MANILA HOTELCORP. VS. NLRC 343 SCRA 1 Private International Law Forum Non Conveniens In May 1988 Mar!

r!elo Santos was an overseas wor"er in #man$ In %une 1988 &e was re!ruite' (y Pala!e )otel in *ei+in, C&ina$ -ue to &i,&er .ay an' (ene/its Santos a,ree' to t&e &otel0s +o( o//er an' so &e starte' wor"in, t&ere in Novem(er 1988$ 1&e em.loyment !ontra!t (etween &im an' Pala!e )otel was &owever wit&out t&e intervention o/ t&e P&ili..ine #verseas 2m.loyment A'ministration 3P#2A4$ In Au,ust 1989 Pala!e )otel noti/ie' Santos t&at &e will (e lai' o// 'ue to (usiness reverses$ In Se.tem(er 1989 &e was o//i!ially terminate'$ In Fe(ruary 1995 Santos /ile' a !om.laint /or ille,al 'ismissal a,ainst Manila )otel Cor.oration 3M)C4 an' Manila )otel International Lt'$ 3M)IL4$ 1&e Pala!e )otel was im.lea'e' (ut no summons were serve' u.on it$ M)C is a ,overnment owne' an' !ontrolle' !or.oration$ It owns 657 o/ M)IL a /orei,n !or.oration 3)on, 8on,4$ M)IL mana,es t&e a//air o/ t&e Pala!e )otel$ 1&e la(or ar(iter w&o &an'le' t&e !ase rule' in /avor o/ Santos$ 1&e National La(or Relations Commission 3NLRC4 a//irme' t&e la(or ar(iter$ ISSUE: 9&et&er or not t&e NLRC &as +uris'i!tion over t&e !ase$ HELD: No$ 1&e NLRC is a very in!onvenient /orum /or t&e /ollowin, reasons: 1&e only lin" t&at t&e P&ili..ines &as in t&is !ase is t&e /a!t t&at Santos is a Fili.ino; )owever t&e Pala!e )otel an' M)IL are /orei,n !or.orations M)C !annot (e &el' lia(le (e!ause it merely owns 657 o/ M)IL it &as no 'ire!t (usiness in t&e a//airs o/ t&e Pala!e )otel$ 1&e veil o/ !or.orate /i!tion !an0t (e .ier!e' (e!ause it was not s&own t&at M)C is 'ire!tly mana,in, t&e a//airs o/ M)IL$ )en!e t&ey are se.arate entities$ Santos0 !ontra!t wit& t&e Pala!e )otel was not entere' into in t&e P&ili..ines; Santos0 !ontra!t was entere' into wit&out t&e intervention o/ t&e P#2A 3&a' P#2A intervene' NLRC still 'oes not &ave +uris'i!tion (e!ause it will (e t&e P#2A w&i!& will &ear t&e !ase4; M)IL an' t&e Pala!e )otel are not 'oin, (usiness in t&e P&ili..ines; t&eir a,ents<o//i!ers are not resi'ents o/ t&e P&ili..ines; -ue to t&e /ore,oin, t&e NLRC !annot .ossi(ly 'etermine all t&e relevant /a!ts .ertainin, to t&e !ase$ It is not !om.etent to 'etermine t&e /a!ts (e!ause t&e a!ts !om.laine' o/ &a..ene' outsi'e our +uris'i!tion$ It !annot 'etermine w&i!& law is a..li!a(le$ An' in !ase a +u',ment is ren'ere' it !annot (e en/or!e' a,ainst t&e Pala!e )otel 3in t&e /irst .la!e it was not serve' any summons4$ 1&e Su.reme Court em.&asi=e' t&at un'er t&e rule o/ /orum non !onveniens a P&ili..ine !ourt or a,en!y may assume +uris'i!tion over t&e !ase i/ it !&ooses to 'o so .rovi'e': 314 t&at t&e P&ili..ine !ourt is one to w&i!& t&e .arties may !onveniently resort to; 3>4 t&at t&e P&ili..ine !ourt is in a .osition to ma"e an intelli,ent 'e!ision as to t&e law an' t&e /a!ts; an' 334 t&at t&e P&ili..ine !ourt &as or is li"ely to &ave .ower to en/or!e its 'e!ision$ None o/ t&e a(ove !on'itions are a..arent in t&e !ase at (ar$ FBIB VS CA 6> SCRA >69 Con/li!t o/ Laws Private International Law #ri,in o/ Forum Non Conveniens Pro'u!ers *an" 3now !alle' First P&ili..ine International *an"4 w&i!& &as (een un'er

s&o..in, &ere (e!ause )enry Co essentially re.resents t&e (an"$ *ot& !ases aim to &ave t&e (an" es!a.e lia(ility /rom t&e a,reement it entere' into wit& -emetria et al$ 1&e Su.reme Court also 'is!usse' t&at to !om(at /orum s&o..in, w&i!& ori,inate' as a !on!e.t in international law t&e .rin!i.le o/ /orum non !onveniens was 'evelo.e'$ 1&e 'o!trine o/ /orum non !onveniens .rovi'es t&at a !ourt in !on/li!ts o/ law !ases may re/use im.ositions on its +uris'i!tion w&ere it is not t&e most C!onvenientD or availa(le /orum an' t&e .arties are not .re!lu'e' /rom see"in, reme'ies elsew&ere$

