to the person, reputation,
do so. The forum is then faced with the problem of deciding social standing and human rights of complainant, had lodged,
which of these two important values should be stressed. according to the plaintiff below (herein private respondent). All
told, it is not without basis to identify the Philippines as the
Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us to situs of the alleged tort.
determine under what category a certain set of facts or rules
fall. This process is known as "characterization", or the Other point of contacts: (Full list)
"doctrine of qualification". It is the "process of deciding (1) The nationality of a person, his domicile, his
whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question specified residence, his place of sojourn, or his origin;
G.R. No. 149177 November 23, 2007 In the judicial resolution of conflicts problems, three any conflict between the laws of Japan and ours. Before
consecutive phases are involved: jurisdiction, choice of law, determining which law should apply, first there should exist a
KAZUHIRO HASEGAWA and NIPPON ENGINEERING and recognition and enforcement of judgments. conflict of laws situation requiring the application of the
CONSULTANTS CO., LTD., Petitioners, Corresponding to these phases are the following questions: conflict of laws rules. Also, when the law of a foreign country
vs. (1) Where can or should litigation be initiated? is invoked to provide the proper rules for the solution of a
MINORU KITAMURA, Respondent. (2) Which law will the court apply? and case, the existence of such law must be pleaded and proved.
(3) Where can the resulting judgment be enforced?
Facts: The petitioner Nippon Engineering Consultants Co. is On the ground of forum non conveniens
a Japanese consultancy firm which provides technical and In the instant case, petitioners, in their motion to dismiss, do
management support in the infrastructure project of foreign not claim that the trial court is not properly vested by law with Neither can the other ground raised, forum non conveniens,
governments. It entered into a Independent Contractor jurisdiction to hear the subject controversy for, indeed, Civil be used to deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction herein. First,
Agreement (ICA) with respondent Kitamura, a Japanese Case No. 00-0264 for specific performance and damages is it is not a proper basis for a motion to dismiss because
national permanently residing in the Philippines. Under the one not capable of pecuniary estimation and is properly Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court does not include it as
ICA, the respondent will extend professional services to the cognizable by the RTC of Lipa City. What they rather raise as a ground. Second, whether a suit should be entertained or
petitioner for a year. grounds to question subject matter jurisdiction are the dismissed on the basis of the said doctrine depends largely
principles of lex loci celebrationis and lex contractus, and the upon the facts of the particular case and is addressed to the
Subsequently Kitamura was assigned as project manager of "state of the most significant relationship rule." sound discretion of the trial court.
STAR project in 1999. In 2000, he was informed by the
petitioner that it will no longer renew the ICA and that he will Lex loci celebrationis relates to the "law of the place of the In this case, the RTC decided to assume jurisdiction. Third,
be retained until its expiration. Kitamaru demanded that he be ceremony" or the law of the place where a contract is made. the propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle
assigned to the Bongabon-Baler Road Improvement (BBRI) The doctrine of lex contractus or lex loci contractus means the requires a factual determination; hence, this conflicts principle
project. Nippon insisted that Kitamaru’s contract was for a "law of the place where a contract is executed or to be is more properly considered a matter of defense.
fixed term that had expired. performed." It controls the nature, construction, and validity of
the contract and it may pertain to the law voluntarily agreed Accordingly, since the RTC is vested by law with the power to
Kitamura filed a civil case for specific performance before the upon by the parties or the law intended by them either entertain and hear the civil case filed by respondent and the
RTC of Lipa and damages. expressly or implicitly. Under the "state of the most significant grounds raised by petitioners to assail that jurisdiction are
relationship rule," to ascertain what state law to apply to a inappropriate, the trial and appellate courts correctly denied
Nippon filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the ICA had dispute, the court should determine which state has the most the petitioners’ motion to dismiss.
been perfected in Japan & executed by & between Japanese substantial connection to the occurrence and the parties. In a
nationals. Thus, the RTC of Lipa City has no jurisdiction. The case involving a contract, the court should consider where the
claim for improper pre-termination of Kitamaru’s ICA could contract was made, was negotiated, was to be performed,
only be heard & ventilated in the proper courts of Japan and the domicile, place of business, or place of incorporation
following the principles of lex loci celebrationis & lex of the parties. This rule takes into account several contacts
contractus. and evaluates them according to their relative importance with
respect to the particular issue to be resolved.
The lower court ruled that it has jurisdiction over the dispute
and denied the petitioner's motion to dismiss since Since these three principles in conflict of laws make
accordingly, it is vested by law with the power to entertain and reference to the law applicable to a dispute, they are rules
hear the civil case filed by Kitamura. The Court of Appeals proper for the second phase, the choice of law. They
upheld the lower court's decision. determine which state's law is to be applied in resolving the
substantive issues of a conflicts problem. Necessarily, as the
Issue: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction to try the only issue in this case is that of jurisdiction, choice-of-
case? law rules are not only inapplicable but also not yet called
for.
Held: YES.
Furthermore, Nippon’s premature invocation of choice-of-law
rules is exposed by the fact that they have not yet pointed out
EUNICE The defendant received a copy of the judgment and since it corporation at its principal office in Manila after prior attempts
Northwest Orient vs CA (1995) was not appealed, it became final and executory. But to serve summons in Japan had failed
Valmonte vs CA (1996)1116q Northwest Orient Airlines was unable to execute the decision
Asiavest vs CA (1998) in Japan, hence, it filed a suit for enforcement of judgment Ruling:
Banco du Brazil vs CA (2000) before the RTC of Manila. Yes.
Romualdes vs Licaros (2003)
The defendants filed an answer averring that judgment on a .A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the
G.R. No. 112573. February 9, 1995.* Japanese Court sought to be enforced is null and void and country from which it comes, until the contrary is shown. It is
NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, unenforceable in this jurisdiction having been rendered also proper to presume the regularity of the proceedings and
vs. without due and proper notice to the defendant and/or with the giving of due notice therein.
COURT OF APPEALS and C.F. SHARP & COMPANY, INC., collusion or fraud and/or upon a clear mistake of law and fact.
respondents. Under Section 50, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a judgment
Both the trial court and the court of appeals rendered a in an action in personam of a tribunal of a foreign country
decision that: having jurisdiction to pronounce the same is presumptive
Doctrine:
"The foreign judgment in the Japanese Court sought in this evidence of a right as between the parties and their
● A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and
action is null and void for want of jurisdiction over the person successors-in-interest by a subsequent title. The judgment
binding in the country from which it comes, until the
of the defendant considering that this is an action in may, however, be assailed by evidence of want of jurisdiction,
contrary is shown.
personam; the Japanese Court did not acquire jurisdiction want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of
● A court, whether of the Philippines or elsewhere,
over the person of the defendant because jurisprudence law or fact. Also, under Section 3 of Rule 131, a court,
enjoys the presumption that it was acting in the
requires that the defendant be served with summons in Japan whether of the Philippines or elsewhere, enjoys the
lawful exercise of jurisdiction and has regularly
in order for the Japanese Court to acquire jurisdiction over it, presumption that it was acting in the lawful exercise of
performed its official duty.
the process of the Court in Japan sent to the Philippines jurisdiction and has regularly performed its official duty.
which is outside Japanese jurisdiction cannot confer
Facts: Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. is a corporation
jurisdiction over the defendant in the case before the Consequently, the party attacking a foreign judgment has the
organized under the laws of the state of Minnesota, USA. It
Japanese Court of the case at bar. xxx burden of overcoming the presumption of its validity. Being
sought for the enforcement of a civil case in the RTC of
the party challenging the judgment rendered by the Japanese
Manila. The judgment was rendered in its favor by a
This Court agrees that if the defendant in a foreign court is a court, SHARP had the duty to demonstrate the invalidity of
Japanese Court against C.F. Sharp & Company, Inc., a
resident in the court of that foreign court such court could such judgment. In an attempt to discharge that burden, it
corporation incorporated under Philippine laws.
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant but it contends that the extraterritorial service of summons effected
The facts of the said case are as follows: Northwest Airlines
must be served upon the defendant in the territorial at its home office in the Philippines was not only ineffectual
and defendant C.F. Sharp & Company, through its Japan
jurisdiction of the foreign court. Such is not the case here but also void, and the Japanese Court did not, therefore,
branch, entered into an International Passenger Sales Agency
because the defendant was served with summons in the acquire jurisdiction over it.
Agreement, where the former authorized the latter to sell its
Philippines and not in Japan."
air transportation tickets. C.F Sharp and Company (it’s Japan
It is settled that matters of remedy and procedure such as
branch) was unable to remit the proceeds of ticket sales made
The CA added that "the process of the court has no those relating to the service of process upon a defendant are
in behalf of Northweses which prompted the latter to sue CF
extraterritorial effect and no jurisdiction is acquired over the governed by the lex fori or the internal law of the forum.
Sharp in Tokyo, Japan for the collection of the unremitted
person of the defendant by serving him beyond the In this case, it is the procedural law of Japan where the
proceeds of the ticket sales with claim for damages.
boundaries of the state." And that to confer jurisdiction on the judgment was rendered that determines the validity of the
court, personal or substituted service of summons on the extraterritorial service of process on SHARP. As to what this
Writ of summons were issued by the District Court of Japan at
defendant not extraterritorial service is necessary. law is a question of fact, not of law. It may not be taken
the defendant’s office, then to the head of office in Manila and
judicial notice of and must be pleaded and proved like any
even through diplomatic channels to the defendant’s head
other fact. Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
office in Manila. However, despite receipt of such summons,
Issue: provide that it may be evidenced by an official publication or
the defendant failed to appear on the scheduled hearings.
Whether a Japanese Court can acquire jurisdiction over a by a duly attested or authenticated copy thereof. It was then
Thus, the Tokyo Court proceeded to hear the complaint and
Philippine Corporation doing business in Japan by serving incumbent upon SHARP to present evidence as to what that
rendered judgment ordering the defendants to pay the amount
summons through diplomatic channels on the Philippine Japanese procedural law is and to show that under it, the
of unremitted proceeds plus damages for delay.
assailed extraterritorial service is invalid. It did not.
Accordingly, the presumption of validity and regularity of Moreover, the domicile of a corporation belongs to the state
the service of summons and the decision thereafter where it was incorporated. In a strict technical sense, such
rendered by the Japanese court must stand. domicile as a corporation may have is single in its essence
and a corporation can have only one domicile which is the
Alternatively, in the light of the absence of proof regarding state of its creation.
Japanese law, the presumption of identity or similarity or the
socalled processual presumption may be invoked. Applying it, Nonetheless, a corporation formed in one state may, for
the Japanese law on the matter is presumed to be similar with certain purposes, be regarded a resident in another state in
the Philippine law on service of summons on a private foreign which it has offices and transacts business. This is the rule in
corporation doing business in the Philippines. Section 14, our jurisdiction and apropos thereto as stated in State
Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that if the defendant is Investment House, Inc. vs. Citibank.
a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines,
service may be made: (1) on its resident agent designated in Inasmuch as SHARP was admittedly doing business in
accordance with law for that purpose, or, (2) if there is no Japan through its four duly registered branches at the
such resident agent, on the government official designated by time the collection suit against it was filed, then in the
law to that effect, or (3) on any of its officers or agents within light of the processual presumption, SHARP may be
the Philippines. deemed a resident of Japan, and, as such, was amenable
to the jurisdiction of the courts therein and may be
Nowhere in its pleadings did SHARP profess to having had a deemed to have assented to the said courts' lawful
resident agent authorized to receive court processes in methods of serving process.
Japan. This silence could only mean, or at least create an
impression, that it had none. Hence, service on the Accordingly, the extraterritorial service of summons on it
designated government official or on any of SHARP's officers by the Japanese Court was valid not only under the
or agents in Japan could be availed of. processual presumption but also because of the
presumption of regularity of performance of official duty.
As found by the Court of Appeals, it was the Tokyo District
Court which ordered that summons for SHARP be served at
its head office in the Philippines after the two attempts of
service had failed. The Tokyo District Court requested the
Supreme Court of Japan to cause the delivery of the
summons and other legal documents to the Philippines.
Acting on that request, the Supreme Court of Japan sent the
summons together with the other legal documents to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan which, in turn, forwarded
the same to the Japanese Embassy in Manila. Thereafter, the
court processes were delivered to the Ministry (now
Department) of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, then to the
Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance (now Regional
Trial Court) of Manila, who forthwith ordered Deputy Sheriff
Rolando Balingit to serve the same on SHARP at its principal
office in Manila. This service is equivalent to service on the
proper government official under Section 14, Rule 14 of the
Rules of Court, in relation to Section 128 of the Corporation
Code. Hence, SHARP's contention that such manner of
service is not valid under Philippine laws holds no water.
G.R. No. 108538. January 22, 1996.* exterritorially in accordance with Rule 14, §17, which
LOURDES A. VALMONTE and ALFREDO D. VALMONTE, Alfredo filed an answer with counterclaim while his wife did provides:
petitioners, not file an answer. For this reason Dimalanta moved to
vs. declare her in default which was opposed by Alfredo. §17. Extraterritorial service.—When the defendant does not
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DIVISION reside and is not found in the Philippines and the action
and ROSITA DIMALANTA, respondents. affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or
Issue: the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in
Whether Lourdes Valmonte, a foreign resident, was validly which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual
Doctrine:
served with summons. or contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists,
● A resident defendant in an action in personam who
wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any
cannot be personally served with summons may be
Ruling: interest therein, or the property of the defendant has been
summoned either by means of substituted service
No. There was no valid service of process on Lourdes A. attached within the Philippines, service may, by leave of
in accordance with Rule 14, §8 or by publication as
Valmonte. court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal service
provided in §§17 and 18 of the same Rule.
as under section 7; or by publication in a newspaper of
● If the action is in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction
To provide perspective, it will be helpful to determine first the general circulation in such places and for such time as the
over the person of the defendant is not essential for
nature of the action filed against petitioners Lourdes A. court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and
giving the court jurisdiction so long as the court
Valmonte and Alfredo D. Valmonte by private respondent, order to the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last
acquires jurisdiction over the res.
whether it is an action in personam, in rem or quasi in rem. known address of the defendant, or in any other manner
● What gives the court jurisdiction in an action in rem
This is because the rules of service of summons embodied in the court may deem sufficient. Any order granting such
or quasi in rem is that it has jurisdiction over the
Rule 14 apply according to whether an action is one or the leave shall specify a reasonable time, which shall not be
res, and the service of summons in the manner
other of these actions. less than sixty (60) days after notice, within which the
provided in §17 is not for the purpose of vesting it
defendant must answer.
with jurisdiction but for complying with the
In an action in personam, personal service of summons or, if
requirements of fair play or due process.
this is not possible and he cannot be personally served, In such cases, what gives the court jurisdiction in an action in
Facts:
substituted service, as provided in Rule 14, §§7-8 2 is rem or quasi in rem is that it has jurisdiction over the res.
Lourdes A. Valmonte and Alfredo D. Valmonte are husband
essential for the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over
and wife. Both are residents of Washington, USA.
the person of a defendant who does not voluntarily submit Applying the foregoing rules to the case at bar, private
himself to the authority of the court.3 If defendant cannot be respondent’s action, which is for partition and accounting
Alfredo D. Valmonte, who is a member of the Philippine bar,
served with summons because he is temporarily abroad, but under Rule 69, is in the nature of an action quasi in rem. Such
however, practices his profession in the Philippines, and goes
otherwise he is a Philippine resident, service of summons an action is essentially for the purpose of affecting the
to and fro his residence in the state of Washington, USA and
may, by leave of court, be made by publication.4Otherwise defendant’s interest in a specific property and not to render a
Manila.
stated, a resident defendant in an action in personam, who judgment against him.
cannot be personally served with summons, may be
The private respondent Rosita Dimalanta, who is the sister of
summoned either by means of substituted service in As petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte is a nonresident who is not
petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte, filed a complaint for partition
accordance with Rule 14, §8 or by publication as provided in found in the Philippines, service of summons on her must be
of real property and accounting of rentals against the
§§ 17 and 18 of the same Rule. 5 in accordance with Rule 14, §17. Since in the case at bar, the
Valmontes before the RTC of Manila. The subject of the
service of summons upon petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte was
action was a three-door apartment.
In all of these cases, it should be noted, defendant must not done by means of any of the first two modes, the question
be a resident of the Philippines, otherwise an action in is whether the service on her attorney, petitioner Alfredo D.
In a previous letter allegedly sent, Lourdes referred
personam cannot be brought because jurisdiction over Valmonte, can be justified under the third mode, namely, “in
Dimalanta’s counsel to her husband as the party to whom all
his person is essential to make a binding decision. any . . . manner the court may deem sufficient.”
communications intended for her should be sent.
On the other hand, if the action is in rem or quasi in rem, The SC held that it cannot be justified because such mode of
Service of summons was then made upon petitioner Alfredo
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not essential service must be made outside the Philippines through the
Valmonte, who at the time, was at his office in Manila. He
for giving the court jurisdiction so long as the court acquires Philippine Embassy in the foreign country where the
accepted the summons, insofar as he was concerned, but
jurisdiction over the res. If the defendant is a nonresident and defendant resides, not made upon the order of the court as
refused to accept the summons for his wife on the ground that
he is not found in the country, summons may be served required by Rule 14, §17 and was not made upon prior leave
he was not authorized to accept the process on her behalf.
of court. Strict compliance with these requirements alone can
assure observance of due process.
Moreover, in the case at bar, petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte

did not appoint her husband as her attorney-in-fact. Although
she wrote private respondent’s attorney that “all
communications” intended for her should be addressed to her
husband who is also her lawyer at the latter’s address in
Manila, no power of attorney to receive summons for her can
be inferred therefrom. In fact the letter was written seven
month before the filing of this case below, and it appears that
it was written in connection with the negotiations between her
and her sister, respondent Rosita Dimalanta, concerning the
partition of the property in question. As usual in negotiations
of this kind, the exchange of correspondence was carried on
by counsel for the parties. But the authority given to
petitioner’s husband in these negotiations certainly cannot be
construed as also including an authority to represent her in
any litigation.
G.R. No. 128803. September 25, 1998.* presumption in favor of the plaintiff as provided for in It must be noted that once the authenticity of the foreign
ASIAVEST LIMITED, petitioner, paragraph (b), Sec. 50, (Ibid), the plaintiff presented only judgment is proved, the burden to repel it on grounds
vs. documentary evidence to show rendition, existence, and provided for in paragraph (b) of Section 50, Rule 39 of the
THE COURT OF APPEALS and ANTONIO HERAS, authentication of such judgment by the proper officials Rules of Court is on the party challenging the foreign
respondents. concerned. In addition, the plaintiff presented testimonial and judgment—HERAS in this case.
documentary evidence to show its entitlement to attorney’s
fees and other expenses of litigation. Now, the question as to whether the HK court had acquired
Doctrine:
jurisdiction over the person of Heras involves the issue of
● In an action in personam wherein the defendant is a
On the other hand, the defendant presented two witnesses, whether summons was properly and validly served on him.
non-resident who does not voluntarily submit
Fortunata dela Vega and Russel Warren Lousich.
himself to the authority of the court, personal
Although Asiavest did not contest the qualification of Lousich
service of summons within the state is essential to
Dela Vega, as she was the secretary of Heras, was claiming as an expert in HK law, his testimony nevertheless did not
the acquisition of jurisdiction over her person.
that no writ of summons or copy of a statement of claim of touch upon the specific law of Hong Kong in respect of
● In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction
Asiavest Limited was ever served in the office of the service of summons either in actions in rem or in personam,
over the person of the defendant is not a
Navegante Shipping Agency Limited and/or for Mr. Antonio and where the defendant is either a resident or nonresident of
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court
Heras, and that no service of the writ of summons was either Hong Kong. In view of the absence of proof of the Hong
provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the
served on the defendant at his residence in New Manila, Kong law on this particular issue, the presumption of
res.
Quezon City. identity or similarity or the so-called processual
presumption shall come into play. It will thus be
Facts:
Mr. Lousich was presented as an expert on the laws of Hong presumed that the Hong Kong law on the matter is similar
Asiavest Limited filed a complaint against Antonio Heras in a
Kong, and as a representative of the law office of the to the Philippine law.
Hong Kong court praying that Heras be ordered to pay a
defendant’s counsel who made a verification of the record of
certain amounts to which the said court rendered judgment in
the case filed by the plaintiff in Hong Kong against the As stated in Valmonte vs. Court of Appeals, it will be helpful to
its favor. They filed an action for the enforcement of the said
defendant, as well as the procedure in serving Court determine first whether the action is in personam, in rem, or
judgement at the RTC of Manila.
processes in Hong Kong. quasi in rem because the rules on service of summons under
Rule 14 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines apply
Heras filed a motion to dismiss but unfortunately before the
He was an expert witness and to verify the records of the according to the nature of the action.
case could be resolved a fire razed the QC Hall Building
Hong Kong case. He claims that there must be adequate
which totally destroyed the building and all its records.
proof of service of summons, otherwise the Hong Kong Court In the case at bar, the action filed in Hong Kong against
will refuse to render judgment and added that the the mere HERAS was in personam, since it was based on his personal
Asiavest filed a motion for reconstitution of Case Records
fact that the Hong Kong Court rendered judgment, it can be guarantee of the obligation of the principal debtor. Before the
which was granted by the court after allowing Heras to react
presumed that there was service of summons. He claimed foregoing rules may be applied, we must determine first
thereto.
that the record of the Hong Kong case failed to show that a whether HERAS was a resident of Hong Kong.
writ of summons was served upon HERAS in Hong Kong or
The parties have said to have agreed on the following
that any such attempt was made. Neither did the record show The SC here noted that the residence of Heras insofar as the
stipulation of facts:
that a copy of the judgment of the court was served on Heras. action for the enforcement of the Hong Kong court judgment
1. That the defendant admits the existence of the
is concerned, was never in issue. He never challenged the
judgment dated December 28, 1984 (the HK
Issue: service of summons on him through a security guard in his
judgment) as well as its amendment dated April 13,
Whether the Hong Kong Court acquired jurisdiction over the Quezon City residence and through a lawyer in his office in
1987, but not necessarily the authenticity or validity
person of Heras. that city. In his Motion to Dismiss, he did not question the
thereof;
jurisdiction of the Philippine court over his person on the
2. The plaintiff is not doing business and is not
Ruling: ground of invalid service of summons. What was in issue was
licensed to do business in the Philippines;
No. The HK court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person his residence as far as the Hong Kong suit was concerned.
3. The residence of defendant, Antonio Heras, is New
of Heras thus, the HK court judgment rendered against him Thus, the SC concluded that the stipulated fact that Heras “is
Manila, Quezon City.
cannot be given force and effect here in the Philippines for a resident of New Manila, Quezon City, Philippines” refers to
having been rendered without jurisdiction. his residence at the time jurisdiction over his person was
In view of the admission by the defendant of the existence of
being sought by the Hong Kong court. With that stipulation of
the aforementioned judgment, as well as the legal
fact, ASIAVEST cannot now claim that HERAS was a resident
of Hong Kong at the time.
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.” 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.
Heras, who was an absentee should have been served with

summons in the same manner as a nonresident 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 Section 18 be
applied, 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.”
G.R. Nos. 121576-78. June 16, 2000.* jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for
BANCO DO BRASIL, petitioner, the court to validly try and decide the case. When the
vs. defendant is a non-resident, personal service of summons
THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ARSENIO M. GONONG, within the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction
and CESAR S. URBINO, SR., respondents. over the person. This cannot be done, however, if the
defendant is not physically present in the country, and thus,
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and
Doctrine:
therefore cannot validly try and decide the case against him.
● Where the action is in personam, one brought
against a person on the basis of his personal
liability, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
is necessary for the court to validly try and decide
the case; When the defendant is a non-resident,
personal service of summons within the state is
essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the
person.
Facts:
In 1989, Cesar Urbino, Sr. sued Poro Point Shipping Services
for damages the former incurred when one of the latter’s ship
ran aground causing losses to Urbino. Urbino impleaded
Banco Do Brasil (BDB), a foreign corporation not engaged in
business in the Philippines nor does it have any office here or
any agent. BDB was impleaded simply because it has a claim
over the sunken ship. BDB however failed to appear multiple
times. Eventually, a judgment was rendered and BDB was
adjudged to pay $300,000.00 in damages in favor of Urbino
for BDB being a nuisance defendant.
Banco do Brasil assailed the said decision as it argued that

there was no valid service of summons because the
summons was issued to the ambassador of Brazil. Further,
the other summons which were made through publication is
not applicable to BDB as it alleged that the action against
them is in personam.
Issue:
Whether the court acquired jurisdiction over Banco do Brasil
Ruling:
No. Banco Do Brasil is correct. Although the suit is originally
in rem as it was BDB’s claim on the sunken ship which was
used as the basis for it being impleaded, the action
nevertheless became an in personam one when Urbino asked
for damages in the said amount. As such, only a personal
service of summons would have vested the court jurisdiction
over BDB. Where the action is in personam, one brought
against a person on the basis of his personal liability,
G.R. No. 150656. April 29, 2003.* never validly served with summons. Neither did she appear in interest, actual or contingent; (3) when the relief demanded
MARGARITA ROMUALDEZ-LICAROS, petitioner, court to submit voluntarily to its jurisdiction. consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from
vs. any interest in property located in the Philippines; or (4) when
ABELARDO B. LICAROS, respondent. Issue: the property of the defendant has been attached within the
Whether or not there was a valid service of summons. Philippines.
Doctrine:
Ruling: In these instances, extraterritorial service of summons may be
● Actions in personam and actions in rem or quasi in
Yes. Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of effectedunder any of three modes: (1) by personal service out
rem differ in that actions in personam are directed
the action brought against him. Service of such writ is the of the country, with leave of court; (2) by publication and
against specific persons and seek personal
means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over his sending a copy of the summons and order of the court by
judgments while actions in rem or quasi in rem are
person. registered mail to the defendant’s last known address, also
directed against the thing or property or status of a
with leave of court; or (3) by any other means the judge may
person and seek judgments with respect thereto as
As a rule, when the defendant does not reside and is not consider sufficient.
against the whole world.
found in the Philippines, Philippine courts cannot try any case
● Summons is a writ by which the defendant is
against him because of the impossibility of acquiring The trial court’s prescribed mode of extraterritorial service
notified of the action brought against him. Service of
jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in (service by publication and furnishing her with a copy of the
such writ is the means by which the court acquires
court. But when the case is one of actions in rem or quasi in Order, Summons and a copy of the petition at her address in
jurisdiction over his person.
rem enumerated in Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, California thru the Department of Foreign Affairs) does not fall
Philippine courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide the under the first or second mode specified in Section 15 of Rule
Facts:
case. In such instances, Philippine courts have jurisdiction 14, but under the third mode. This refers to "any other means
Abelardo Licaros and Margarita Romualdez-Licaros were
over the res, and jurisdiction over the person of the non- that the judge may consider sufficient."
lawfully married in 1968. Sometime in 1979, they agreed to
resident defendant is not essential.
separate due to marital differences. Margarita together with
We hold that delivery to the Department of Foreign Affairs
her two children left for the United States.
Actions in personam and actions in rem or quasi in rem differ was sufficient compliance with the rule. After all, this is exactly
in that actions in personam are directed against specific what the trial court required and considered as sufficient to
In 1991, Abelardo commenced a civil case for the declaration
persons and seek personal judgments. On the other hand, effect service of summons under the third mode of
of nullity of his marriage with Margarita, based on
actions in rem or quasi in rem are directed against the thing or extraterritorial service pursuant to Section 15 of Rule 14.
psychological incapacity. As Margarita was then residing in
property or status of a person and seek judgments with
the United States, the court ordered that summons be served
respect thereto as against the whole world.
by publication in a newspaper of general circulation and at the
same time furnishing Margarita a copy of the order, as well as
At the time Abelardo filed the petition for nullity of the
the corresponding summons and a copy of the petition at her
marriage in 1991, Margarita was residing in the United States.
address in the United States through the Department of
She left the Philippines in 1982 together with her two children.
Foreign Affairs, all at the expense of Abelardo. Margarita was
The trial court considered Margarita a non-resident defendant
given sixty (60) days after publication to file a responsive
who is not found in the Philippines. Since the petition affects
pleading. On November 8, 1991, the marriage of Abelardo to
the personal status of the plaintiff, the trial court authorized
Margarita was declared null and void.
extraterritorial service of summons under Section 15, Rule 14
of the Rules of Court. The term "personal status" includes
Almost nine (9) years later, Margarita received a letter dated
family relations, particularly the relations between husband
November 18, 1991 from a certain Atty. Angelo Q. Valencia
and wife.
informing her that she no longer has the right to use the family
name "Licaros" inasmuch as her marriage to Abelardo had
Under Section 15 of Rule 14, a defendant who is a non-
already been judicially dissolved by the Regional Trial Court
resident and is not found in the country may be served with
of Makati on November 8, 1991.
summons by extraterritorial service in four instances: (1) when
the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff; (2) when
Margarita filed a petition for review on certiorari, insisting that
the action relates to, or the subject of which is property within
the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over her person in
the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or
the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage since she was
II. What do Tribunals of the Forum Must Do Whether or not summons was effectively served on execute the appropriate deed of sale and that the titles be
Jurisdiction, How Acquired (Rules of Court) respondents thus acquiring jurisdiction delivered to them (petitioners); or in the alternative, that the
sale be revoked and rescinded; and spouses Trocino ordered
1. Gomez vs CA (2004) Held: to return to petitioners their down payment in the amount of
2. St Aviation vs Grand Air (2006) P500,000.00 plus interests. The action instituted by
No. To resolve whether there was valid service of summons
3. Pioneer vs Guadiz (2007) on respondents, the nature of the action filed against them petitioners affect the parties alone, not the whole world.
4. Regner vs Logarta (2007) Hence, it is an action in personam, i.e., any judgment therein
must first be determined. As the Court explained in Asiavest
Limited vs. Court of Appeals, it will be helpful to determine is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded.
first whether the action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem
Jurisdiction over Foreign Corporations because the rules on service of summons under Rule 14 of The objective sought in petitioners’ complaint was to
MR Holdings vs Bajar (2002) KAYE LAURENTE establish a claim against respondents for their alleged
the Rules of Court of the Philippines apply according to the
nature of the action. refusal to convey to them the title to the two parcels of land
G.R. No. 127692. March 10, 2004 that they inherited from their father, Jesus Trocino, who was
FORTUNATO GOMEZ and AURORA GOMEZ, petitioners, In actions in personam, summons on the defendant must be one of the sellers of the properties to petitioners. Hence, to
vs. repeat, this is an action in personam because it is an
served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person,
COURT OF APPEALS, ADOLFO TROCINO and MARIANO or, if he refuses to receive it, by tendering it to him. This is action against persons, namely, herein respondents, on
TROCINO, respondents. the basis of their personal liability. As such, personal
specifically provided in Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of
Court, which states: service of summons upon the defendants is essential in
order for the court to acquire of jurisdiction over their
SEC. 7. Personal service of summons.—The
Doctrine: summons shall be served by handing a copy persons.
thereof to the defendant in person or, if he refuses
Facts: to receive it, by tendering it to him. A distinction, however, must be made with regard to service of
This Civil Case is an action for specific performance and/or summons on respondents Adolfo Trocino and Mariano
rescission filed by herein petitioners, spouses Fortunato and If efforts to find defendant personally makes prompt service Trocino:
Aurora Gomez, against the heirs of Jesus J. Trocino, Sr. on impossible, substituted service may be effected by leaving 1. Adolfo Trocino, as records show, is already a
December 16, 1991, which include herein respondents and copies of the summons at the defendant’s dwelling house or resident of Ohio, U.S.A. for 25 years. Being a non-
their mother Caridad Trocino. residence with some person of suitable age and discretion resident, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over
then residing therein, or by leaving the copies at the his person and validly try and decide the case
In 1975, the spouses Jesus and Caridad Trocino mortgaged defendant’s office or regular place of business with some against him.
competent person in charge thereof. In substituted service, it 2. On the other hand, Mariano Trocino has been in
two parcels of land to Dr. Clarence Yujuico.
is mandated that the fact of impossibility of personal service Talibon, Bohol since 1986. To validly acquire
should be explained in the proof of service. jurisdiction over his person, summons must be
July 11, 1988- the mortgage was subsequently foreclosed and When the defendant in an action in personam is a non- served on him personally, or through
the properties sold at public auction. resident who does not voluntarily submit himself to the substituted service, upon showing of
authority ofthe court, personal service of summons within the impossibility of personal service. Such
December 12, 1989- Before the expiry of the redemption State is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over his impossibility, and why efforts exerted towards
period, the spouses Trocino sold the property to petitioners, person. This cannot be done if the defendant is not physically personal service failed, should be explained in
who in turn, redeemed the same from Dr. Yujuico. The present in the country, and thus, the court cannot acquire the proof of service. The pertinent facts and
spouses Trocino, however, refused to convey ownership of jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot validly try circumstances attendant to the service of
the properties to petitioners, hence, the complaint. and decide the case against him. summons must be stated in the proof of service
January 10, 1992- the trial court’s Process Server served or Officer’s Return. Failure to do so would
summons on respondents. invalidate all subsequent proceedings on
In the present case, petitioners’ cause of action is anchored
January 27, 1992-the defendants, through their counsel Atty. on the claim that the spouses Jesus and Caridad Trocino jurisdictional grounds.
Expedito P. Bugarin, filed their Answer. reneged on their obligation to convey ownership of the two
parcels of land subject of their sale. Thus, petitioners pray in In the present case, the process server served the summons
and copies of the complaint on respondents Jacob, Jesus, Jr.,
Issue: their complaint that the spouses Trocino be ordered to
Adolfo, Mariano, Consolacion, Alice and Racheal, through
their mother, Caridad Trocino. The return did not contain
any particulars as to the impossibility of personal service
on Mariano Trocino within a reasonable time. Such
improper service renders the same ineffective.
Due process of law requires personal service to support a