EEForum S&o..in,: Co!!urs w&en a .arty attem.ts to &ave &is a!tion trie' in a .arti!ular !ourt or +uris'i!tion w&ere &e /eels &e will re!eive t&e most /avora(le +u',ment or ver'i!t$D Menandro laureano vs. a 3>4 SCRA 414 Con/li!t o/ Laws Private International Law Proo/ o/ Forei,n Law A Applicability of Foreign Laws In 19F8 Menan'ro Laureano was &ire' as a .ilot (y t&e Sin,a.ore Airlines Limite' 3SAL4$ In 198> &owever SAL was &it (y re!ession an' so it &a' to lay o// some em.loyees$ Laureano was one o/ t&em$ Laureano as"e' /or re!onsi'eration (ut it was not ,rante'$ A,,rieve' Laureano /ile' a la(or !ase /or ille,al 'ismissal a,ainst SAL$ *ut in 198F &e wit&'rew t&e la(or !ase an' instea' /ile' a !ivil !ase /or 'ama,es 'ue to ille,al termination o/ !ontra!t a,ainst SAL$ Laureano /ile' t&e !ase &ere in t&e P&ili..ines$ SAL move' /or t&e 'ismissal o/ t&e !ase on t&e ,roun' o/ la!" o/ +uris'i!tion$ 1&e motion was 'enie'$ #n trial SAL alle,e' t&at t&e termination o/ Laureano is vali' .ursuant to Sin,a.orean law$ 1&e trial !ourt rule' in /avor o/ Laureano$ SAL a..eale' t&e !ase raisin, t&e issue o/ la!" o/ +uris'i!tion non a..li!a(ility o/ P&ili..ine laws an' esto..el amon, ot&ers$ 1&e Court o/ A..eals reverse' t&e trial !ourt$ ISSUE: 9&et&er or not Sin,a.orean Law is a..li!a(le to t&is !ase$ HELD: No$ 1&e s.e!i/i! Sin,a.orean Law w&i!& &ol's vali' t&e 'ismissal o/ Laureano is not .rove' in !ourt$ As su!& t&e trial !ourt !annot ma"e a 'etermination i/ t&e termination is in'ee' vali' un'er Sin,a.orean Law$ P&ili..ine !ourts 'o not ta"e +u'i!ial noti!e o/ t&e laws o/ Sin,a.ore$ SAL &as t&e (ur'en o/ .roo/$ SAL /aile' to .rove su!& law &en!e P&ili..ine law s&all a..ly$ )owever t&e !ase must (e 'ismisse' on t&e ,roun' o/ esto..el$ Gn'er our laws all money !laims arisin, /rom em.loyerAem.loyee relations&i.s must (e /ile' wit&in t&ree years /rom t&e time t&e !ause o/ a!tion a!!rue'$ Laureano0s !ause o/ a!tion a!!rue' in 198> w&en &e was terminate' (ut &e only /ile' t&e money !laim in 198F or more t&an t&ree years /rom 198>$ )en!e &e is alrea'y (arre' (y .res!ri.tion$ HIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII !"ld valle# s$"%%"n& o'%an# vs a

34> SCRA >13 Con/li!t o/ Laws Private International Law Proo/ o/ Forei,n Law In t&e #rino!o River in Jene=uela it is a rule t&at s&i.s .assin, t&rou,& it must (e .ilote' (y .ilots /amiliar to t&e river$ )en!e in 1988 Ca.tain Ni!an'ro Colon master o/ P&ili..ine RoIas a s&i. owne' (y P&ili..ine Presi'ent Lines In!$ 3PPL4 o(taine' t&e servi!es o/ 2==ar Jas@ue= a 'uly a!!re'ite' .ilot in Jene=uela to .ilot t&e s&i. in t&e #rino!o River$ Gn/ortunately P&ili..ine RoIas ran a,roun' in t&e #rino!o River w&ile (ein, .ilote' (y Jas@ue=$ As a result t&e stran'e' s&i. (lo!"e' ot&er vessels$ #ne su!& vessel was owne' 9il'valley S&i..in, Co$ Lt'$ 39SC4$ 1&e (lo!"a'e !ause' K455" wort& o/ losses to 9SC as its s&i. was not a(le to ma"e its 'elivery$ Su(se@uently 9SC sue' PPL in t&e R1C o/ Manila$ It averre' t&at PPL is lia(le /or t&e losses it in!urre' un'er t&e laws o/ Jene=uela to wit: Re,lamento Leneral 'e la Ley 'e

!onservators&i. sin!e 1984 is t&e owner o/ ? .ar!els o/ lan'$ 1&e *an" &a' an a,reement wit& -emetrio -emetria an' %ose %anolo /or t&e two to .ur!&ase t&e .ar!els o/ lan' /or a .ur!&ase .ri!e o/ P6$6 million .esos$ 1&e sai' a,reement was ma'e (y -emetria an' %anolo wit& t&e *an"0s mana,er Mer!urio Rivera$ Later &owever t&e *an" t&rou,& its !onservator Leoni'a 2n!arna!ion sou,&t t&e re.u'iation o/ t&e a,reement as it alle,e' t&at Rivera was not aut&ori=e' to enter into su!& an a,reement &en!e t&ere was no vali' !ontra!t o/ sale$ Su(se@uently -emetria an' %anolo sue' Pro'u!ers *an"$ 1&e re,ional trial !ourt rule' in /avor o/ -emetria et al$ 1&e *an" /ile' an a..eal wit& t&e Court o/ A..eals$ Meanw&ile )enry Co w&o &ol's 857 s&ares o/ sto!"s wit& t&e sai' *an" /ile' a motion /or intervention wit& t&e trial !ourt$ 1&e trial !ourt 'enie' t&e motion sin!e t&e trial &as (een !on!lu'e' alrea'y an' t&e !ase is now .en'in, a..eal$ Su(se@uently Co assiste' (y ACCRA law o//i!e /ile' a se.arate !ivil !ase a,ainst Carlos 2+er!ito as su!!essorAinAinterest 3assi,nee4 o/ -emetria an' %anolo see"in, to &ave t&e .ur.orte' !ontra!t o/ sale (e 'e!lare' unen/or!ea(le a,ainst t&e *an"$ 2+er!ito et al ar,ue' t&at t&e se!on' !ase !onstitutes /orum s&o..in, $ ISSUE: 9&et&er or not t&ere is /orum s&o..in,$ HELD: Bes$ 1&ere is /orum s&o..in, (e!ause t&ere is i'entity o/ interest an' .arties (etween t&e /irst !ase an' t&e se!on' !ase$ 1&ere is i'entity o/ interest (e!ause (ot& !ases sou,&t to &ave t&e a,reement w&i!& involves t&e same .ro.erty (e 'e!lare' unen/or!ea(le as a,ainst t&e *an"$ 1&ere is i'entity o/ .arties even t&ou,& t&e /irst !ase is in t&e name o/ t&e (an" as 'e/en'ant an' t&e se!on' !ase is in t&e name o/ )enry Co as .lainti//$ 1&ere is still /orum

Pilota+e an' Re,lamento Para la Mona 'e Pilota+e No 1 'el #rino!o$ 1&ese two laws .rovi'e t&at t&e master an' owner o/ t&e s&i. is lia(le /or t&e ne,li,en!e o/ t&e .ilot o/ t&e s&i.$ Jas@ue= was .roven to (e ne,li,ent w&en &e /aile' to !&e!" on !ertain vi(rations t&at t&e s&i. was eI.erien!in, w&ile traversin, t&e river$ ISSUE: 9&et&er or not P&ili..ine Presi'ent Lines In!$ is lia(le un'er t&e sai' Jene=uelan laws$ HELD: No$ 1&e two Jene=uelan Laws were not 'uly .roven as /a!t (e/ore t&e !ourt$ #nly mere .&oto!o.ies o/ t&e laws were .resente' as evi'en!e$ For a !o.y o/ a /orei,n .u(li! 'o!ument to (e a'missi(le t&e /ollowin, re@uisites are man'atory: 314 It must (e atteste' (y t&e o//i!er &avin, le,al !usto'y o/ t&e re!or's or (y &is 'e.uty; an' 3>4 It must (e a!!om.anie' (y a !erti/i!ate (y a se!retary o/ t&e em(assy or le,ation !onsul ,eneral !onsul vi!e !onsular or !onsular a,ent or /orei,n servi!e o//i!er an' wit& t&e seal o/ &is o//i!e$ An' in !ase o/ unwritten /orei,n laws t&e oral testimony o/ eI.ert witnesses is a'missi(le as are .rinte' an' .u(lis&e' (oo"s o/ re.orts o/ 'e!isions o/ t&e !ourts o/ t&e !ountry !on!erne' i/ .rove' to (e !ommonly a'mitte' in su!& !ourts$

Failure to .rove t&e /orei,n laws ,ives rise to .ro!essual .resum.tion w&ere t&e /orei,n law is 'eeme' to (e t&e same as P&ili..ine laws$ Gn'er P&ili..ine laws PPL nor Ca.tain Colon !annot (e &el' lia(le /or t&e ne,li,en!e o/ Jas@ue=$ PPL an' Colon &a' s&own 'ue 'ili,en!e in sele!tin, Jas@ue= to .ilot t&e vessel$ Jas@ue= is !om.etent an' was a 'uly a!!re'ite' .ilot in Jene=uela in ,oo' stan'in, w&en &e was en,a,e'$ EDI-STAFFBUILDERS vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ELEAZAR S. GRAN, respondents. 63F SCRA 459 Con/li!t o/ Laws Private International Law Proo/ o/ Forei,n Law In 1993 2-IASta//(uil'ers In!$ 32-I4 u.on re@uest o/ #mar A&me' Ali *in *e!&r 2st$ 3#A*4 a !om.any in Sau'i Ara(ia sent to #A* resumes /rom w&i!& #A* !an !&oose a !om.uter s.e!ialist$ 2lea=ar Lran was sele!te'$ It was a,ree' t&at &is mont&ly salary s&all (e K865$55$ *ut /ive mont&s into &is servi!e in Sau'i Ara(ia Lran re!eive' a termination letter an' ri,&t t&ere an' t&en was remove' /rom &is .ost$ 1&e termination letter states t&at &e was in!om.etent (e!ause &e 'oes not "now t&e ACA- system w&i!& is re@uire' in &is line o/ wor"; t&at &e /aile' to enri!& &is "nowle',e 'urin, &is 6 mont& stay to .rove &is !om.eten!e; t&at &e is 'iso(e'ient (e!ause &e /aile' to su(mit t&e re@uire' 'aily re.orts to #A*$ Lran t&en si,ne' a @uit!laim w&ere(y &e 'e!lare' t&at &e is releasin, #A* /rom any lia(ility in eI!&an,e o/ > 948$55 Riyal$ 9&en Lran returne' &e /ile' a la(or !ase /or ille,al 'ismissal a,ainst 2-I an' #A*$ 2-I in its 'e/ense averre' t&at t&e 'ismissal is vali' (e!ause w&en Lran an' #A* si,ne' t&e em.loyment !ontra!t (ot& .arties a,ree' t&at Sau'i la(or laws s&all ,overn all matters relatin, to t&e termination o/ Lran0s em.loyment; t&at un'er Sau'i la(or laws Lran0s termination 'ue to in!om.eten!e an' insu(or'ination is vali'; t&at Lran0s insu(or'ination an' in!om.eten!e is outline' in t&e termination letter Lran re!eive'$ 1&e la(or ar(iter 'ismisse' t&e la(or !ase (ut on a..eal t&e National La(or Relations Commission 3NLRC4 reverse' t&e 'e!ision o/ t&e ar(iter$ 1&e Court o/ A..eals li"ewise a//irme' t&e NLRC$ ISSUE: 9&et&er or not t&e Sau'i la(or laws s&oul' (e a..lie'$ HELD: No$ 1&e s.e!i/i! Sau'i la(or laws were not .roven in !ourt$ 2-I 'i' not .resent .roo/ as to t&e eIisten!e an' t&e s.e!i/i! .rovisions o/ su!