personal judgment, and, when the proceeding is strictly in
personam brought to determine the personal rights and
obligations of the parties, personal service within the state or
a voluntary appearance in the case is essential to the
acquisition of jurisdiction so as to constitute compliance with
the constitutional requirement of due process..
Moreover, inasmuch as the sheriff’s return failed to state the

facts and circumstances showing the impossibility of personal
service of summons upon respondents within a reasonable
time, petitioners should have sought the issuance, of an
alias summons.
Under Section 5, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court,
alias summons may be issued when the original summons is
returned without being served on any or all of the defendants.
Petitioners, however, did not do so, and they should now bear
the consequences of their lack of diligence.
The fact that Atty. Expedito Bugarin represented all the
respondents without any exception does not transform the
ineffective service of summons into a valid one. It does not
constitute a valid waiver or even a voluntary submission to the
trial court’s jurisdiction. There was not even the slightest proof
showing that respondents authorized Atty. Bugarin’s
appearance for and in their behalf.
IMPORTANT:
Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the
action brought against him. Service of such writ is the means
by which the court acquires jurisdiction over his person. Any
judgment without such service in the absence of a valid
waiver is null and void.
the summons upon respondent. However, despite receipt evidence of a right as
G.R. No. 140288. October 23, 2006 of summons, respondent failed to answer the claim. between the parties and
ST. AVIATION SERVICES CO., PTE., LTD., petitioner, their successors in interest
vs. Respondent contends that the service of summons is void by a subsequent title;
GRAND INTERNATIONALAIRWAYS, INC., respondent. In either case, the judgment or final order may be
and that the Singapore court did not acquire jurisdiction over
it. repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want
of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear
Facts:
St. Aviation Services Co., Pte., Ltd., petitioner, is a mistake of law or fact.”
Issue:
foreign corporation based in Singapore. It is engaged in the Whether the Singapore High Court has acquired jurisdiction
manufacture, repair, and maintenance of airplanes and Generally, matters of remedy and procedure such as
over the person of respondent by the service of summons
aircrafts. Grand International Airways, Inc., respondent, is a upon its office in the Philippines those relating to the service of process upon a defendant are
domestic corporation engaged in airline operations. governed by the lex forior the internal law of the forum, which
in this case is the law of Singapore.
Held:
January 1996, petitioner and respondent executed an Yes. Generally, in the absence of a special contract, no
“Agreement for the Maintenance and Modification of Airbus A In this case, petitioner moved for leave of court to serve a
sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a
300 B4-103 (First Agreement). Under this stipulation, judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country; however, copy of the Writ of Summons outside Singapore. In an Order
petitioner agreed to undertake maintenance and modification dated December 24, 1997, the Singapore High Court granted
under the rules of comity, utility and convenience,
works on respondent’s aircraft. The parties agreed on the nations have established a usage among civilized states “leave to serve a copy of the Writ of Summons on the
mode and manner of payment by respondent of the contract Defendant by a method of service authorized by the law of
by which final judgments of foreign courts of competent
price, including interest in case of default. They also agreed jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered the Philippines for service of any originating process
that the “construction, validity and performance thereof” shall issued by the Philippines.
efficacious under certain conditions that may vary in
be governed by the laws of Singapore. They further agreed to different countries.
submit any suit arising from their agreement to the non- In the Philippines, jurisdiction over a party is acquired by
exclusive jurisdiction of the Singapore courts. service of summons by the sheriff, his deputy or other proper
Certainly, the Philippine legal system has long ago
accepted into its jurisprudence and procedural rules the court officer either personally by handing a copy thereof to the
January 12, 1996, the parties verbally agreed that defendant or by substituted service. In this case, the Writ of
viability of an action for enforcement of foreign judgment, as
petitioner will repair and undertake maintenance works on well as the requisites for such valid enforcement, as derived Summons issued by the Singapore High Court was
respondent’s other aircraft, Aircraft No. RP-C8881; and that served upon respondent at its office located at Mercure
from internationally accepted doctrines. The conditions for the
the works shall be based on a General Terms of Agreement recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment in our legal Hotel (formerly Village Hotel), MIA Road, Pasay City. The
(GTA). Petitioner undertook the contracted works and Sheriff’s Return shows that it was received on May 2,
system are contained in Section 48, Rule 39 of the 1997
thereafter promptly delivered the aircrafts to respondent. Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, thus: 1998 by Joyce T. Austria, Secretary of the General
Manager of respondent company. But respondent
March 1996 to October 1997, petitioner billed respondent completely ignored the summons, hence, it was declared
“SEC. 48. Effect of foreign judgments.—The effect in default.
in the total amount of US$303,731.67 or S$452,560.18. But of a judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign
despite petitioner’s repeated demands, respondent failed to country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment
pay, in violation of the terms agreed upon. or final order is as follows: Considering that the Writ of Summons was served
upon respondent in accordance with our Rules,
1. (a)In case of a judgment or
December 12, 1997, petitioner filed with the High Court of final order upon a specific jurisdiction was acquired by the Singapore High Court
over its person. Clearly, the judgment of default rendered
the Republic of Singapore an action for the sum of thing, the judgment or final
S$452,560.18, including interest and costs, against order is conclusive upon by that court against respondent is valid.
respondent. Upon petitioner’s motion, the court issued a the title to the thing; and
Writ of Summons to be served extraterritorially or outside 2. (b)In case of a judgment or
Singapore upon respondent. The court sought the final order against a
assistance of the sheriff of Pasay City to effect service of person, the judgment or
final order is presumptive
G.R. No. 156848. October 11, 2007.* (3) Whether or not it is NLRC (not trial court) has the foreign private juridical entity “has transacted business in
PIONEER INTERNATIONAL, LTD., petitioner, jurisdiction over the case- NO the Philippines.”
vs. Held:
HON. TEOFILO GUADIZ, JR., in his capacity as Presiding (1) Yes. Section 12, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil (2) NO. When summons is served on a foreign
Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 147, Makati City, Procedure provides the manner by which summons may juridical entity, there are three prescribed ways:
and ANTONIO D. TODARO, respondents. be served upon a foreign juridical entity which has (1) service on its resident agent designated in accordance
transacted business in the Philippines. with law for that purpose,
Doctrine: Personal service of summons is preferred to “Service upon foreign private juridical entity.—When (2) service on the government official designated by law to
the defendant is a foreign juridical entity which has
substituted service. (Jose vs. Boyon, 414 SCRA receive summons if the corporation does not have a resident
216[2003]) transacted business in the Philippines, service may agent, and
be made on its resident agent designated in (3) service on any of the corporation’s officers or agents
accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be within the Philippines.
Facts: On 16 January 1998, Antonio D. Todaro (Todaro) filed no such agent, on the government official
a complaint for sum of money and damages with preliminary In the present case, service of summons on PIL failed
designated by law to that effect, or any of its officers to follow any of the prescribed processes. PIL had no
attachment against PIL, Pioneer Concrete Philippines, Inc. or agents within the Philippines.”
(PCPI), Pioneer Philippines Holdings, Inc. (PPHI), John G. resident agent in the Philippines. Summons was not served
on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the
McDonald (McDonald), and Philip J. Klepzig (Klepzig). PIL
and its co-defendants were served copies of the summons As to the first issue, PIL insists that its sole act of “transacting” designated government agency, since PIL is not registered
or “doing business” in the Philippines consisted of its with the SEC.
and of the complaint at PPHI and PCPI’s office in Alabang,
Muntinlupa, through Cecille L. De Leon (De Leon), who was investment in PPHI. Under Philippine law, PIL’s mere
investment in PPHI does not constitute “doing business.”
Klepzig’s Executive Assistant. Summons for PIL was served on De Leon, Klepzig’s
Executive Assistant. Klepzig is PIL’s “agent within the
Todaro alleged that PIL is a corporation duly organized However, the Supreme Court declared that, based on the Philippines” because PIL authorized Klepzig to notify Todaro
allegations in Todaro’s complaint, PIL was doing of the cessation of his consultancy.
under Australian laws, while PCPI and PPHI are corporations
duly organized under Philippine laws. PIL is engaged in the business in the Philippines when it negotiated Todaro’s
employment with PPHI. Section 3(d) of Republic Act No.
ready-mix and concrete aggregates business and has However, summons was not served personally on Klepzig
established a presence worldwide. PIL established PPHI as 7042, Foreign Investments Act of 1991, states: as agent of PIL. Instead, summons was served on De Leon,
“The phrase “doing business” shall include soliciting
the holding company of the stocks of its operating company in Klepzig’s Executive Assistant. In this instance, De Leon was
the Philippines, PCPI. orders, service contracts, opening offices, whether called not PIL’s agent but a mere employee of Klepzig. In effect, the
“liaison” offices or branches; appointing representatives or sheriff resorted to substituted service. For symmetry, we apply
distributors domiciled in the Philippines or who in any the rule on substituted service of summons on a natural
McDonald is the Chief Executive Officer of PIL’s Hong calendar year stay in the country for a period or periods
Kong office while Klepzig is the President and Managing person and we find that no reason was given to justify the
totaling one hundred eighty [180] days or more; service of PIL’s summons on De Leon.
Director of PPHI and PCPI. For his part, Todaro further participating in the management, supervision or control of
alleged that he was the managing director of Betonval Thus, we rule that PIL transacted business in the
any domestic business, firm, entity or corporation in the Philippines and Klepzig was its agent within the Philippines.
Readyconcrete, Inc. (Betonval) from June 1975 up to his Philippines; and any other act or acts that imply a
resignation in February 1996. However, there was improper service of summons on PIL
continuity of commercial dealings or arrangements and since summons was not served personally on Klepzig.
contemplate to that extent the performance of acts or
Issues: works, or the exercise of some of the functions normally Additional: Forum Non-Conveniens
(1) Whether or not trial court has acquired incident to, and in progressive prosecution of commercial The doctrine of forum non-conveniens requires an examination of the
jurisdiction over the person of PIL, despite of its gain or of the purpose and object of the business truthfulness of the allegations in the complaint. Section 1, Rule 16 of
claim that it is a foreign corporation “not doing organization. the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure does not mention forum non-
business” in the Philippines- YES conveniens as a ground for filing a motion to dismiss. The propriety of
(2) Whether or not trial court has acquired dismissing a case based on forum non-conveniens requires a factual
Finally, the phrase “doing business in the Philippines” in determination; hence, it is more properly considered a matter of
jurisdiction over the person of PIL since summons the former version of Section 12, Rule 14 now reads “has defense. While it is within the discretion of the trial court to abstain from
was improperly served- NO transacted business in the Philippines.” The scope is thus assuming jurisdiction on this ground, the trial court should do so only
broader in that it is enough for the application of the Rule that
after vital facts are established to determine whether special
circumstances require the court’s desistance.
G.R. No. 168747. October 19, 2007 rendered against such defendant is null and void. A decision
VICTORIA REGNER, petitioner, SERVICE OF SUMMON ON TERESA that is null and void for want of jurisdiction on the part of the
Vs. June 1, 2000, Teresa was personally served the summons at trial court is not a decision in the contemplation of law and,
CYNTHIA R. LOGARTA, TERESA R. TORMIS and CEBU Room 304, Regency Crest Condominium, Banilad, Cebu City. hence, it can never become final and executory.
COUNTRY CLUB, INC., respondents. She filed her Answer with counterclaim with the RTC.
Subsequently, on 12 September 2002, Teresa filed a motion Rule 3, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, defines indispensable
Facts: to dismiss because of petitioner’s failure to prosecute her parties as parties-in-interest without whom there can be no
Background: action for an unreasonable length of time. final determination of an action. As such, they must be joined
Petitioner Victoria Regner (Victoria) is the second wife of either as plaintiffs or as defendants. The general rule with
Luis Regner (Luis). Petitioner: opposed the motion and filed her own reference to the making of parties in a civil action requires, of
Respondent: Cynthia Logarta (Cynthia) and Teresa motion to set the case for pre-trial, course, the joinder of all necessary parties where possible,
Tormis (Teresa), the respondents herein are two of the three Teresa: filed her rejoinder on the ground that their sister, and the joinder of all indispensable parties under any and all
daughters of Luis Regner with his first wife, Anicita C. Cynthia, an indispensable party, had not yet been served a conditions, their presence being a sine qua non for the
Regner; third daughter is Melinda summons. Thus, Teresa prayed for the dismissal of exercise of judicial power. It is precisely “when an
petitioner’s complaint, as the case would not proceed indispensable party is not before the court [that] the action
without Cynthia’s presence. should be dismissed.” The absence of an indispensable party
May 15, 1998, Luis executed a Deed of Donation in favor of renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for
respondents Cynthia and Teresa covering Proprietary RTC issued an Order granting respondent Teresa’s want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but
motion to dismiss on November 9 , 2000. RTC dismissed
Ownership of the Cebu Country Club, Inc. even as to those present. As we ruled in Alberto v.
herein petitioner’s complaint for declaration of nullity of a Mananghala, 89 Phil. 188: In an action for recovery of
deed of donation, for failure to serve summons on
February 11, 1999- Luis passed away. property against a person who purchased it from another who
Cynthia Logarta, an indispensable party therein. in turn acquired it from others by the same means or by
June 15, 1999- Victoria filed a Complaint for Declaration of donation or otherwise, the predecessors of defendants are
Nullity of the Deed of Donation against Cynthia and Teresa Court of Appeals: On May 6, 2005, CA affirmed in toto the indispensable parties if the transfers, if not voided, may bind
with the RTC. She alleged that: order of dismissal of the complaint by the RTC and the denial plaintiff. (Garcia vs. Reyes, 17 Phil. 127 [1948])
- on March 17, 1997, Luis made a written of the motion for reconsideration. It said that the petitioner’s
declaration wherein he stated that due to failure to move for an extraterritorial service of summons IN THIS CASE:
his illness and forgetfulness, he would not constitutes failure to prosecute for an unreasonable It takes no great degree of legal sophistication to realize that
sign any document without the length of time Cynthia and Teresa are indispensable parties. Cynthia and
knowledge of his lawyer, Atty. Francis Teresa allegedly derived their rights to the subject property by
Zosa Issue: way of donation from their father Luis. The central thrust of
- on May 15, 1998, when Luis was already Whether a co-donee is an indispensable party in an action to the petitioner’s complaint was that Luis could not have
very ill, Cynthia and Teresa fraudulently declare the nullity of the deed of donation, thus jurisdiction donated Proprietary Ownership to his daughters Cynthia and
made a Deed of Donation whereby they must be acquired over the said party before court can validly Teresa, as Luis was already very ill and no longer of sound
made it appear that Luis donated to them pronounce judgment and disposing mind at the time of donation on 15 May 1997.
Proprietary Ownership Certificate. That Accordingly, the prayer in petitioner’s complaint was for the
they manipulated the hand of Luis so that trial court to declare null and void the Deed of Donation and to
he could affix his thumbmark on the Held:
Yes. A Court must acquire jurisdiction over the persons of restrain the Cebu Country Club, Inc. from transferring title and
assailed Deed of Donation ownership of Proprietary Ownership to Cynthia and Teresa.
indispensable parties before it can validly pronounce
SERVICE OF SUMMONS: judgments personal to the parties. Courts acquire jurisdiction
Thus, based on the Deed of Donation, Teresa and Cynthia
Sheriff Melchor A. Solon served the summons on Cynthia and over a party plaintiff upon the filing of the complaint. On the
other hand, jurisdiction over the person of a party defendant is are co-owners of Proprietary Membership of Cebu Country
Teresa at the Borja Family Clinic in Tagbilaran City wherein Club, Inc. The country club membership certificate is
Melinda worked as a doctor, but Melinda refused to receive assured upon the service of summons in the manner required
by law or otherwise by his voluntary appearance. As a rule, if undivided and it is impossible to pinpoint which specific
the summonses for her sisters and informed the sheriff portion of the property belongs to either Teresa or Cynthia.
that their lawyer, Atty. Francis Zosa, would be the one to a defendant has not been summoned, the court acquires no
receive the same. jurisdiction over his person, and a personal judgment
Indeed, both Teresa and Cynthia are indispensable parties indispensable party in Civil Case No. CEB 23927 without
this case. whom the lower court is barred from making a final
adjudication as to the validity of the entire donation. Without
An indispensable party has been defined as follows: An the presence of indispensable parties to a suit or proceeding,
indispensable party is a party who has such an interest in the a judgment therein cannot attain finality.
controversy or subject matter that a final adjudication cannot
be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that
interest, a party who has not only an interest in the subject
matter of the controversy, but also has an interest of such
nature that a final decree cannot be made without affecting
his interest or leaving the controversy in such a condition that
its final determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity
and good conscience. It has also been considered that an
indispensable party is a person in whose absence there
cannot be a determination between the parties already before
the court which is effective, complete, or equitable. Further,
an indispensable party is one who must be included in an
action before it may properly go forward. A person is not an
indispensable party, however, if his interest in the controversy
or subject matter is separable from the interest of the other
parties, so that it will not necessarily be directly or injuriously
affected by a decree which does complete justice between
them. Also, a person is not an indispensable party if his
presence would merely permit complete relief between him
and those already parties to the action, or if he has no interest
in the subject matter of the action. It is not a sufficient reason
to declare a person to be an indispensable party that his
presence will avoid multiple litigation.
All co-owners of a property are indispensable parties in a