& /orei,n law$ )en!e .ro!essual .resum.tion a..lies an' P&ili..ine la(or laws s&all (e use'$ Gn'er our laws an em.loyee li"e Lran s&all only (e terminate' u.on +ust !ause$ 1&e alle,ations a,ainst &im at worst s&all only merit a sus.ension not a 'ismissal$ )is in!om.eten!e is not .roven (e!ause .rior to (ein, sent to Sau'i Ara(ia &e un'erwent t&e re@uire' tra'e test to .rove &is !om.eten!e$ 1&e .resum.tion t&ere/ore is t&at &e is !om.etent an' t&at it is u.on #A* an' 2-I to .rove ot&erwise$ No .roo/ o/ &is in!om.eten!e was ever a''u!e' in !ourt$ )is alle,e' insu(or'ination is li"ewise not .roven$ It was not .roven t&at t&e su(mission o/ 'aily tra!" re!or's is .art o/ &is +o( as a !om.uter s.e!ialist$ 1&ere was also a la!" o/ 'ue .ro!ess$ Gn'er our laws Lran is entitle' to t&e two noti!e rule w&ere(y .rior to termination &e s&oul' re!eive two noti!es$ In t&e !ase at (ar &e only re!eive' one an' &e was imme'iately terminate' on t&e same 'ay &e re!eive' t&e noti!e$ Lastly t&e @uit!laim may not also release #A* /rom lia(ility$ P&ili..ine laws is a,ain a..lie' &ere sans .roo/ o/ Sau'i laws$ Gn'er P&ili..ine Laws a @uit!laim is ,enerally /rowne' u.on an' are stri!tly eIamine'$ In t&is !ase (ase' on t&e !ir!umstan!es Lran at t&at time &as no o.tion (ut to si,n t&e @uit!laim$ 1&e @uit!laim is also voi' (e!ause &is se.aration .ay was merely > 948 Riyal w&i!& is lower t&an t&e K865$55 mont&ly salary 33 195 Riyal4$ as"aves( ase 3?1 SCRA 489 Con/li!t o/ Laws Private International Law Forei,n %u',ments )ow Assaile' In 1986 t&e )i,& Court o/ Malaysia or'ere' t&e P&ili..ine National Constru!tion Cor.oration 3PNCC4 to .ay K6$1 million to Asiavest Mer!&ant *an"ers 3M4 *er&a'$ 1&is was t&e result o/ a re!overy suit /ile' (y Asiavest a,ainst PNCC in Malaysia /or PNCC0s /ailure to !om.lete a !onstru!tion .ro+e!t t&ere 'es.ite 'ue .ayment /rom Asiavest$ -es.ite 'eman' PNCC /aile' to !om.ly wit& t&e +u',ment in Malaysia &en!e Asiavest /ile' a !om.laint /or t&e en/or!ement o/ t&e Malaysian rulin, a,ainst PNCC in t&e P&ili..ines$ 1&e !ase was /ile' wit& t&e Pasi, R1C w&i!& eventually 'enie' t&e !om.laint$ 1&e Court o/ A..eals a//irme' t&e 'e!ision o/ t&e R1C$ Asiavest a..eale'$ In its 'e/ense PNCC alle,e' t&at t&e /orei,n +u',ment !annot (e en/or!e' &ere (e!ause o/ want o/ +uris'i!tion want o/ noti!e to PNCC !ollusion an'<or /rau' an' t&ere is a !lear mista"e o/ law or /a!t$ Asiavest assaile' t&e ar,uments o/ PNCC on t&e ,roun' t&at PNCC0s !ounsel .arti!i.ate' in all t&e .ro!ee'in,s in t&e Malaysian Court$ ISSUE: 9&et&er or not t&e Malaysian Court +u',ment s&oul' (e en/or!e' a,ainst PNCC in t&e P&ili..ines$ HELD: Bes$ PNCC /aile' to .rove an' su(stantiate its (are alle,ations o/ want o/ +uris'i!tion want o/ noti!e !ollusion an'<or /rau' an' mista"e o/ /a!t$ #n t&e !ontrary Asiavest was a(le to INTERNATIONAL, INC., petitioner,

.resent evi'en!e as to t&e vali'ity o/ t&e .ro!ee'in,s t&at too" .la!e in Malaysia$ Asiavest .resente' t&e !erti/ie' an' aut&enti!ate' !o.ies o/ t&e +u',ment an' t&e or'er issue' (y t&e Malaysian Court$ It also .resente' !orres.on'en!es (etween Asiavest0s lawyers an' PNCC0s lawyers in an' out o/ !ourt w&i!& (elie' PNCC0s alle,ation t&at t&e Malaysian !ourt never a!@uire' +uris'i!tion over it$ PNCC0s alle,ation o/ /rau' is not su//i!ient too /urt&er it never invo"e' t&e same in t&e Malaysian Court$ 1&e Su.reme Court notes to assail a /orei,n +u',ment t&e .arty must .resent evi'en!e o/ want o/ +uris'i!tion want o/ noti!e to t&e .arty !ollusion /rau' or !lear mista"e o/ law or /a!t$ #t&erwise t&e +u',ment en+oys t&e .resum.tion o/ vali'ity so lon, as it was 'uly !erti/ie' an' aut&enti!ate'$ In t&is !ase PNCC /aile' to .resent t&e re@uire' evi'en!e$ B.M. No. 1678 %ETITION FOR Dece !e" 17, #$$7 LEA&E TO RESUME %RACTICE OF LA',

BEN(AMIN M. DACANA), petitioner. 645 SCRA 4>4 Civil Law Private International Law Nationality 1&eory Pra!ti!e o/ Law is Reserve' /or Fili.inos In 1998 Atty$ *en+amin -a!anay went to Cana'a to see" me'i!al &el.$ In or'er /or &im to ta"e a'vanta,e o/ Cana'a0s /ree me'i!al ai' .ro,ram &e (e!ame a Cana'ian !iti=en in >554$ In >55? &owever &e reAa!@uire' &is P&ili..ine !iti=ens&i. .ursuant to Re.u(li! A!t 9>>6 o/ t&e Citi=ens&i. Retention an' ReAA!@uisition A!t o/ >553$ In t&e same year &e returne' to t&e P&ili..ines an' &e now inten's to resume &is .ra!ti!e o/ law$ ISSUE: 9&et&er or not *en+amin -a!anay may still resume &is .ra!ti!e o/ law$ HELD: Bes$ As a rule t&e .ra!ti!e o/ law an' ot&er .ro/essions in t&e P&ili..ines are reserve' an' limite' only to Fili.ino !iti=ens$ P&ili..ine !iti=ens&i. is a re@uirement /or a'mission to t&e (ar$ So w&en -a!anay (e!ame a Cana'ian !iti=en in >554 &e !ease' to &ave t&e .rivile,e to .ra!ti!e law in t&e P&ili..ines$ )owever un'er RA 9>>6 a Fili.ino lawyer w&o (e!omes a !iti=en o/ anot&er !ountry is 'eeme' never to &ave lost &is P&ili..ine !iti=ens&i. ") $e rea *u"res $"s F"l"%"no "("+ens$"% "n a ordan e !"($ RA ,--.$ )en!e w&en -a!anay rea!@uires &is Fili.ino

!iti=ens&i. in >55? &is mem(ers&i. to t&e P&ili..ine (ar was 'eeme' to &ave never (een terminate'$ *ut 'oes t&is also mean t&at &e !an automati!ally resume &is .ra!ti!e o/ law ri,&t a/ter rea!@uisitionN No$ -a!anay must still !om.ly wit& several !on'itions (e/ore &e !an resume &is .ra!ti!e o/ law to wit: 3a4 t&e u.'atin, an' .ayment in /ull o/ t&e annual mem(ers&i. 'ues in t&e I*P; 3(4 t&e .ayment o/ .ro/essional taI; 3!4 t&e !om.letion o/ at least 3? !re'it &ours o/ man'atory !ontinuin, le,al e'u!ation; t&is is es.e!ially si,ni/i!ant to re/res& t&e a..li!ant<.etitioner0s "nowle',e o/ P&ili..ine laws an' u.'ate &im o/ le,al 'evelo.ments an' 3'4 t&e re(a/"n& o) ($e la!#er0s oa($ w&i!& will not only remin' &im o/ &is 'uties an' res.onsi(ilities as a lawyer an' as an o//i!er o/ t&e Court (ut also renew &is .le',e to maintain alle,ian!e to t&e Re.u(li! o/ t&e P&ili..ines$ Com.lian!e wit& t&ese !on'itions will restore &is ,oo' stan'in, as a mem(er o/ t&e P&ili..ine (ar$ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ALICE vs. *ON. MANUEL &. ROMILLO, (R., a+ %"e+,d,n- (.d-e o/ B"anc0 C1, Re-,ona2 T",a2 Co."3 o/ 30e Na3,ona2 Ca4,3a2 Re-,on %a+a5 C,35 and RIC*ARD U%TON respondents. 139 scra 139 Nationality Principle Divorce Petitioner Ali!e Reyes is a !iti=en o/ t&e P&ili..ines w&ile .rivate res.on'ent is a !iti=en o/ t&e Gnite' States; t&ey were marrie' in )on,"on,$ 1&erea/ter t&ey esta(lis&e' t&eir resi'en!e in t&e P&ili..ines an' (e,ot two !&il'ren$ Su(se@uently t&ey were 'ivor!e' in Neva'a Gnite' States an' t&at .etitioner &as reAmarrie' also in Neva'a t&is time to 1&eo'ore Jan -orn$ Private res.on'ent /ile' suit a,ainst .etitioner statin, t&at .etitioner0s (usiness in Manila is t&eir !on+u,al .ro.erty; t&at .etitioner &e or'ere' to ren'er a!!ountin, o/ t&e (usiness an' t&at .rivate res.on'ent (e 'e!lare' to mana,e t&e !on+u,al .ro.erty$ Petitioner move' to 'ismiss t&e !ase !onten'in, t&at t&e !ause o/ a!tion is (arre' (y t&e +u',ment in t&e 'ivor!e .ro!ee'in,s (e/ore t&e Neva'a Court$ 1&e 'enial now is t&e su(+e!t o/ t&e !ertiorari .ro!ee'in,$ ISSUE6 9&et&er or not t&e 'ivor!e o(taine' (y t&e .arties is (in'in, only to t&e alien s.ouse$ *ELD6 Is it true t&at owin, to t&e nationality .rin!i.le em(o'ie' in Arti!le 16 o/ t&e Civil Co'e only P&ili..ine nationals are !overe' (y t&e .oli!y a,ainst a(solute 'ivor!es t&e same (ein, RE)ES &AN DORN, petitioner,

!onsi'ere' !ontrary to our !on!e.t o/ .u(li! .oli!y an' morality$ )owever aliens may o(tain 'ivor!es a(roa' w&i!& may (e re!o,ni=e' in t&e P&ili..ines .rovi'e' t&ey are vali' a!!or'in, to t&eir national law$ In t&is !ase t&e 'ivor!e in Neva'a release' .rivate res.on'ent /rom t&e marria,e /rom t&e stan'ar's o/ Ameri!an Law un'er w&i!& 'ivor!e 'issolves t&e marria,e$ 1&us .ursuant to &is national law .rivate res.on'ent is no lon,er t&e &us(an' .etitioner$ )e woul' &ave no stan'in, to sue in t&e !ase (elow as .etitioner0s &us(an' entitle' to eIer!ise !ontrol over !on+u,al assets$ As &e is (oun' (y t&e 'e!ision o/ &is own !ountry0s !ourt w&i!& vali'ly eIer!ise' +uris'i!tion over &im an' w&ose 'e!ision &e 'oes not re.u'iate &e is sto..e' (y &is own re.resentation (e/ore sai' !ourt /rom assertin, &is ri,&t over t&e alle,e' !on+u,al .ro.erty$ RE%UBLIC &S ORBECIDO G.R. No. 17898$ Oc3o!e" 7, #$$7 FACTS: In 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myro i!!an"eva in Lam#an, O$amis City. In 198%, Orbecido discovered t&at &is 'i(e &ad &ad been nat"ra!i$ed as an American citi$en. Sometime in )***, Orbecido !earned (rom &is son t&at &is 'i(e &ad obtained a divorce decree and married an American. Orbecido (i!ed 'it& t&e Tria! Co"rt a petition (or +A"t&ority to ,emarry- invo.in/ Artic!e )% 0ara/rap& ) o( t&e Fami!y Code, t&e Co"rt /ranted t&e petition. T&e ,ep"b!ic, &erein petitioner, t&ro"/& t&e O((ice o( t&e So!icitor 1enera!, so"/&t (or reconsideration b"t it 'as denied by t&e Tria! Co"rt. ISS23: 4&et&er or not t&e a!!e/ations o( t&e respondent 'as proven as a (act accordin/ to t&e r"!es o( evidence. 