suit involving a co-owned property, the rationale being to
prevent multiplicity of suits by requiring the person
asserting a right against the defendant to include with
him, either as co-plaintiffs or as co-defendants, all
persons standing in the same position, so that the whole
matter in dispute may be determined once and for all in
one litigation.
Conclusion:
Applying the foregoing definitions and principles to the
present case, this Court finds that any decision in Civil Case
No. CEB 23927 cannot bind Cynthia, and the Court cannot
nullify the donation of the property she now co-owns with
Teresa, even if limited only to the portion belonging to Teresa,
to whom summons was properly served, since ownership of
the property is still pro indiviso. Obviously, Cynthia is an
G.R. No. 138104. April 11, 2002. * 7, 1997, Respondent Solidbank Corporation (Solidbank)
MR HOLDINGS, LTD., petitioner, obtained a Partial Judgment against Respondent Marcopper Apparently, it is not the absence of the prescribed license but
vs. from the RTC, Branch 26, Manila, where it issued a writ of the “doing (of) business” in the Philippines without such
SHERIFF CARLOS P. BAJAR, SHERIFF FERDINAND M. execution pending appeal directing Carlos P. Bajar, license which debars the foreign corporation from access
JANDUSAY, SOLIDBANK CORPORATION, AND respondent sheriff, to require Marcopper “to pay the to our courts. The task at hand requires us to weigh the facts
MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION, respondents. sums of money to satisfy the Partial Judgment.” vis-à-vis the established principles. The question whether or
not a foreign corporation is doing business is dependent
Facts: On August 26, 1998, petitioner MR Holdings served an principally upon the facts and circumstances of each
Asian Development Bank (ADB), a multilateral “Affidavit of Third-Party Claim” upon respondent sheriffs, particular case, considered in the light of the purposes and
development finance institution, agreed to extend to asserting its ownership over all Marcopper’s mining language of the pertinent statute or statutes involved and of
“Respondent” Marcopper Mining Corporation (Marcopper) a properties, equipment and facilities by virtue of the “Deed of the general principles governing the jurisdictional authority of
loan in the aggregate amount of US$40,000,000.00 to finance Assignment,” which the RTC denied. the state over such corporations.
the latter’s mining project at Sta. Cruz, Marinduque on
November 4, 1992. The principal loan of US$15,000,000.00
On October 6, 1998, Judge Ansaldo denied petitioner’s Batas Pambansa Blg. 68, otherwise known as “The
was sourced from ADB’s ordinary capital resources, while the
application for a writ of preliminary injunction on the ground Corporation Code of the Philippines,” is silent as to what
complementary loan of US$25,000,000.00 was funded by the
that petitioner has no legal capacity to sue, it being a foreign constitutes doing” or “transacting” business in the Philippines.
Bank of Nova Scotia, a participating finance institution.
corporation doing business in the Philippines without license. Fortunately, jurisprudence has supplied the deficiency and
has held that the term “implies a continuity of commercial
To secure the loan, Respondent Marcopper executed in dealings and arrangements, and contemplates, to that
Court of Appeals: ruled that petitioner has no legal capacity
favor of ADB a “Deed of Real Estate and Chattel Mortgage” extent, the performance of acts or works or the exercise
to sue in the Philippine courts because it is a foreign
dated November 11, 1992, covering substantially all of its of some of the functions normally incident to, and in
corporation doing business here without license.
(Marcopper’s) properties and assets in Marinduque. progressive prosecution of, the purpose and object for
which the corporation was organized.”
Issue:
When Marcopper defaulted in the payment of its loan
Whether or not petitioner has the legal capacity to sue and
obligation, Placer Dome (a foreign corporation which owns In Mentholatum Co., Inc. vs. Mangaliman, this Court laid down
seek redress from Philippine courts as it is a non-resident
40% of Marcopper), presumably to preserve its international the test to determine whether a foreign company is “doing
foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines and
credit standing, agreed to have its subsidiary corporation, business,” thus: “x x x The true test, however, seems to be
suing on isolated transactions.
Petitioner MR Holding, Ltd., assumed Marcopper’s whether the foreign corporation is continuing the body or
obligation to ADB in the amount of US$18,453,450.02. substance of the business or enterprise for which it was
Held: organized or whether it has substantially retired from it
YES. The principles governing a foreign corporation’s right to and turned it over to another. (Traction Cos. vs. Collectors
On March 20, 1997, ADB assigned to Petitioner MR
sue in local courts have long been settled by our Corporation of Int. Revenue [C.C.A., Ohio], 223 F. 984,987.) x x x.”
Holdings all its rights, interests and obligations under the
Law. These principles may be condensed in three statements,
principal and complementary loan agreements in an
to wit:
“Assignment Agreement”. IN THIS CASE:
In the case at bar, the Court of Appeals categorized as “doing
a) if a foreign corporation does business in the business” petitioner’s participation under the “Assignment
On December 8, 1997, Respondent Marcopper likewise
Philippines without a license, it cannot sue before Agreement” and the “Deed of Assignment.” This is simply
executed a “Deed of Assignment” in favor of petitioner, where
the Philippine courts; untenable. The expression “doing business” should not be
it assigns, transfers, cedes and conveys to petitioner, its
b) if a foreign corporation is not doing business in given such a strict and literal construction as to make it apply
assigns and/or successors-in-interest all of its
the Philippines, it needs no license to sue before to any corporate dealing whatever. At this early stage and
(Marcopper’s) properties, mining equipment and
Philippine courts on an isolated transaction or on a with petitioner’s acts or transactions limited to the
facilities.
cause of action entirely independent of any assignment contracts, it cannot be said that it had
business transaction; and performed acts intended to continue the business for which it
Meanwhile, in another case entitled, Solidbank c) if a foreign corporation does business in the was organized. It may not be amiss to point out that the
Corporation vs. Marcopper Mining Corporation, John E. Philippines with the required license, it can sue purpose or business for which petitioner was organized
Loney, Jose E. Reyes and Teodulo C. Gabor, Jr. dated May before Philippine courts on any transaction. is not discernible in the records. No effort was exerted by
the Court of Appeals to establish the nexus between
petitioner’s business and the acts supposed to constitute
“doing business.” Thus, whether the assignment contracts
were incidental to petitioner’s business or were
continuation thereof is beyond determination.
Unarguably, petitioner may, as the Court of Appeals

suggested, decide to operate Marcopper’s mining business,
but, of course, at this stage, that is a mere speculation. Or
it may decide to sell the credit secured by the mining
properties to an offshore investor, in which case the acts will
still be isolated transactions. To see through the present facts
an intention on the part of petitioner to start a series of
business transaction is to rest on assumptions or
probabilities falling short of actual proof. Courts should
never base its judgments on a state of facts so
inadequately developed that it cannot be determined
where inference ends and conjecture begins. Indeed, the
Court of Appeals’ holding that petitioner was determined to be
“doing business” in the Philippines is based mainly on
conjectures and speculation.
Absent overt acts of petitioner from which we may

directly infer its intention to continue Marcopper’s
business, we cannot give our concurrence. Significantly, a
view subscribed upon by many authorities is that the mere
ownership by a foreign corporation of a property in a
certain state, unaccompanied by its active use in
furtherance of the business for which it was formed , is
insufficient in itself to constitute doing business.
In the final analysis, we are convinced that petitioner was