53L6: 7e(ore a (orei/n divorce decree can be reco/ni$ed by o"r o'n co"rts, t&e party p!eadin/ it m"st prove t&e divorce as a (act and demonstrate its con(ormity to t&e (orei/n !a' a!!o'in/ it. S"c& (orei/n !a' m"st a!so be proved as o"r co"rts cannot ta.e 8"dicia! notice o( (orei/n !a's. Li.e any ot&er (act, s"c& !a's m"st be a!!e/ed and proved. F"rt&ermore, respondent m"st a!so s&o' t&at t&e divorce decree a!!o's &is (ormer 'i(e to remarry as speci(ica!!y re9"ired in Artic!e )%. Ot&er'ise, t&ere 'o"!d be no evidence s"((icient to dec!are t&at &e is capacitated to enter into anot&er marria/e. 5o'ever, in t&e present petition t&ere is no s"((icient evidence s"bmitted and on record, 'e are "nab!e to dec!are, based on respondent:s bare a!!e/ations t&at &is 'i(e, '&o 'as nat"ra!i$ed as an American citi$en, &ad obtained a divorce decree and &ad remarried an American, t&at respondent is no' capacitated to remarry. S"c& dec!aration co"!d on!y be made proper!y "pon respondent:s s"bmission o( t&e a(orecited evidence in &is (avor. ACCO,6I;1L<, t&e petition by t&e ,ep"b!ic o( t&e 0&i!ippines is 1,A;T36. T&e assai!ed 6ecision dated May 1=, )**), and ,eso!"tion dated >"!y ?, )**), o( t&e ,e/iona! Tria! Co"rt o( Mo!ave, @amboan/a de! S"r, 7ranc& )A, are &ereby S3T ASI63. Co"4.: ;. S3o. To a+ GR< 186771= A.- 11, #$1$ 6#8 SCRA #66 FACTS6 1erbert Corp"$ B+1erbert-C 'as a (ormer Fi!ipino citi$en '&o ac9"ired Canadian citi$ens&ip t&ro"/& nat"ra!i$ation. 5e !ater married a Fi!ipina, 6aisy!yn Sto. Tomas B+6aisy-C. 1erbert !e(t (or Canada soon a(ter t&e 'eddin/ beca"se o( &is 'or.. 5e ret"rned a(ter ? mont&s to s"rprise 6aisy, b"t discovered t&at s&e 'as &avin/ an a((air 'it& anot&er man. 5"rt and disappointed, 1erbert ret"rned to Canada and (i!ed a petition (or divorce. T&e S"perior Co"rt o( >"stice in Ontario, Canada /ranted &is petition (or divorce. ) years a(ter t&e divorce, 1erbert (o"nd anot&er Fi!ipina to !ove. 1erbert 'ent to t&e Civi! ,e/istry O((ice and re/istered t&e Canadian divorce decree on &is and 6aisy:s marria/e certi(icate. 6espite t&e re/istration o( t&e divorce decree, an o((icia! o( t&e ;ationa! Statistics O((ice B+;SO-C in(ormed &im t&at t&e marria/e bet'een &im and 6aisy sti!! s"bsists "nder 0&i!ippine !a'. To be en(orceab!e, t&e (orei/n divorce decree m"st (irst be 8"dicia!!y reco/ni$ed by a competent 0&i!ippine co"rt, p"rs"ant to a ;SO Circ"!ar. 1erbert (i!ed a petition (or 8"dicia! reco/nition o( (orei/n divorce andDor dec!aration o( marria/e as disso!ved 'it& t&e ,TC. 6aisy did not (i!e any responsive p!eadin/ and o((ered no opposition to t&e petition. In (act, 6aisy a!!e/ed &er desire to (i!e a simi!ar case b"t 'as prevented by (inancia! constrains. S&e, t&"s, re9"ested t&at s&e be considered as a party#in#interest 'it& a simi!ar prayer to 1erbert:s. T&e ,TC denied 1erbert:s petition. T&e ,TC conc!"ded t&at 1erbert 'as ;OT T53 0,O03, 0A,T< to instit"te t&e action (or 8"dicia! reco/nition o( t&e (orei/n divorce decree as &e is a

;AT2,ALI@36 CA;A6IA; CITI@3;. It r"!ed t&at O;L< T53 FILI0I;O spo"se can avai! o( t&e remedy, "nder Art. )%, ) o( t&e Fami!y Code. ISSUE6 4O; Art. )%, ) eEtends to a!iens t&e ri/&t to petition a co"rt o( t&is 8"risdiction (or t&e reco/nition o( a (orei/n divorce decree. *ELD6 NO. T&e a!ien spo"se can c!aim no ri/&t "nder Art. )%, F) o( t&e Fami!y Code as t&e s"bstantive ri/&t it estab!is&es is in (avor o( t&e FILI0I;O S0O2S3. Art. )%, ) 'as inc!"ded in t&e !a' to avoid t&e abs"rd sit"ation '&ere t&e Fi!ipino spo"se remains married to t&e a!ien spo"se '&o, a(ter obtainin/ a divorce, is no !on/er married to t&e Fi!ipino spo"se. T&e !e/is!ative intent is (or t&e bene(it o( t&e Fi!ipino spo"se, by c!ari(yin/ &is or &er marita! stat"s, sett!in/ t&e do"bts created by t&e divorce decree. 3ssentia!!y, Art. )%, F) provided t&e Fi!ipino spo"se a s"bstantive ri/&t to &ave &is or &er marria/e to t&e a!ien spo"se considered as disso!ved, capacitatin/ &im or &er to remarry. 4it&o"t Art. )%, F), t&e 8"dicia! reco/nition o( t&e (orei/n decree o( divorce, '&et&er in a proceedin/ instit"ted precise!y (or t&at p"rpose or as a re!ated iss"e in anot&er proceedin/, 'o"!d be o( no si/ni(icance to t&e Fi!ipino spo"se since o"r !a's do not reco/ni$e divorce as a mode o( severin/ t&e marita! bond. An action based on Art. )%, F) is not !imited to t&e reco/nition o( t&e (orei/n divorce decree. I( t&e co"rt (inds t&at t&e decree capacitated t&e a!ien spo"se to remarry, t&e co"rts can dec!are t&at t&e Fi!ipino spo"se is !i.e'ise capacitated to contract anot&er marria/e. 5o'ever, no 0&i!ippine co"rt can ma.e a simi!ar dec!aration (or t&e a!ien spo"se, '&ose stat"s and !e/a! capacity are /enera!!y PILAPIL v IBAY-SOMERA174 SCRA 653 FACTS: On September G, 19G9, Ime!da Mana!aysay 0i!api!, a Fi!ipina and t&erespondent to t&e case, and 3ric& 1ei!in/, a 1erman nationa!, 'ere married atFrieden'ei!er in t&e Federa! ,ep"b!ic o( 1ermany. A(ter abo"t t&ree and a &a!( years o( marria/e, 1ei!in/ initiated a divorce proceedin/ a/ainst 0i!api! in 1ermanyin >an"ary 198A '&i!e 0i!api! (i!ed an action (or !e/a! separation, s"pport andseparation o( property be(ore ,TC o( Mani!a in >an"ary )A, 198A '&ere it is sti!!pendin/ as a civi! case. On >an"ary 1=, 198%, t&e !oca! Co"rt o( 1ermanyprom"!/ated a divorce decree on t&e /ro"nd o( (ai!"re o( marria/e o( t&e spo"ses. T&e c"stody o( t&e c&i!d,Isabe!!a 0i!api! 1ei!in/, 'as /ranted to petitioner.On >"ne )G, 198%, private respondent (i!ed t'o comp!aints (or ad"!tery a!!e/in/ t&at,'&i!e sti!! married to respondent, petitioner &ad an a((air 'it& a certain 4i!!iam C&iaand >es"s C&"a sometime in 198) and 198A respective!y. T&e respondent city (isca!approved a reso!"tion directin/ t&e (i!in/ o( t'o comp!aints (or ad"!tery a/ainstpetitioner. T&erea(ter, petitioner (i!ed a motion in bot& crimina! cases to de(er &erarrai/nment and to s"spend ("rt&er proceedin/s t&ereon. ,espondent 8"d/e mere!yreset t&e date o( t&e arrai/nment b"t be(ore s"c& sc&ed"!ed date, petitioner moved(or t&e s"spension o( proceedin/s. On September 8, 198G, respondent 8"d/e deniedt&e motion to 9"as& and a!so directed t&e arrai/nment o( bot& acc"sed. 0etitionerre("sed to be arrai/ned and t&"s c&ar/ed 'it& direct contempt and (ined. ISSUE: 4&et&er or not t&e private respondent:s ad"!tery c&ar/es a/ainst t&epetitioner is sti!! va!id /iven t&e (act t&at bot& &ad been divorced prior to t&e (i!in/o( c&ar/es. HELD: T&e !a' provides t&at in prosec"tions (or ad"!tery and conc"bina/e t&eperson '&o can !e/a!!y (i!e t&e comp!aint s&o"!d on!y be t&e o((ended spo"se. T&e(act t&at private respondent obtained a va!id divorce in &is co"ntry in 198A, isadmitted. Accordin/ to Artic!e 1= o( t&e Civi! Code, 'it& re!ation to t&e stat"s o( Fi!ipino citi$ens bot& &ere and abroad, since t&e !e/a! separation o( t&e petitionerand respondent &as been (ina!i$ed t&ro"/& t&e co"rts in 1ermany and t&e ,TC inMani!a, t&e marria/e o( t&e co"p!e 'ere a!ready (inis&ed, t&"s /ivin/ no merit to t&ec&ar/es t&e respondent (i!ed a/ainst t&e petitioner. 0rivate respondent, bein/ no!on/er married to petitioner &o!ds no !e/a! merit to commence t&e ad"!tery case ast&e o((ended spo"se at t&e time &e (i!ed s"it in 198%. T&e temporary restrainin/orderiss"edint&iscase'as madepermanent. Quita vs Court of Appeals December 22, 1998 Fact of the Case: Fe D. Quita, the petitioner, and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipinos, were married inthe Philippines on May 18, 1941. They got divorce in San Francisco on July 23, 1954.Both of them remarried another person. Arturo remarried Bladina Dandan, the respondentherewith. They were blessed with six children. On April 16, 1972, when Arturo died, the trial court was set to declared as to whowill be the intestate heirs. The trial court invoking Tenchavez vs Escano case held thatthe divorce acquired by the petitioner is not recognized in our country. Private respondentstressed that the citizenship of petitioner was relevant in the light of the ruling in VanDorn v. Rommillo Jr that aliens who obtain divorce abroad are recognized in thePhilippnes provided they are valid according to their national