engaged only in isolated acts or transactions. Single or
isolated acts, contracts, or transactions of foreign corporations
are not regarded as a doing or carrying on of business.
Typical examples of these are the making of a single contract,
sale, sale with the taking of a note and mortgage in the state
to secure payment therefor, purchase, or note, or the mere
commission of a tort. In these instances, there is no purpose
to do any other business within the country.
Jurisdiction over Foreign Corporations service of summons on the Department of Trade and Industry, reconfirmed the orders by signing and returning to Hahn the
Hahn vs CA and BMW (1997) because it (BMW) was a foreign corporation and it was not acceptance sheets. Payment was made by the buyer directly
European vs Ingenieuburo Birkhan (2004) doing business in the Philippines. It contended that the to BMW. Title to cars purchased passed directly to the buyer
Agilent vs Integrated Silicon (2004) execution of the Deed of Assignment was an isolated and Hahn never paid for the purchase price of BMW cars sold
Pioneer vs Guadiz (2007) transaction; that Hahn was not its agent because the latter in the Philippines. Hahn was credited with a commission
NEW CASE: Express Padala Italia vs ocampo (2017) undertook to assemble and sell BMW cars and products equal to 14% of the purchase price upon the invoicing of a
without the participation of BMW and sold other products; and vehicle order by BMW. Upon confirmation in writing that the
that Hahn was an indentor or middleman transacting business vehicles had been registered in the Philippines and serviced
[G.R. No. 113074. January 22, 1997] in his own name and for his own account. by him, Hahn received an additional 3% of the full purchase
ALFRED HAHN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and price. Hahn performed after-sale services, including, warranty
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE The trial court deferred resolution of the Motion to services, for which he received reimbursement from BMW. All
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (BMW), respondents. dismiss until after trial on the merits for the reason that the orders were on invoices and forms of BMW.
grounds advanced by BMW in its motion did not seem to be
FACTS: Petitioner Alfred Hahn is a Filipino citizen indubitable. BMW appealed the said decision to the CA. The The record reveals that BMW exercised control
CA ruled that BMW was not doing business in the country over Hahn's activities as a dealer and made regular
doing business under the name and style "Hahn-Manila." On
the other hand, private respondent Bayerische Motoren and, therefore, jurisdiction over it could not be acquired inspections of Hahn's premises to enforce compliance with
through service of summons on the DTI. BMW standards and specifications. In this case, petitioner
Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) is a nonresident foreign
corporation incorporated in Germany. Petitioner executed in was an agent of BMW, and not merely a broker.
ISSUE: Whether BMW is doing business in the
favor of private respondent a "Deed of Assignment with
Special Power of Attorney” which constituted petitioner as the Philippines so as to enable the court to acquire jurisdiction Since BMW is considered as doing business in the
over it through service of summons on the DTI. Philippines, the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over it
exclusive dealer of private respondent as long as the
assignment of its trademark and device subsisted. However, by virtue of the service of summons on the DTI.
RULING: YES. BMW is doing business in the
no formal contract was drawn between the two parties.
Philippines through petitioner Hahn as its agent. Therefore,
the service of summons on DTI is sufficient for the RTC to
Thereafter, petitioner was informed that BMW was
arranging to grant the exclusive dealership of BMW cars and acquire jurisdiction over private respondent BMW.
products to Columbia Motors Corporation (CMC). BMW
terminated the exclusive dealer relationship with petitioner. Rule 14, 14 provides:
14. Service upon foreign corporations. If the
Petitioner then filed a complaint for specific performance and
damages against BMW to compel it to continue the exclusive defendant is a foreign corporation, or a nonresident joint stock
company or association, doing business in the Philippines,
dealership. Later he filed an amended complaint to include an
application for temporary restraining order and for writs of service may be made on its resident agent designated in
accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such
preliminary, mandatory and prohibitory injunction to enjoin
BMW from terminating his exclusive dealership. agent, on the government official designated by law to that
effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.
The Quezon City Regional Trial Court issued a
RA 7042 (Foreign Investments Act of 1991)
temporary restraining order. Summons and copies of the
complaint and amended complaint were thereafter served on enumerates what acts are considered as “doing business”.
Section 3(d) enumerating such acts includes the phrase
the private respondent through the Department of Trade and
Industry, pursuant to Rule 14, 14 of the Rules of Court. The “appointing representatives or distributors in the Philippines"
but not when the representative or distributor "transacts
order, summons and copies of the complaint and amended
complaint were later sent by the DTI to BMW via registered business in its name and for its own account.
mail.
Hahn claimed he took orders for BMW cars and
transmitted them to BMW. Upon receipt of the orders, BMW
BMW moved to dismiss the case, contending that fixed the down payment and pricing charges, notified Hahn of
the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over it through the the scheduled production month for the orders, and
[G.R. No. 159586. July 26, 2004] of the German Consortium, stating that the German corporation doing business in the country to the jurisdiction of
EUROPEAN RESOURCES AND TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Consortiums contract with DMWAI, LBV&A and ERTI has our courts, it must acquire a license from the Securities and
and DELFIN J. WENCESLAO, petitioners, vs. been terminated or extinguished. Exchange Commission (SEC) and appoint an agent for
INGENIEUBURO BIRKHAHN + NOLTE, service of process. Without such license, it cannot institute a
Ingeniurgesellschaft mbh and HEERS & BROCKSTEDT The German Consortium filed a complaint for suit in the Philippines.
GMBH & CO., respondents. injunction against herein petitioners before the Regional Trial However, there are exceptions to this rule. A party
Court of Angeles City. The German Consortium claimed that is estopped from questioning the capacity of a foreign
FACTS: European Resources and Technologies petitioner ERTIs continued misrepresentation as to their right corporation to institute an action in our courts where it had
Inc. (ERTI), a corporation organized and existing under the to accept solid wastes from third parties for processing at the obtained benefits from its dealings with such foreign
laws of the Republic of the Philippines, is joined by Delfin J. waste management center will cause irreparable damage to corporation and thereafter committed a breach of or sought to
Wenceslao as petitioner in this case. Ingenieuburo Birkhan + the Consortium and its exclusive right to operate the waste renege on its obligations. The rule relating to estoppel is
Nolte Ingiurgesellschaft mbh and Heers & Brockstedt Gmbh & management center at the CSEZ. deeply rooted in the axiom of commodum ex injuria sua non
Co. are German corporations who are respondents in this habere debetno person ought to derive any advantage from
case and shall be collectively referred to as the German At the hearings on the application for injunction, his own wrong.
Consortium. petitioners objected to the presentation of evidence on the
ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the case In the case at bar, petitioners have clearly not
The German Consortium tendered and submitted since the German Consortium was composed of foreign received any benefit from its transactions with the German
its bid to the Clark Development Corporation (CDC) to corporations doing business in the country without a license. Consortium. In fact, there is no question that petitioners were
construct, operate and manage the Integrated Waste Moreover, the MOA between the parties provides that the the ones who have expended a considerable amount of
Management Center at the Clark Special Economic Zone dispute should be referred to arbitration. money and effort preparatory to the implementation of the
(CSEZ). CDC accepted the German Consortiums bid and MOA. Neither do petitioners seek to back out from their
awarded the contract to it. CDC and the German Consortium The trial court overruled the objection and obligations under both the MOU and the MOA by challenging
executed the Contract for Services. proceeded with the hearing. The trial court issued an Order respondents capacity to sue. The reverse could not be any
granting the writ of preliminary injunction. more accurate. Petitioners are insisting on the full validity and
The Contract for Services provides that the German implementation of their agreements with the German
Consortium shall undertake to organize a local corporation as ISSUE: Whether German Consortium has the Consortium.
its representative for this project. The German Consortium capacity to institute an action against petitioners.
entered into a Joint Venture with D.M. Wenceslao and To rule that the German Consortium has the
Associates, Inc. (DMWAI) and Ma. Elena B. Villarama (doing RULING: NO. German Consortium has no the capacity to institute an action against petitioners even when
business as LBV and Associates), embodied in a capacity to institute an action against petitioners. the latter have not committed any breach of its obligation
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the parties. would be tantamount to an unlicensed foreign corporation
Under the MOU, the parties agreed to jointly form a local As a general rule, unlicensed foreign non-resident gaining access to our courts for protection and redress. We
corporation to which the German Consortium shall assign its corporations cannot file suits in the Philippines. Section 133 of cannot allow this without violating the very rationale for the
rights under the Contract for Services. Pursuant to this the Corporation Code specifically provides: law prohibiting a foreign corporation not licensed to do
agreement, petitioner European Resources and business in the Philippines from suing or maintaining an
Technologies, Inc. was incorporated. SECTION 133. No foreign corporation transacting business in action in Philippine courts. The object of requiring a license is
the Philippines without a license, or its successors or assigns, not to prevent the foreign corporation from performing single
The German Consortium and petitioner ERTI shall be permitted to maintain or intervene in any action, suit acts, but to prevent it from acquiring domicile for the purpose
entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) whereby or proceeding in any court or administrative agency of the of business without taking the steps necessary to render it
the German Consortium ceded its rights and obligations under Philippines, but such corporation may be sued or proceeded amenable to suits in the local courts. In other words, the
the Contract for Services in favor of ERTI and assigned unto against before Philippine courts or administrative tribunals on foreign corporation is merely prevented from being in a
ERTI its license from CDC to engage in the business of any valid cause of action recognized under Philippine laws. position where it takes the good without accepting the bad.
providing environmental services needed in the CSEZ in
connection with the waste management within the CSEZ and A corporation has legal status only within the state
other areas. or territory in which it was organized. For this reason, a
ERTI received a letter from BN Consultants corporation organized in another country has no personality to
Philippines, Inc., signed by Mr. Holger Holst for and on behalf file suits in the Philippines. In order to subject a foreign
[G.R. No. 154618. April 14, 2004] Jurisprudence has it, however, that the term implies
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES SINGAPORE (PTE) LTD. vs. Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss in Civil a continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and
INTEGRATED SILICON TECHNOLOGY PHILIPPINES Case No. 3123-2001-C, on the grounds of lack of Agilents contemplates, to that extent, the performance of acts or works
CORPORATION legal capacity to sue. The trial court denied the Motion to or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to or
Dismiss and granted petitioner Agilents application for a writ in progressive prosecution of the purpose and subject of its
FACTS: Petitioner Agilent Technologies of replevin. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the organization.
Singapore (Pte.), Ltd. (Agilent) is a foreign corporation, which, Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals granted respondents
is not licensed to do business in the Philippines. Respondent petition for certiorari, set aside the assailed Order of the trial There are two general tests to determine whether or not a
court, and ordered the dismissal of Civil Case No. 3123-2001- foreign corporation can be considered as doing business in
Integrated Silicon Technology Philippines Corporation
(Integrated Silicon) is a private domestic corporation, 100% C. the Philippines. The first of these is the substance test, thus:
The true test [for doing business], however, seems
foreign owned, which is engaged in the business of
manufacturing and assembling electronics components. ISSUE: Whether petitioner Agilent has legal to be whether the foreign corporation is continuing
capacity to sue. the body of the business or enterprise for which it
A 5-year Value Added Assembly Services was organized or whether it has substantially retired
RULING: YES. Agilent has legal capacity to sue. from it and turned it over to another.
Agreement (VAASA) was entered into between Integrated
Silicon and the Hewlett-Packard Singapore (Pte.) Ltd., A foreign corporation without a license is not The second test is the continuity test, expressed thus:
ipso facto incapacitated from bringing an action in The term [doing business] implies a continuity of
Singapore Components Operation (HP-Singapore). Under the
terms of the VAASA, Integrated Silicon was to locally Philippine courts. A license is necessary only if a foreign commercial dealings and arrangements, and
corporation is transacting or doing business in the contemplates, to that extent, the performance of
manufacture and assemble fiber optics for export to HP-
Singapore. HP-Singapore, for its part, was to consign raw country. acts or works or the exercise of some of the
functions normally incident to, and in the
materials to Integrated Silicon; transport machinery to the
plant of Integrated Silicon; and pay Integrated Silicon the The principles regarding the right of a foreign progressive prosecution of, the purpose and object
corporation to bring suit in Philippine courts may thus be of its organization.
purchase price of the finished products. With the consent of
Integrated Silicon, HP-Singapore assigned all its rights and condensed in four statements:
(1) if a foreign corporation does business in the Philippines By and large, to constitute doing business, the
obligations in the VAASA to Agilent. The VAASA had a five-
year term with a provision for annual renewal by mutual without a license, it cannot sue before the Philippine courts; activity to be undertaken in the Philippines is one that is for
(2) if a foreign corporation is not doing business in the profit-making. However, the acts enumerated in the VAASA
written consent.
Philippines, it needs no license to sue before Philippine courts do not constitute doing business in the Philippines. By the
on an isolated transaction or on a cause of action entirely clear terms of the VAASA, Agilents activities in the Philippines
Integrated Silicon filed a complaint for Specific
Performance and Damages against Agilent and its officers, independent of any business transaction; were confined to (1) maintaining a stock of goods in the
(3) if a foreign corporation does business in the Philippines Philippines solely for the purpose of having the same
docketed as Civil Case No. 3110-01-C. It alleged that Agilent
breached the parties oral agreement to extend the VAASA. without a license, a Philippine citizen or entity which has processed by Integrated Silicon; and (2) consignment of
contracted with said corporation may be estopped from equipment with Integrated Silicon to be used in the processing
Integrated Silicon thus prayed that defendant be ordered to
execute a written extension of the VAASA for a period of five challenging the foreign corporations corporate personality in a of products for export. As such, we hold that, based on the
suit brought before Philippine courts; and evidence presented thus far, Agilent cannot be deemed to be
years as earlier assured and promised.
(4) if a foreign corporation does business in the Philippines doing business in the Philippines. Respondents contention
with the required license, it can sue before Philippine courts that Agilent lacks the legal capacity to file suit is therefore
Agilent filed a separate complaint against Integrated
on any transaction. devoid of merit. As a foreign corporation not doing business in
Silicon for Specific Performance, Recovery of Possession,
the Philippines, it needed no license before it can sue before
and Sum of Money with Replevin, Preliminary Mandatory
The challenge to Agilents legal capacity to file suit our courts.
Injunction, and Damages, before the Regional Trial Court,
hinges on whether or not it is doing business in the
docketed as Civil Case No. 3123-2001-C. Agilent prayed that
Philippines. However, there is no definitive rule on what
a writ of replevin or, in the alternative, a writ of preliminary
constitutes doing, engaging in, or transacting business in the
mandatory injunction, be issued ordering defendants to
Philippines. The Corporation Code itself is silent as to what
immediately return and deliver to plaintiff its equipment,
acts constitute doing or transacting business in the
machineries and the materials to be used for fiber-optic
Philippines.
components which were left in the plant of Integrated Silicon.
G.R. No. 202505 September 6, 2017 grave abuse of discretion in recognizing and ordering the publication may be allowed. This mode also requires the
EXPRESS PADALA (ITALIA) S.P.A., now BDO enforcement of the Court of Turin Decision. plaintiff to file a written motion for leave of court to effect
REMITTANCE (ITALIA) S.P.A. vs. HELEN M. OCAMPO, service of summons by publication, supported by affidavit of
The CA held that since Ocampo's whereabouts the plaintiff or some person on his behalf, setting forth the
were unknown, summons should have been served in grounds for the application.
FACTS: BDO Remittance, a corporation with
principal office in Italy, hired respondent Ocampo as a accordance with Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure. The sheriff however, erroneously effected the In the present case, the sheriff resorted to
remittance processor. She was dismissed for
misappropriating the sum of €24,035.60 by falsifying invoices substituted service of summons under Section 7 of Rule 14. substituted service upon Ocampo through her uncle, who was
Thus, the CA concluded that the RTC did not acquire the caretaker of Ocampo's old family residence in Tanauan,
of money payments relating to customers' money transfer
orders. jurisdiction over Ocampo, and the RTC Decision against her Batangas. The CA held that substituted service was
is null and void. improperly resorted to. It found that since Ocampo' s
BDO Remittance filed a criminal complaint against "whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by
ISSUE: Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction diligent inquiry x x x service may be effected only by
Ocampo for the same acts before the Court of Turin, Italy.
Ocampo pleaded guilty to the offense charged. the Honorable over Ocampo. publication in a newspaper of general circulation."
Court of Turin convicted and sentenced her to suffer
imprisonment of six months and a penalty of €300.00, but RULING: NO. RTC did not acquired jurisdiction Indeed, the substituted service is improper under
over Ocampo. the facts of this case. Substituted service presupposes that
granted her the benefit of suspension of the enforcement of
sentence on account of her guilty plea (the Court of Turin the place where the summons is being served is the
The general rule in this jurisdiction is that summons defendant's current residence or office/regular place of
Decision).
must be served personally on the defendant. Section 6, Rule business.
14 of the Rules of Court provides: Based on the sheriffs report, it is clear that Ocampo
BDO Remittance filed a petition for recognition of
foreign judgment with the RTC of Mandaluyong City. BDO Sec. 6. Service in person on defendant. - Whenever no longer resides in San Bernardo Village, Darasa, Tanauan,
practicable, the summons shall be served by Batangas. The report categorically stated that "defendant
Remittance prayed for the recognition of the Court of Turin
Decision. handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, Helen M. Ocampo and her family were already in Italy,"
or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by without, however, identifying any specific address. Even BDO
The sheriff attempted to personally serve the tendering it to him. Remittance itself admitted in its petition for recognition that
Ocampo' s "whereabouts in Italy are no longer certain." This,
summons on Ocampo in her local address alleged in the
petition located in San Bernardo Village, Darasa, Tanauan, For justifiable reasons, however, other modes of serving we note, is the reason why in alleging the two addresses of
summons may be resorted to. When the defendant cannot be Ocampo, one in Italy and one in the Philippines, BDO
Batangas. However, since the address was incomplete, the
sheriff sought the help of barangay officials, who pointed him served personally within a reasonable time after efforts to Remittance used the phrase "last known [address ]" instead of
locate him have failed, the rules allow summons to be served the usual "resident of." Not being a resident of the address
to the house belonging to Ocampo's father, Nicasio Ocampo,
Victor P. Macahia (Macahia), uncle of Ocampo and present by substituted service. Substituted service is effected by where the summons was served, the substituted service of
leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence summons is ineffective. Accordingly, the RTC did not acquire
occupant, informed the sheriff that Ocampo and her family
were already in Italy, and that he was only a caretaker of the with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing jurisdiction over the person of Ocampo.
therein, or by leaving the copies at defendant's office or
house. The sheriff then proceeded to serve the summons
upon Macahia. After Ocampo failed to file an answer, BDO regular place of business with some competent person in The service of summons is a vital and
charge thereof. indispensable ingredient of a defendant's constitutional right
Remittance filed a motion to declare Ocampo in default. The
RTC granted the motion and allowed BDO Remittance to to due process. As a rule, if a defendant has not been validly
When the defendant's whereabouts are unknown, the rules summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over his person,
present evidence ex parte.
allow service of summons by publication. As an exception to and a judgment rendered against him is void. Since the RTC
the preferred mode of service, service of summons by never acquired jurisdiction over the person of Ocampo, the
The RTC rendered a Decision in favor of BDO
Remittance (RTC Decision). It recognized as valid and publication may only be resorted to when the whereabouts of judgment rendered by the court could not be considered
the defendant are not only unknown, but cannot be binding upon her.
binding in the Philippines the Court of Turin Decision.
ascertained by diligent inquiry. The diligence requirement
means that there must be prior resort to personal service
Ocampo was later able to engage the services of
counsel who filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with under Section 7 and substituted service under Section 8, and
proof that these modes were ineffective before summons by PRINCIPLE OF EFFECTIVENESS
the CA. Ocampo principally argued that the RTC acted in
Under the rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court or
10. Manila Hotel vs NLRC (2000) agency may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to This is not to say that Philippine courts and agencies have no
11. Puyat vs Zabarte (2001) do so provided: (1) that the Philippine court is one to which power to solve controversies involving foreign employers.
12. Pioneer vs Guadiz (2007) the parties may conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine Neither are we saying that we do not have power over an
13. Raytheon vs Rouzie (2008) court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the employment contract executed in a foreign country. If Santos
14. Hasegawa vs Kitamura (2007) VINA law and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine court has or is were an overseas contract worker, a Philippine forum,
likely to have power to enforce its decision. The conditions are specifically the POEA, not the NLRC, would protect him.
THE MANILA HOTEL CORP. AND MANILA HOTEL INTL. unavailing in the case at bar. He is not an overseas contract worker a fact which he admits
LTD. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, with conviction.
ARBITER CEFERINA J. DIOSANA AND MARCELO G. Not Convenient.-- We fail to see how the NLRC is a
SANTOS,; PARDO, J.: convenient forum given that all the incidents of the case - from Even assuming that the NLRC was the proper forum, even on
[G. R. No. 120077. October 13, 2000] the time of recruitment, to employment to dismissal occurred the merits, the NLRCs decision cannot be sustained.
Digested by: Vina Cagampang outside the Philippines. The inconvenience is compounded by
the fact that the proper defendants, the Palace Hotel and
Doctrine: MHICL are not nationals of the Philippines. Neither are they
doing business in the Philippines. Likewise, the main
Facts: witnesses, Mr. Shmidt and Mr. Henk are non-residents of the
Philippines.
in May, 1988, private respondent Marcelo Santos (hereinafter
referred to as Santos) was an overseas worker employed as a No power to determine applicable law.-- Neither can an
printer at the Mazoon Printing Press, Sultanate of Oman. intelligent decision be made as to the law governing the
Subsequently, in June 1988, he was directly hired by the employment contract as such was perfected in foreign soil.
Palace Hotel, Beijing, People's Republic of China and later This calls to fore the application of the principle of lex loci
terminated due to retrenchment. On September 5, 1989, the contractus (the law of the place where the contract was
Palace Hotel terminated the employment of respondent made).
Santos and paid all benefits due him, including his plane fare
back to the Philippines. On October 3, 1989, respondent The employment contract was not perfected in the
Santos was repatriated to the Philippines. On October 24, Philippines. Respondent Santos signified his acceptance by
1989, respondent Santos, through his lawyer, Atty. Ednave writing a letter while he was in the Republic of Oman. This
wrote Mr. Shmidt, demanding full compensation pursuant to letter was sent to the Palace Hotel in the People’s Republic of
the employment agreement. On February 20, 1990, China.
respondent Santos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with
the Arbitration Branch, National Capital Region, National No power to determine the facts.-- Neither can the NLRC
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On July 23, 1991, determine the facts surrounding the alleged illegal dismissal
petitioners appealed to the NLRC, arguing that the POEA, not as all acts complained of took place in Beijing, Peoples
the NLRC had jurisdiction over the case. On September 18, Republic of China. The NLRC was not in a position to
1992, respondent Santos moved for reconsideration of the determine whether the Tiannamen Square incident truly
afore-quoted resolution. He argued that the case was not adversely affected operations of the Palace Hotel as to justify
cognizable by the POEA as he was not an overseas contract respondent Santos retrenchment.
worker.
Principle of effectiveness, no power to execute
Issue: Whether a proper decision could be reached by the decision.-- Even assuming that a proper decision could be
NLRC? reached by the NLRC, such would not have any binding effect
against the employer, the Palace Hotel. The Palace Hotel is a
Ruling: No. The NLRC was a seriously inconvenient forum. corporation incorporated under the laws of China and was not
even served with summons. Jurisdiction over its person was
not acquired.
GIL MIGUEL T. PUYAT vs. RON ZABARTE; G.R. No. 3. The unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to but they bolster the finding of the lower courts that he was
141536. February 26, 2001 PANGANIBAN, J.: non-residents or aliens when the docket may merely maneuvering to avoid or delay payment of his
Digested by: Vina Cagampang already be overcrowded; obligation.
4. The inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for
Facts: effectuating the right sought to be maintained; and
5. The difficulty of ascertaining foreign law.
On 24 January 1994, Ron Zabarte (Respondent) commenced
an action to enforce the money judgment rendered by the None of the aforementioned reasons barred the RTC from
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Contra exercising its jurisdiction. In the present action, there was no
Costa, U.S.A. GIL MIGUEL T. PUYAT (Petitioner) filed his more need for material witnesses, no forum shopping or
Answer alleging that the Superior Court for the State of harassment of petitioner, no inadequacy in the local
California, County of Contra Costa did not properly acquire machinery to enforce the foreign judgment, and no question
jurisdiction over the subject matter of and over the persons raised as to the application of any foreign law.
involved in the Case. The court a quo issued an Order
granting Zabarte’s Motion for Summary Judgment. On 30 Authorities agree that the issue of whether a suit should be
June 1995, Puyat filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of entertained or dismissed on the basis of the above-mentioned
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and principle depends largely upon the facts of each case and on
forum-non-conveniens. Petitioner argues that the RTC should the sound discretion of the trial court. Since the present action
have refused to entertain the Complaint for enforcement of lodged in the RTC was for the enforcement of a foreign
the foreign judgment on the principle of forum non judgment, there was no need to ascertain the rights and the
conveniens. He claims that the trial court had no jurisdiction, obligations of the parties based on foreign laws or contracts.
because the case involved partnership interest, and there was The parties needed only to perform their obligations under the
difficulty in ascertaining the applicable law in California. All the Compromise Agreement they had entered into.
aspects of the transaction took place in a foreign country, and
respondent is not even Filipino. Under Section 48, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, a judgment in an action in personam rendered by
Issue: Whether the principle of forum non conveniens apply in a foreign tribunal clothed with jurisdiction is presumptive
this case evidence of a right as between the parties and their
successors-in-interest by a subsequent title.
Ruling: No. Application of forum non coveniens is not called
for. Also, under Section 5(n) of Rule 131, a court -- whether in the
Philippines or elsewhere -- enjoys the presumption that it is
Under the principle of forum non conveniens, even if the acting in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction, and that it is
exercise of jurisdiction is authorized by law, courts may regularly performing its official duty. Its judgment may,
nonetheless refuse to entertain a case for any of the following however, be assailed if there is evidence of want of
practical reasons: jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud or
clear mistake of law or fact. But precisely, this possibility
1. The belief that the matter can be better tried and signals the need for a local trial court to exercise jurisdiction.
decided elsewhere, either because the main Clearly, the application of forum non coveniens is not called
aspects of the case transpired in a foreign for.
jurisdiction or the material witnesses have their
residence there; The grounds relied upon by petitioner are contradictory. On
2. The belief that the non-resident plaintiff sought the the one hand, he insists that the RTC take jurisdiction over
forum[,] a practice known as forum shopping[,] the enforcement case in order to invalidate the foreign
merely to secure procedural advantages or to judgment; yet, he avers that the trial court should not exercise
convey or harass the defendant; jurisdiction over the same case on the basis of forum non
conveniens. Not only do these defenses weaken each other,
PIONEER INTERNATIONAL, LTD., vs. HON. TEOFILO The employment conditions you specified in your
GUADIZ, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Regional letter to John McDonald dated 11 th September are
Trial Court, Branch 147, Makati City, and ANTONIO D. well beyond our expectations.
TODARO ; G.R. No. 156848 October 11, 2007;
CARPIO, J.; Mr. Todaro, I regret that we do not wish to pursue
our association with you any further. Mr. Klepzig
Case digested by: Vina Cagampang was authorized to terminate this association and the
letter he sent to you dated 18 th September has my
Facts: On 16 January 1998, Antonio D. Todaro (Todaro) filed support.
a complaint for sum of money and damages with preliminary
attachment against Pioneer International LTD et. al. Todaro Thank you for your involvement with Pioneer. I wish
alleged that PIL is a corporation duly organized under you all the best for the future. (Emphasis added)
Australian laws, while PCPI and PPHI are corporations duly
organized under Philippine laws. PIL asserted that the trial court has no jurisdiction over PIL
because PIL is a foreign corporation not doing business in the
Todaro prays for payment of damages due him because of Philippines. Also, it claimed that assuming that the trial court
PIL’s non-implementation of Todaro’s alleged employment has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, the
agreement with PPHI. complaint should be dismissed on the ground of forum non-
conveniens.
Pertinent Annex:
Issue: Should the complaint be dismissed on the ground of
Annex "I" shows the letter dated 20 October 1997 of forum non-conveniens?
K.M. Folwell (Folwell), PIL’s Executive General
Manager of Australia and Asia, to Todaro. Folwell Ruling:
confirmed the contents of Klepzig’s 18 September
1997 letter. Folwell’s message reads: No. The complaint should not be dismissed on the ground of
forum non-conveniens
Thank you for your letter to Dr. Schubert dated 29th
September 1997 regarding the alleged breach of The doctrine of forum non-conveniens requires an
contract with you. Dr. Schubert has asked me to examination of the truthfulness of the allegations in the
investigate this matter. complaint. Section 1, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure does not mention forum non-conveniens as a
I have discussed and examined the material ground for filing a motion to dismiss. The propriety of
regarding your association with Pioneer over the dismissing a case based on forum non-conveniens requires a
period from mid 1996 through to September 1997. factual determination; hence, it is more properly considered a
matter of defense. While it is within the discretion of the trial
Clearly your consultancy services to Pioneer Hong court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground, the
Kong are well documented and have been trial court should do so only after vital facts are established to
appropriately rewarded. However, in regard to your determine whether special circumstances require the court’s
request and expectation to be given permanent desistance.
employment with Pioneer Philippines Holdings,
Inc. I am informed that negotiations to reach
agreement on appropriate terms and conditions
have not been successful.
RAYTHEON INTERNATIONAL, INC vs. STOCKTON W. complaint on grounds of failure to state a cause of action and
ROUZIE, JR.; G.R. No. 162894; February 26, 2008; TINGA, forum non conveniens.
J.:
Case Digested by: Vina Cagampang Issue: Should the case be dismissed on the ground of forum
non conveniens?
Facts:
Ruling: No. The case should not be dismissed on the ground
Brand Marine Services, Inc. (BMSI), a corporation duly of forum non conveniens.
organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Connecticut, United States of America, and Stockton W. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court, in
Rouzie, Jr., an American citizen, entered into a contract conflicts-of-laws cases, may refuse impositions on its
whereby BMSI hired Rouzie Jr. as its representative to jurisdiction where it is not the most "convenient" or available
negotiate the sale of services in several government projects forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking
in the Philippines for an agreed remuneration of 10% of the remedies elsewhere. Petitioner’s averments of the foreign
gross receipts. On 11 March 1992, Rouzie Jr. secured a elements in the instant case are not sufficient to oust the trial
service contract with the Republic of the Philippines on behalf court of its jurisdiction over Civil Case No. No. 1192-BG and
of BMSI for the dredging of rivers affected by the Mt. Pinatubo the parties involved.
eruption and mudflows. On 16 July 1994, respondent filed
before the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Moreover, the propriety of dismissing a case based on the
Commission (NLRC) a suit against BMSI and Rust principle of forum non conveniens requires a factual
International, Inc. (RUST), Rodney C. Gilbert and Walter G. determination; hence, it is more properly considered as a
Browning for alleged nonpayment of commissions, illegal matter of defense. While it is within the discretion of the trial
termination and breach of employment contract but it was court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it
dismissed. On 8 January 1999, respondent, then a resident should do so only after vital facts are established, to
of La Union, instituted an action for damages before the determine whether special circumstances require the court’s
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang, La Union. The desistance.
complaint essentially reiterated the allegations in the labor Finding no grave abuse of discretion on the trial court, the
case that BMSI verbally employed respondent to negotiate Court of Appeals respected its conclusion that it can assume
the sale of services in government projects and that jurisdiction over the dispute notwithstanding its foreign
respondent was not paid the commissions due him from the elements. In the same manner, the Court defers to the sound
Pinatubo dredging project which he secured on behalf of discretion of the lower courts because their findings are
BMSI. The complaint also averred that BMSI and RUST as binding on this Court.
well as petitioner itself had combined and functioned as one
company.
In its Answer, petitioner alleged that contrary to respondent’s

claim, it was a foreign corporation duly licensed to do
business in the Philippines and denied entering into any
arrangement with respondent or paying the latter any sum of
money. Petitioner also denied combining with BMSI and
RUST for the purpose of assuming the alleged obligation of
the said companies. Petitioner also referred to the NLRC
decision which disclosed that per the written agreement
between respondent and BMSI and RUST, denominated as
"Special Sales Representative Agreement," the rights and
obligations of the parties shall be governed by the laws of the
State of Connecticut. Petitioner sought the dismissal of the
KAZUHIRO HASEGAWA and NIPPON ENGINEERING relationship to the parties following the [state of the] most
CONSULTANTS CO., LTD., - versus - MINORU significant relationship rule in Private International Law.
KITAMURA; G.R. No. 149177; November 23, 2007;
NACHURA, J. Issue: Can forum non conveniens be raised as a ground to
deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction over the complaint?
Case digested by: Vina Cagampang
Ruling: No. Forum non conveniens cannot be raised as a
Facts: On March 30, 1999, petitioner Nippon Engineering ground to deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction
Consultants Co., Ltd. (Nippon), a Japanese consultancy firm
providing technical and management support in the It should be noted that when a conflicts case, one involving a
infrastructure projects of foreign governments, entered into an foreign element, is brought before a court or administrative
Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA) with Minoru agency, there are three alternatives open to the latter in
Kitamura, a Japanese national permanently residing in the disposing of it: (1) dismiss the case, either because of lack of
Philippines. The agreement provides that respondent was to jurisdiction or refusal to assume jurisdiction over the case; (2)
extend professional services to Nippon for a year starting on assume jurisdiction over the case and apply the internal law of
April 1, 1999. Nippon then assigned respondent to work as the forum; or (3) assume jurisdiction over the case and take
the project manager of the Southern Tagalog Access Road into account or apply the law of some other State or States.
(STAR) Project in the Philippines, following the company's The court’s power to hear cases and controversies is derived
consultancy contract with the Philippine Government. When from the Constitution and the laws. While it may choose to
the STAR Project was near completion, DPWH engaged the recognize laws of foreign nations, the court is not limited by
consultancy services of Nippon, on January 28, 2000, this foreign sovereign law short of treaties or other formal
time for the detailed engineering and construction supervision agreements, even in matters regarding rights provided by
of the Bongabon-Baler Road Improvement (BBRI) Project. foreign sovereigns.
Respondent was named as the project manager in the
contract. On February 28, 2000, petitioner Kazuhiro Neither can the other ground raised, forum non conveniens,
Hasegawa, Nippon's general manager for its International be used to deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction herein. First,
Division, informed respondent that the company had no more it is not a proper basis for a motion to dismiss because
intention of automatically renewing his ICA. His services Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court does not include it as
would be engaged by the company only up to the substantial a ground. Second, whether a suit should be entertained or
completion of the STAR Project on March 31, 2000, just in dismissed on the basis of the said doctrine depends largely
time for the ICA's expiry. upon the facts of the particular case and is addressed to the
sound discretion of the trial court. In this case, the RTC
Kitamura through his counsel requested a negotiation decided to assume jurisdiction. Third, the propriety of
conference and demanded that he be assigned to the BBRI dismissing a case based on this principle requires a factual
project. Nippon insisted that respondents contract was for a determination; hence, this conflicts principle is more properly
fixed term that had already expired, and refused to negotiate considered a matter of defense.
for the renewal of the ICA. Respondent consequently initiated
a case for specific performance and damages.
Petitioners asserts that the RTC of Lipa City is an

inconvenient forum questioning 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
6. the ground of forum non-conveniens is more appropriate and
PRINCIPLE OF EFFECTIVENESS proper. First issue. Did the trial court commit grave abuse of
G.R. No. 120135 March 31, 2003 Xxx guidelines xxx discretion in refusing to dismiss the complaint on the ground
BANK OF AMERICA NT & SA, BANK OF AMERICA that plaintiffs have no cause of action against defendants
INTERNATIONAL, LTD., petitioners, since plaintiffs are merely stockholders of the corporations
Petitioners argue further that the loan agreements, security
vs. documentation and all subsequent restructuring agreements which are the registered owners of the vessels and the
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MANUEL PADOLINA, borrowers of petitioners?
uniformly, unconditionally and expressly provided that they
EDUARDO LITONJUA, SR., and AURELIO K. LITONJUA, will be governed by the laws of England; 25that Philippine No. Petitioners' argument that private respondents, being
JR., respondents. mere stockholders of the foreign corporations, have no
Courts would then have to apply English law in resolving
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: whatever issues may be presented to it in the event it personalities to sue, and therefore, the complaint should be
Mishing Alaba dismissed, is untenable. A case is dismissible for lack of
recognizes and accepts herein case; that it would then be
imposing a significant and unnecessary expense and burden personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the real
FACTS: The spouses Litonjua are engaged in the shipping party-in-interest. Lack of personality to sue can be used as a
not only upon the parties to the transaction but also to the
business. They owned 2 vessels. Because their business was local court. Petitioners insist that the inconvenience and ground for a Motion to Dismiss based on the fact that the
doing well, the petitioners induced them to increase the complaint, on the face thereof, evidently states no cause of
difficulty of applying English law with respect to a wholly
number of their ships in operation, offering them easy loans to foreign transaction in a case pending in the Philippines action.35 In San Lorenzo Village Association, Inc. vs. Court of
acquire said vessels. They executed a contract where Bank of Appeals,36 this Court clarified that a complaint states a cause
may be avoided by its dismissal on the ground of forum
America was made the trustee of their businesses. There non conveniens. 26 of action where it contains three essential elements of a
were 4 additional vessels which were under the control of cause of action, namely: (1) the legal right of the plaintiff, (2)
petitioners. But the businesses suffered losses in the hands of Finally, petitioners claim that private respondents have the correlative obligation of the defendant, and (3) the act or
the bank, so the spouses filed a case for damages for breach omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right. If
already waived their alleged causes of action in the case at
of trust and accounting of revenues in the Philippines. Bank of bar for their refusal to contest the foreign civil cases earlier these elements are absent, the complaint becomes vulnerable
America filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of forum non to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a
filed by the petitioners against them in Hongkong and England
conveniens. [Note: 4 civil actions]. cause of action.37 To emphasize, it is not the lack or absence
of cause of action that is a ground for dismissal of the
It also claims that private respondents' alleged cause of action
The Litonjuas filed a complaint against the petitioners claiming is already barred by the pendency of another action or by litis complaint but rather the fact that the complaint states no
that defendant banks as trustees did not fully render an cause of action.38"Failure to state a cause of action" refers to
pendentia as shown above.27
account of all the income derived from the operation of the the insufficiency of allegation in the pleading, unlike "lack of
vessels as well as of the proceeds of the subsequent cause of action" which refers to the insufficiency of factual
SHORT RULING: While it is within the discretion of the trial
foreclosure sale. court to abstain from assuming JD on the ground of forum non basis for the action. "Failure to state a cause of action" may
be raised at the earliest stages of an action through a motion
conveniens, it should do so only after vital facts are
Defendant banks filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds of established, to determine whether special circumstances to dismiss the complaint, while "lack of cause of action" may
forum non conveniens and lack of cause of action against be raised any time after the questions of fact have been
require the court’s desistance; and the propriety of dismissing
them.13 a case based on this principle of forum non conveniens resolved on the basis of stipulations, admissions or evidence
RTC: Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED. presented.39
requires a factual determination, hence it is more properly
CA: Dismissed. considered a matter of defense.
In the case at bar, the complaint contains the three elements
of a cause of action. It alleges that: (1) plaintiffs, herein private
The SC also held in Philsec. Investment vs. CA that the respondents, have the right to demand for an accounting from
INFORMATION only about petitioner’s arguments kay doctrine of FNC should not be used as a ground for a motion defendants (herein petitioners), as trustees by reason of the
para masunod ang flow (taas ang case) to dismiss because Sec. 1 Rule 16 of ROC does not include fiduciary relationship that was created between the parties
Petitioners said that while the principle of forum non said doctrine as a ground. involving the vessels in question; (2) petitioners have the
conveniens is not mandatory, there are, however, some obligation, as trustees, to render such an accounting; and (3)
guidelines to follow in determining whether the choice of petitioners failed to do the same.
ISSUES AND RULINGS:
forum should be disturbed. Under the circumstances Records show that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction
surrounding the instant case, dismissal of the complaint on Petitioners insist that they do not have any obligation to the
when it issued the assailed Order denying petitioners' motion
to dismiss. private respondents as they are mere stockholders of the
corporation; that the corporate entities have juridical position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the
personalities separate and distinct from those of the private facts; and, (3) that the Philippine Court has or is likely to have
respondents. Private respondents maintain that the power to enforce its decision." 46 Evidently, all these requisites
corporations are wholly owned by them and prior to the are present in the instant case.
incorporation of such entities, they were clients of petitioners
which induced them to acquire loans from said petitioners to Moreover, this Court enunciated in Philsec. Investment
invest on the additional ships. Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 47 that the doctrine of
forum non conveniens should not be used as a ground
We agree with private respondents. As held in the San for a motion to dismiss because Sec. 1, Rule 16 of the
Lorenzo case,40 Rules of Court does not include said doctrine as a
"xxx assuming that the allegation of facts constituting ground. This Court further ruled that while it is within the
plaintiffs' cause of action is not as clear and categorical as discretion of the trial court to abstain from assuming
would otherwise be desired, any uncertainty thereby arising jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so only after vital facts
should be so resolved as to enable a full inquiry into the are established, to determine whether special circumstances
merits of the action." require the court's desistance; and that the propriety of
As this Court has explained in the San Lorenzo case, such a dismissing a case based on this principle of forum non
course, would preclude multiplicity of suits which the law conveniens requires a factual determination, hence it is more
abhors, and conduce to the definitive determination and properly considered a matter of defense. 48
termination of the dispute. To do otherwise, that is, to abort
the action on account of the alleged fatal flaws of the Third issue. Are private respondents guilty of forum shopping
complaint would obviously be indecisive and would not end because of the pendency of foreign action?
the controversy, since the institution of another action upon a
revised complaint would not be foreclosed. 41 No. Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis
pendentia are present and where a final judgment in one case
MAIN ISSUE: will amount to res judicata in the other.49 Parenthetically, for
Second Issue. Should the complaint be dismissed on the litis pendentia to be a ground for the dismissal of an action
ground of forum non-conveniens? there must be: (a) identity of the parties or at least such as to
NO. The doctrine of forum non-conveniens, literally meaning represent the same interest in both actions; (b) identity of
'the forum is inconvenient', emerged in private international rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded
law to deter the practice of global forum shopping, 42 that is to on the same acts; and (c) the identity in the two cases should
prevent non-resident litigants from choosing the forum or be such that the judgment which may be rendered in one
place wherein to bring their suit for malicious reasons, such would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res
as to secure procedural advantages, to annoy and harass the judicata in the other.50
defendant, to avoid overcrowded dockets, or to select a more
friendly venue. Under this doctrine, a court, in conflicts of law In case at bar, not all the requirements for litis pendentia are
cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not present. While there may be identity of parties,
the most "convenient" or available forum and the parties are notwithstanding the presence of other respondents, 51 as well
not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere.43 as the reversal in positions of plaintiffs and defendants 52, still
Whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the the other requirements necessary for litis pendentia were not
basis of said doctrine depends largely upon the facts of the shown by petitioner. It merely mentioned that civil cases were
particular case and is addressed to the sound discretion of the filed in Hongkong and England without however showing the
trial court.44 In the case of Communication Materials and identity of rights asserted and the reliefs sought for as well as
Design, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,45 this Court held that "xxx [a the presence of the elements of res judicata should one of the
Philippine Court may assume jurisdiction over the case if it cases be adjudged.
chooses to do so; provided, that the following requisites are
met: (1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties
may conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine Court is in a
15. Philsec Investment vs CA (1997) On April 10, 1987, while Civil Case No. H-86-440 was
pending in the United States, petitioners filed a On January 6, 1992, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
G.R. No. 103493 June 19, 1997 complaint "For Sum of Money with Damages and Writ dismissal of Civil Case No. 16563 against Ducat, 1488,
PHILSEC INVESTMENT CORPORATION, BPI- of Preliminary Attachment" against private respondents Inc., and Daic on the ground of litis pendentia
INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LIMITED, and ATHONA in the RTC of Makati, where it was docketed as Civil
HOLDINGS, N.V., petitioners, Case No. 16563. The dismissal of Civil Case No. 16563 on the ground of
Vs. forum non conveniens was likewise affirmed by the
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, 1488, Private respondent Ducat moved to dismiss Civil Case Court of Appeals on the ground that the case can be
INC., DRAGO DAIC, VENTURA O. DUCAT, No. 16563 on the grounds of (1) litis pendentia, vis-a- better tried and decided by the U.S. court:
PRECIOSO R. PERLAS, and WILLIAM H. CRAIG, vis Civil Action No. H-86-440 filed by 1488, Inc. and
respondents. Daic in the U.S., (2) forum non conveniens, and (3) The U.S. case and the case at bar arose from only one
MENDOZA, J. failure of petitioners PHILSEC and BPI-IFL to state a main transaction, and involve foreign elements, to wit:
cause of action. 1) the property subject matter of the sale is situated in
FACTS: Ventura O. Ducat obtained separate loans Texas, U.S.A.; 2) the seller, 1488 Inc. is a non-resident
from Ayala International Finance Limited (AYALA) and RTC granted Ducat's motion to dismiss, stating that foreign corporation; 3) although the buyer, Athona
PHILSEC secured by shares of stock owned by Ducat. "the evidentiary requirements of the controversy may Holdings, a foreign corporation which does not claim to
In order to facilitate the payment of the loans, 1488, be more suitably tried before the forum of the litis be doing business in the Philippines, is wholly owned
Inc., through its president, Drago Daic, assumed pendentia in the U.S., under the principle in private by Philsec, a domestic corporation, Athona Holdings is
Ducat's obligation under an Agreement whereby 1488, international law of forum non conveniens," even as it also owned by BPI-IFL, also a foreign corporation; 4)
Inc. executed a Warranty Deed with Vendor's Lien by noted that Ducat was not a party in the U.S. case. the Warranty Deed was executed in Texas, U.S.A.
which it sold to Athona Holdings, N.V. (hereafter called
ATHONA) a parcel of land in Harris County, Texas, A separate hearing was held with regard to 1488, Inc. ISSUE: Is the Civil Case in the RTC-Makati barred by
U.S.A., while PHILSEC and AYALA extended a loan to and Daic's motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the judgment of the U.S. court? NO
ATHONA. The balance of US$307,209.02 was to be the motion to dismiss filed by 1488, Inc. and Daic on
paid by means of a promissory note executed by the ground of litis pendentia considering that the "main RULING: NO
ATHONA in favor of 1488, Inc. Subsequently, upon factual element" of the cause of action in this case 1) Private respondents contend that for a foreign
their receipt of the US$2,500,000.00 from 1488, Inc., which is the validity of the sale of real property in the judgment to be pleaded as res judicata, a judgment
PHILSEC and AYALA released Ducat from his United States between defendant 1488 and plaintiff admitting the foreign decision is not necessary. On the
indebtedness and delivered to 1488, Inc. all the shares ATHONA is the subject matter of the pending case in other hand, petitioners argue that the foreign judgment
of stock in their possession belonging to Ducat. the United States District Court which, under the cannot be given the effect of res judicata without giving
doctrine of forum non conveniens, is the better (if not them an opportunity to impeach it on grounds stated in
As ATHONA failed to pay the interest on the balance, exclusive) forum to litigate matters needed to Rule 39, §50 of the Rules of Court, to wit: "want of
hence the entire amount covered by the note became determine the assessment and/or fluctuations of the jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud,
due and demandable. Accordingly, on October 17, fair market value of real estate situated in Houston, or clear mistake of law or fact."
1985, private respondent 1488, Inc. sued petitioners Texas, U.S.A. from the date of the transaction in 1983
PHILSEC, AYALA, and ATHONA in the United States up to the present and verily, . . . (emphasis by trial Petitioners' contention is meritorious. While this
for payment of the balance of US$307,209.02 and for court) Court has given the effect of res judicata to foreign
damages for breach of contract and for fraud allegedly The trial court also held itself without jurisdiction over judgments in several cases, it was after the parties
perpetrated by petitioners in misrepresenting the 1488, Inc. and Daic because they were non-residents opposed to the judgment had been given ample
marketability of the shares of stock delivered to 1488, and the action was not an action in rem or quasi in opportunity to repel them on grounds allowed under
Inc. under the Agreement. rem, so that extraterritorial service of summons was the law. It is not necessary for this purpose to initiate a
ineffective. separate action or proceeding for enforcement of the
foreign judgment. What is essential is that there is January 26, 1988 never found that the causes of Philippines by leave of Court where, among others,
opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment, in order action of this case and the case pending before the "the property of the defendant has been attached
for the court to properly determine its efficacy. This is USA Court, were identical. (emphasis added) within the Philippines." It is not disputed that the
because in this jurisdiction, with respect to actions in properties, real and personal, of the private
personam, as distinguished from actions in rem, a It was error therefore for the Court of Appeals to respondents had been attached prior to service of
foreign judgment merely constitutes prima facie summarily rule that petitioners' action is barred by the summons under the Order of the trial court dated April
evidence of the justness of the claim of a party and, as principle of res judicata. Petitioners in fact questioned 20, 1987.
such, is subject to proof to the contrary. 9 Rule 39, §50 the jurisdiction of the U.S. court over their persons, but Fourth. As for the temporary restraining order issued
provides: their claim was brushed aside by both RTC and CA. by the Court on June 29, 1994, to suspend the
Sec. 50. Effect of foreign judgments. — The proceedings in Civil Case No. 92-1445 filed by
effect of a judgment of a tribunal of a foreign Second. Nor is the trial court's refusal to take Edgardo V. Guevarra to enforce so-called Rule 11
country, having jurisdiction to pronounce the cognizance of the case justifiable under the principle of sanctions imposed on the petitioners by the U.S. court,
judgment is as follows: forum non conveniens. First, a motion to dismiss is the Court finds that the judgment sought to be enforced
(a) In case of a judgment upon a specific thing, limited to the grounds under Rule 16, §1, which does is severable from the main judgment under
the judgment is conclusive upon the title to the not include forum non conveniens. The propriety of consideration in Civil Case No. 16563. The separability
thing; dismissing a case based on this principle requires a of Guevara's claim is not only admitted by petitioners, it
(b) In case of a judgment against a person, the factual determination, hence, it is more properly appears from the pleadings that petitioners only
judgment is presumptive evidence of a right as considered a matter of defense. Second, while it is belatedly impleaded Guevarra as defendant in Civil
between the parties and their successors in within the discretion of the trial court to abstain from Case No. 16563. Hence, the TRO should be lifted and
interest by a subsequent title; but the judgment assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so Civil Case No. 92-1445 allowed to proceed.
may be repelled by evidence of a want of only after "vital facts are established, to determine
jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, whether special circumstances" require the court's
fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. desistance.
In the case at bar, it cannot be said that petitioners In this case, the trial court abstained from taking
were given the opportunity to challenge the jurisdiction solely on the basis of the pleadings filed by
judgment of the U.S. court as basis for declaring it private respondents in connection with the motion to
res judicata or conclusive of the rights of private dismiss. It failed to consider that one of the plaintiffs
respondents. The proceedings in the trial court were (PHILSEC) is a domestic corporation and one of the
summary. Neither the trial court nor the appellate court defendants (Ventura Ducat) is a Filipino, and that it
was even furnished copies of the pleadings in the U.S. was the extinguishment of the latter's debt which was
court or apprised of the evidence presented thereat, to the object of the transaction under litigation. The trial
assure a proper determination of whether the issues court arbitrarily dismissed the case even after finding
then being litigated in the U.S. court were exactly the that Ducat was not a party in the U.S. case.
issues raised in this case such that the judgment that
might be rendered would constitute res judicata. As the Third. It was error we think for the Court of Appeals
trial court stated in its disputed order dated March 9, and the trial court to hold that jurisdiction over 1488,
1988. Inc. and Daic could not be obtained because this is an
action in personam and summons were served by
On the plaintiff's claim in its Opposition that the causes extraterritorial service. Rule 14, §17 on extraterritorial
of action of this case and the pending case in the service provides that service of summons on a non-
United States are not identical, precisely the Order of resident defendant may be effected out of the
16. NEW CASE: Philippine National Construction Corp jurisdiction over the two Malaysian value of the property in controversy exceeds P100,000
vs Asiavest Merchant Bankers (2015) corporations and in determining PNCC's exact or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the
liability.39 demand, exclusive of the abovementioned items
G.R. No. 172301, August 19, 2015 2. PNCC also raises prescription pursuant to exceeds P200,000.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION Item 6 of the Malaysian Limitation Act of 1953
(Act 254) in that "actions founded on contract These jurisdictional amounts were adjusted to
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ASIAVEST
or to recover any sum ... by virtue of any P300,000.00, and P400,000.00 in the case of Metro
MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD, Respondent. written law . . . shall not be brought after the Manila.94 Thus, the RTC of Pasig has jurisdiction over
DECISION expiration of six years from [accrual of cause respondent's complaint for recovery of the sum of
LEONEN, J.: /MISHING ALABA of action]." Malaysian Ringgit (MYR) 3,915,053.54.
● PNCC is a government-acquired asset Respondent’s Contentions:

corporation. 1. The CA was correct in dismissing the appeal
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court "erred in not
● This case has many issues as PNCC's Brief51 only raised two issues that
refusing to assume jurisdiction on the ground of forum
are both questions of law: lack of jurisdiction
non-conveniens
over the subject matter, and deprivation of
FACTS: PNCC and Asiavest Holdings caused the
day in court with the denial of its MR Ad
incorporation of an associate company known as RULING: NO
Cautelam.52
Asiavest-CDCP through which they entered into
2. Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad
contracts to construct rural roads and bridges for the Petitioner’s contention: “In view of the compelling
argues that the principle of forum non
State of Pahang, Malaysia.9 necessity to implead the two foreign corporations, the
conveniens was addressed to the discretion
In connection with this construction contract, PNCC RTC should have refused to assume jurisdiction over
of the trial court.53 Moreover, this issue was
obtained various guarantees and bonds from Asiavest the case on the ground of forum non-conveniens, even
not raised before the Court of Appeals. The
to guarantee the due performance of its obligations. 10 if the Court might have acquired jurisdiction over the
issue on prescription based on Malaysian
The four contracts of guaranty stipulate that Asiavest subject matter and over the person of the petitioner."95
laws was also not raised. In any case, PNCC
shall guarantee to the State of Pahang. These
failed to plead and prove this foreign law
contracts were understood to be governed by the laws
provision.54 Ruling: We find that the trial court correctly assumed
of Malaysia.
jurisdiction over the Complaint.
There was failure to perform the obligations under the ISSUE: Whether or not Philippine courts have subject
construction contract, prompting the State of Pahang to matter jurisdiction over an action for recovery of sum of "Forum non conveniens literally translates to 'the forum
demand payment against Asiavest performance money filed by a Malaysian corporation against a is inconvenient.'"96 This doctrine applies in conflicts of
bonds.13 It "entered into a compromise agreement with Philippine corporation involving a contract executed law cases. It gives courts the choice of not assuming
the State of Pahang by paying . . . the reduced amount and performed in Malaysia – YES jurisdiction when it appears that it is not the most
of [Malaysian Ringgit (MYR)] 3,915,053.54[.]" 14 convenient forum and the parties may seek redress in
Consequently, the corporation demanded indemnity RULING: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is another one.97 It is a device "designed to frustrate illicit
from PNCC by demanding the amount it paid to the conferred by law.92 BP Blg. 129, otherwise known as
The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, is one such means for securing advantages and vexing litigants
State of Pahang.15
On April 12, 1994, Asiavest filed a Complaint for law that provides for the jurisdiction of our courts. A that would otherwise be possible if the venue of
recovery of sum of money against PNCC before the plain reading of Section 1993 shows that civil actions for litigation (or dispute resolution) were left entirely to the
RTC of Pasig.17 It based its action on Malaysian laws. payment of sum of money are within the exclusive whim of either party."98
RTC rendered judgment in favor of Asiavest. original jurisdiction of trial courts: Puyat v. Zabarte99 enumerated practical reasons
when courts may refuse to entertain a case even
Petitioner’s contentions: SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.-Regional Trial
1. PNCC submits that the trial court could have though the exercise of jurisdiction is authorized by law:
Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
invoked the principle of forum non conveniens 1. The belief that the matter can be better tried
. . .(8) In all other cases in which the demand,
and refused to take cognizance of the case exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, and decided elsewhere, either because the
considering the difficulty in acquiring attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the main aspects of the case transpired in a
foreign jurisdiction or the material witnesses also grounded on principles of comity and ***The trial court assumed jurisdiction and explained in
have their residence there; judicial efficiency. its Order dated August 11, 1995 that "on the
2. The belief that the non-resident plaintiff contrary,]to try the case in the Philippines, it is
believed, would be more convenient to defendant
sought the forum[,] a practice known as forum
Consistent with the principle of comity, a tribunal's corporation as its principal office is located in the
shopping[,] merely to secure procedural desistance in exercising jurisdiction on account of Philippines, its records will be more accessible,
advantages or to convey or harass the forum non conveniens is a deferential gesture to the witnesses would be readily available and entail less
defendant; tribunals of another sovereign. It is a measure that expenses in terms of legal services."109 We agree.
3. The unwillingness to extend local judicial prevents the former's having to interfere in affairs
facilities to non-residents or aliens when the which are better and more competently addressed by Most of petitioner's officers and employees who were
docket may already be overcrowded; the latter. Further, forum non conveniens entails a involved in the construction contract in Malaysia could
recognition not only that tribunals elsewhere are most likely also be found in the Philippines. Thus, it is
4. The inadequacy of the local judicial machinery
better suited to rule on and resolve a controversy, but unexpected that a Philippine corporation would rather
for effectuating the right sought to be also, that these tribunals are better positioned to engage this civil suit before Malaysian courts. Our
maintained; and enforce judgments and, ultimately, to dispense courts would be "better positioned to enforce [the]
5. The difficulty of ascertaining foreign law.100 justice. Forum non conveniens prevents the judgment and, ultimately, to dispense"110 in this case
embarrassment of an awkward situation where a against petitioner.
tribunal is rendered incompetent in the face of the
On the other hand, courts may choose to assume
greater capability both analytical and practical of a Also, petitioner failed to plead and show real and
jurisdiction subject to the following requisites: "
tribunal in another jurisdiction.107 (Emphasis supplied) present danger that another jurisdiction commenced
1. that the Philippine Court is one to which the
parties may conveniently resort to; litigation and the foreign tribunal chose to exercise
2. that the Philippine Court is in a position to jurisdiction.111
Saudi Arabian Airlines also discussed the need to raise
make an intelligent decision as to the law and forum non conveniens at the earliest possible time, and
the facts; and OTHER ISSUE: Whether respondent Asiavest’s claim
to show that a prior suit has been brought in another
3. that the Philippine Court has or is likely to already prescribed under Malaysian laws
jurisdiction:
have power to enforce its decision."
On the matter of pleading forum non conveniens, we Ruling: NO
The determination of whether to entertain a case is state the rule, thus: Forum non conveniens must not
addressed to the sound discretion of the court, which only be clearly pleaded as a ground for dismissal; it Petitioner’s contention: Under Item 6 of the Malaysian
must carefully consider the facts of the particular must be pleaded as such at the earliest possible Limitation Act of 1953 (Act 254), "actions founded on
case.102 A mere invocation of the doctrine of forum non opportunity. Otherwise, it shall be deemed waived. contract or to recover any sum . . . by virtue of any
conveniens or an easy averment that foreign elements Consistent with forum non conveniens as written law . . . shall not be brought after the expiration
exist cannot operate to automatically divest a court of fundamentally a factual matter, it is imperative that it of six years from [accrual of] cause of action[.]"120 It
its jurisdiction. It is crucial for courts to determine first if proceed from a factually established basis. It would be contends that the Complaint was filed on April 13,
facts were established such that special circumstances improper to dismiss an action pursuant to forum non 1994. Thus, six years already elapsed from 1988.121
exist to warrant its desistance from assuming conveniens based merely on a perceived, likely, or Prescription is one of the grounds for a motion to
jurisdiction.103 hypothetical multiplicity of fora. Thus, a defendant dismiss,122 but petitioner did not avail itself of this
We discussed in Saudi Arabian Airlines v. must also plead and show that a prior suit has, in fact, remedy. Prescription was also not raised as an error
Rebesencio104 how the doctrine grounds on "comity been brought in another jurisdiction. before the Court of Appeals. Nevertheless, we have
and judicial efficiency"105 and how it involves a ruled that prescription may be raised for the first time
recognition that other tribunals may be "better We deem it more appropriate and in the greater before this court.123
positioned to enforce judgments[:]"106 interest of prudence that a defendant not only allege Petitioner invokes Malaysian laws on prescription, but
Forum non conveniens is soundly applied supposed dangerous tendencies in litigating in this it was not able to prove these foreign law provisions.
not only to address parallel litigation and jurisdiction; the defendant must also show that such Our courts follow the doctrine of processual
undermine a litigant's capacity to vex and danger is real and present in that litigation or dispute presumption: Where a foreign law is not pleaded
secure undue advantages by engaging in resolution has commenced in another jurisdiction and or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption
forum shopping on an international scale. It is that a foreign tribunal has chosen to exercise is that foreign law is the same as ours.
jurisdiction.108 (Emphasis in the original)
.
The Philippines does not take judicial notice of
foreign laws, hence, they must not only be alleged;
they must be proven. To prove a foreign law, the
party invoking it must present a copy thereof and
comply with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the
Revised Rules of Court[.]124
Our provisions on prescription are found in the Civil
Code. Specifically, Article 1144(1) of the Civil Code
states that actions upon a written contract must be
brought within 10 years from the accrual of the right,
and not six years.
Even assuming that the six-year prescription applies,

petitioner cannot conclude prescription from the
allegations in the Complaint. The Complaint filed on
April 12, 1994 states that Asiavest Merchant Bankers
(M) Berhad reached settlement with the State of
Pahang "[i]n or about 1988[.]"125 If Asiavest Merchant
Bankers (M) Berhad paid on April 13, 1988 onward, six
years would not yet elapse since the Complaint was
filed on April 12, 1994.
OTHER ISSUE: Whether this case "should be

dismissed considering that respondent Asiavest is no
longer an existing corporation
Ruling: NO. In any event, respondent is a Malaysian

corporation. Petitioner has not proven the relevant
foreign law provisions to support its allegations that
respondent has ceased to exist and that all its claims
are consequently extinguished.
17. NEW CASE: Saudi Arabian Airlines vs Rebesencio (2015) Contract, the employment of a Flight Attendant who had no jurisdiction over it because summons were
MISHING becomes pregnant is rendered void. It provides that if never served on it but on "Saudia Manila." Referring to
the Air Hostess becomes pregnant at any time itself as "Saudia Jeddah," it claims that "Saudia
G.R. No. 198587, January 14, 2015 during the term of this contract, this shall render Jeddah" and not "Saudia Manila" was the employer of
SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES (SAUDIA) AND her employment contract as void and she will be respondents because:
terminated due to lack of medical fitness.
BRENDA J. BETIA, Petitioners, v. MA. JOPETTE M.
Saudia is vainly splitting hairs in its effort to absolve
REBESENCIO, MONTASSAH B. SACAR-ADIONG, Faced with the dilemma of resigning or totally losing
itself of liability. Other than its bare allegation, there is
ROUEN RUTH A. CRISTOBAL AND LORAINE S. their benefits, respondents executed handwritten
no basis for concluding that "Saudia Jeddah" is distinct
resignation letters. Respondents filed a Complaint
SCHNEIDER-CRUZ, Respondents. from "Saudia Manila."
against Saudia and its officers for illegal dismissal and
DECISION money claims.
LEONEN, J.: What is clear is Saudia's statement in its own Petition
29 that what it has is a "Philippine Office . . . located at 4/F
Saudia assailed the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. It
Metro House Building, Sen. Gil J. Puyat Avenue,
● TFA – Temporary Flight Attendants claimed that all the determining points of contact
Makati City. "Even in the position paper that Saudia
● Note: Saudi Arabian Airlines is a foreign referred to foreign law and insisted that the Complaint
submitted to the Labor Arbiter, what Saudia now refers
corporation established and existing under the ought to be dismissed on the ground of forum non
to as "Saudia Jeddah" was then only referred to as
laws of Jeddah, KSA conveniens. It added that respondents had no cause of
"Saudia Head Office at Jeddah, KSA," while what
action as they resigned voluntarily.
Saudia now refers to as "Saudia Manila" was then only
FACTS: Respondents were recruited and hired by referred to as "Saudia's office in Manila." By its own
● LA – dismissed respondents’ complaint for
Saudia as Temporary Flight Attendants with the admission, Saudia, while a foreign corporation, has a
lack of jurisdiction/merit
accreditation and approval of the POEA. Eventually, Philippine office.
● NLRC – reversed LA; explained that
they became Permanent Flight Attendants. They
"[considering that complainants-appellants are
entered into Cabin Attendant contracts with Saudia. ISSUE #2: Whether or not petitioner is a corporation
OFWs, the LA and the NLRC has jurisdiction
Respondents continued their employment with Saudia doing business in the Philippines
to hear and decide their complaint for illegal
until they were separated from service on various
termination."34 On the matter of forum non
dates in 2006. Respondents contended that the RULING: YES
conveniens, it noted that there were no
termination of their employment was illegal. They
special circumstances that warranted its
alleged that the termination was made solely because Conflict of Laws; Corporations; Foreign Corporations
abstention from exercising jurisdiction.35 On
they were pregnant. Doing Business in the Philippines; Foreign Investments
the issue of whether respondents were validly
Act; A plain application of Section 3(d) of the Foreign
dismissed, it held that there was nothing on
As respondents alleged, they had informed Saudia of Investments Act leads to no other conclusion than that
record to support Saudia's claim that
their respective pregnancies and had gone through the Saudia is a foreign corporation doing business in
respondents resigned voluntarily.
necessary procedures to process their maternity the Philippines. As such, Saudia may be sued in
● CA – denied petitioner’s Petition and modified
leaves. Initially, Saudia had given its approval but later the Philippines and is subject to the jurisdiction of
the Decision of the NLRC with respect to the
on informed respondents that its management in Philippine tribunals – By its own admission, Saudia,
award of separation pay and backwages.
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia had disapproved their maternity while a foreign corporation, has a Philippine office.
leaves. In addition, it required respondents to file their
ISSUE #1: Whether or not the Labor Arbiter and the
resignation letters. Respondents were told that if they Section 3(d) of Republic Act No.. 7042, otherwise
NLRC may exercise jurisdiction over Saudi Arabian
did not resign, Saudia would terminate them all the known as the Foreign Investments Act of 1991,
Airlines and apply Philippine law in adjudicating the
same. The threat of termination entailed the loss of provides the following:
present dispute;
benefits, such as separation pay and ticket discount
entitlements. The phrase "doing business" shall include . . .
RULING: YES. Summons were validly served on
opening offices, whether called "liaison" offices or
Saudia anchored its disapproval of respondents' Saudia and jurisdiction over it validly acquired.
branches; . . . and any other act or acts that imply a
maternity leaves and demand for their resignation on
continuity of commercial dealings or arrangements and
its "Unified Employment Contract for Female Cabin There is no doubt that the pleadings and summons
contemplate to that extent the performance of acts or
Attendants" (Unified Contract). Under the Unified were served on Saudia through its counsel. Saudia,
works, or the exercise of some of the functions
however, claims that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC
normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution of defendants, avoid overcrowded dockets, and select a In Bank of America, NT&SA, Bank of America
commercial gain or of the purpose and object of the "friendlier" venue. Thus, the doctrine of forum non International, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, this court
business organization. (Emphasis supplied) conveniens addresses the same rationale that the rule underscored that a Philippine court may properly
against forum shopping does, albeit on a assume jurisdiction over a case if it chooses to do
A plain application of Section 3(d) of the Foreign multijurisdictional scale. so to the extent: "
Investments Act leads to no other conclusion than that (1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties
Saudia is a foreign corporation doing business in the Forum non conveniens, like res judicata, is a concept may conveniently resort to;
Philippines. As such, Saudia may be sued in the originating in common law.However, unlike the rule on (2) that the Philippine Court is in a position to make an
Philippines and is subject to the jurisdiction of res judicata, as well as those on litis pendentia and intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and
Philippine tribunals. forum shopping, forum non conveniens finds no textual (3) that the Philippine Court has or is likely to have
anchor, whether in statute or in procedural rules, in our power to enforce its decision."
Moreover, since there is no real distinction between civil law system. Nevertheless, jurisprudence has
"Saudia Jeddah" and "Saudia Manila" the latter being applied forum non conveniens as basis for a court to The use of the word "may" (i.e., "may refuse
nothing more than Saudia's local office service of decline its exercise of jurisdiction. impositions on its jurisdiction") in the decisions shows
summons to Saudia's office in Manila sufficed to vest that the matter of jurisdiction rests on the sound
jurisdiction over Saudia's person in Philippine tribunals. discretion of a court. Neither the mere invocation of
Accordingly, under the doctrine of forum non forum non conveniens nor the averment of foreign
conveniens, "a court, in conflicts of law cases, may elements operates to automatically divest a court of
ISSUE #3: refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the jurisdiction. Rather, a court should renounce
● Whether or not the laws of Saudi Arabia apply most 'convenient' or available forum and the parties jurisdiction only "after 'vital facts are established, to
- NO are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere." determine whether special circumstances' require the
● Whether or Forum non conveniens finds In Puyat v. Zabarte, this court recognized the following court's desistance." As the propriety of applying forum
application in this case - NO situations as among those that may warrant a court's non conveniens is contingent on a factual
desistance from exercising jurisdiction: determination, it is, therefore, a matter of defense.
1. The belief that the matter can be better tried
Petitioner’s Contention: Saudia asserts that Philippine and decided elsewhere, either because the
courts and/or tribunals are not in a position to make an main aspects of the case transpired in a Conflict of Laws; As the present dispute relates to
intelligent decision as to the law and the facts. This is foreign jurisdiction or the material witnesses (what the respondents allege to be) the illegal
because respondents' Cabin Attendant contracts have their residence there; termination of respondents' employment, this case is
require the application of the laws of Saudi Arabia, 2. The belief that the non-resident plaintiff immutably a matter of public interest and public policy.
rather than those of the Philippines. It claims that the sought the forum, a practice known as forum ● As the present dispute relates to (what the
difficulty of ascertaining foreign law calls into operation shopping, merely to secure procedural respondents allege to be) the illegal
the principle of forum non conveniens, thereby advantages or to convey or harass the termination of respondents' employment, this
rendering improper the exercise of jurisdiction by defendant; case is immutably a matter of public interest
Philippine tribunals. 3. The unwillingness to extend local judicial and public policy. Consistent with clear
facilities to non-residents or aliens when the pronouncements in law and jurisprudence,
Petitioner’s Contention: Saudia invokes forum non docket may already be overcrowded; Philippine laws properly find application in and
conveniens to supposedly effectuate the stipulations of 4. The inadequacy of the local judicial machinery govern this case. 'Moreover, as this premise
the Cabin Attendant contracts that require the for effectuating the right sought to be for Saudia's insistence on the application
application of the laws of Saudi Arabia. maintained; and forum non conveniens has been shattered, it
5. The difficulty of ascertaining foreign law. follows that Philippine tribunals may
RULING #3: properly assume jurisdiction over the
Accordingly, under the doctrine of forum non present controversy.
conveniens, “a court, in conflicts of law cases, may
Forum non conveniens literally translates to "the forum
refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the Even if we were to assume, for the sake of discussion,
is inconvenient." It is a concept in private international
most ‘convenient’ or available forum and the parties that it is the laws of Saudi Arabia which should apply, it
law and was devised to combat the "less than
are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. does not follow that Philippine tribunals should refrain
honorable" reasons and excuses that litigants use to
secure procedural advantages, annoy and harass from exercising jurisdiction. – As the question of
applicable law has been settled, the supposed difficulty that Philippine tribunals may properly assume Complaint. If at all, however, these circumstances
of ascertaining foreign law (which requires the jurisdiction over the present controversy. prove only the fact of their occurrence, nothing more.
application of forum non conveniens) provides no The voluntariness of respondents' departure from
insurmountable inconvenience or special circumstance Saudia is non sequitur.
that will justify depriving Philippine tribunals should OTHER ISSUE: Whether or not respondents were
refrain from exercising jurisdiction. To recall our illegally dismissed
pronouncements in Puyat, as well as in Bank of
America, NT&SA, it is not so much the mere RULING: YES. Respondents were illegally dismissed.
applicability of foreign law which calls into operation
forum non conveniens. Rather, what justifies a court's Applying the cited standards on resignation and
desistance from exercising jurisdiction is "the difficulty constructive dismissal, it is clear that respondents were
of ascertaining foreign law" or the inability of a constructively dismissed. Hence, their termination was
"Philippine Court to make an intelligent decision as to illegal.
the law."
The termination of respondents' employment
Consistent with lex loci intentionis, to the extent that it happened when they were pregnant and expecting to
is proper and practicable (i.e., "to make an intelligent incur costs on account of child delivery and infant
decision"), Philippine tribunals may apply the foreign rearing. As noted by the Court of Appeals, pregnancy
law selected by the parties. In fact, (albeit without is a time when they need employment to sustain their
meaning to make a pronouncement on the accuracy families.108 Indeed, it goes against normal and
and reliability of respondents' citation) in this case, reasonable human behavior to abandon one's
respondents themselves have made averments as to livelihood in a time of great financial need.
the laws of Saudi Arabia.
It is clear that respondents intended to remain
Same; The immense public policy considerations employed with Saudia. All they did was avail of their
attendant to this case behoove Philippine tribunals to maternity leaves. Evidently, the very nature of a
not shy away from their duty to rule on the case. – All maternity leave means that a pregnant employee will
told, the considerations for assumption of jurisdiction not report for work only temporarily and that she will
by Philippine tribunals as outlined in Bank of America, resume the performance of her duties as soon as the
NT&SA have been satisfied. First, all the parties are leave allowance expires.
based in the Philippines and all the material incidents
transpired in this jurisdiction. Thus, the parties may It is also clear that respondents exerted all efforts to'
conveniently seek relief from Philippine tribunals. remain employed with Saudia. Each of them
Second, Philippine tribunals are in a position to make repeatedly filed appeal letters (as much as five [5]
an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts. letters in the case of Rebesencio) asking Saudia to
Third, Philippine tribunals are in a position to enforce reconsider the ultimatum that they resign or be
their decisions. There is no compelling basis for ceding terminated along with the forfeiture of their benefits.
jurisdiction to a foreign tribunal. Quite the contrary, the Some of them even went to Saudia's office to
immense public policy considerations attendant to this personally seek reconsideration.
case behoove Philippine tribunals to not shy away from
their duty to rule on the case.
"In termination cases, the burden of proving just or
--------------------------------------------------------------------- valid cause for dismissing an employee rests on the
Consistent with clear pronouncements in law and employer." In this case, Saudia makes much of how
jurisprudence, Philippine laws properly find respondents supposedly completed their exit
application in and govern this case. 'Moreover, as
interviews, executed quitclaims, received their
this premise for Saudia's insistence on the application
separation pay, and took more than a year to file their
forum non conveniens has been shattered, it follows

State immunity applies to US naval base

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

State immunity applies to US naval base

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

?CONFLICT OF LAWS 5.

Pioneer vs Guadiz (2007) - pertinent issues are

Sources of Conflict of Laws

Jurisdiction, How Acquired (Rules of Court)

Jurisdiction over Foreign Corporations

Moreover, in the case at bar, petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte

Accordingly, since HERAS was not a resident of Hong Kong

Even assuming that HERAS was formerly a resident of Hong

Heras, who was an absentee should have been served with

Banco do Brasil assailed the said decision as it argued that

Due process of law requires personal service to support a

Moreover, inasmuch as the sheriff’s return failed to state the

All co-owners of a property are indispensable parties in a

Unarguably, petitioner may, as the Court of Appeals

Absent overt acts of petitioner from which we may

In the final analysis, we are convinced that petitioner was

In its Answer, petitioner alleged that contrary to respondent’s

Petitioners asserts that the RTC of Lipa City is an

● PNCC is a government-acquired asset Respondent’s Contentions:

Even assuming that the six-year prescription applies,

OTHER ISSUE: Whether this case "should be

Ruling: NO. In any event, respondent is a Malaysian

S-ar putea să vă placă și