law. The petitioner herselfanswered that she was an American citizen since 1954. Through the hearing she alsostated that Arturo was a Filipino at the time she obtained the divorce. Implying the shewas no longer a Filipino citizen. The Trial court disregarded the respondents statement. The net hereditary estatewas ordered in favor the Fe D. Quita and Ruperto, the brother of Arturo. Blandina and thePadlan children moved for reconsideration. On February 15, 1988 partial reconsiderationwas granted declaring the Padlan children, with the exception of Alexis, entitled to one-half of the estate to the exclusion of Ruperto Padlan, and the other half to Fe Quita.Private respondent was not declared an heir for her marriage to Arturo was declared voidsince it was celebrated during the existence of his previous marriage to petitioner.Blandina and her children appeal to the Court of Appeals thatthe case was decidedwithout a hearing in violation of the Rules of Court. Issue: (1) Whether or not Blandinas marriage to Arturo void ab initio. (2) Whether or not Fe D. Quita be declared the primary beneficiary as surviving spouse of Arturo. Held: No. The marriage of Blandina and Arturo is not void. The citizenship of Fe D.Quita at the time of their divorce is relevant to this case. The divorce is valid here sinceshe was already an alien at the time she obtained divorce, and such is valid in theircountrys national law. Thus, Fe D. Quita is no longer recognized as a wife of Arturo. She cannot be the primary beneficiary or will be recognized as surviving spouse of Arturo. CASE DIGEST ON SECRETAR) OF (USTICE ;. LANTION >9## SCRA 16$ ?#$$$@A ;at"re: 0etition (or revie' o( a decision o( t&e Mani!a ,TC Facts: On >"ne 18, 1999 t&e 6epartment o( >"stice received (rom t&e 6epartment o( Forei/n A((airs a re9"est (or t&e eEtradition o( private respondent Mar. >imene$ to t&e 2.S. T&e 1rand >"ry Indictment, t&e 'arrant (or &is arrest, and ot&er s"pportin/ doc"ments (or said eEtradition 'ere attac&ed a!on/ 'it& t&e re9"est. C&ar/es inc!"de: 1. ). A. ?. =. Conspiracy to commit o((ense or to de(ra"d t&e 2S Attempt to evade or de(eat taE Fra"d by 'ire, radio, or te!evision Fa!se statement or entries 3!ection contrib"tion in name o( anot&er

'&ic& may "!timate!y res"!t in t&e deprivation o( t&e !iberty o( t&e prospective eEtradite. T&is deprivation can be e((ected at t'o sta/es: T&e provisiona! arrest o( t&e prospective eEtradite pendin/ t&e s"bmission o( t&e re9"est J t&e temporary arrest o( t&e prospective eEtradite d"rin/ t&e pendency o( t&e eEtradition petition in co"rt. C!ear!y, t&ere:s an impendin/ t&reat to a prospective eEtraditee:s !iberty as ear!y as d"rin/ t&e eva!"ation sta/e. 7eca"se o( s"c& conse9"ences, t&e eva!"ation process is a.in to an administrative a/ency cond"ctin/ an investi/ative proceedin/, t&e conse9"ences o( '&ic& are essentia!!y crimina! since s"c& tec&nica! assessment sets o(( or commences t&e proced"re (or J "!timate!y t&e deprivation o( !iberty o( a prospective eEtradite. In essence, t&ere(ore, t&e eva!"ation process parta.es o( t&e nat"re o( a crimina! investi/ation. T&ere are certain constit"tiona! ri/&ts t&at are ordinari!y avai!ab!e on!y in crimina! prosec"tion. 7"t t&e Co"rt &as r"!ed in ot&er cases t&at '&ere t&e investi/ation o( an administrative proceedin/ may res"!t in (or(eit"re o( !i(e, !iberty, or property, t&e administrative proceedin/s are deemed crimina! or pena!, J s"c& (or(eit"re parta.es t&e nat"re o( a pena!ty. In t&e case at bar, simi!ar to a pre!iminary investi/ation, t&e eva!"ation sta/e o( t&e eEtradition proceedin/s '&ic& may res"!t in t&e (i!in/ o( an in(ormation a/ainst t&e respondent, can possib!y !ead to &is arrest, J to t&e deprivation o( &is !iberty. T&"s, t&e eEtraditee m"st be accorded d"e process ri/&ts o( notice J &earin/ accordin/ to AA I1?B1C J B)C, as 'e!! as AA IGHt&e ri/&t o( t&e peop!e to in(ormation on matters o( p"b!ic concern J t&e coro!!ary ri/&t to access to o((icia! records J doc"ments T&e co"rt &e!d t&at t&e eva!"ation process parta.es o( t&e nat"re o( a crimina! investi/ation, &avin/ conse9"ences '&ic& 'i!! res"!t in deprivation o( !iberty o( t&e prospective eEtradite. A (avorab!e action in an eEtradition re9"est eEposes a person to event"a! eEtradition to a (orei/n co"ntry, t&"s eE&ibitin/ t&e pena! aspect o( t&e process. T&e eva!"ation process itse!( is !i.e a pre!iminary investi/ation since bot& proced"res may &ave t&e same res"!t K t&e arrest and imprisonment o( t&e respondent. T&e basic ri/&ts o( notice J &earin/ are app!icab!e in crimina!, civi! J administrative proceedin/s. ;on#observance o( t&ese ri/&ts 'i!! inva!idate t&e proceedin/s. Individ"a!s are entit!ed to be noti(ied o( any pendin/ case a((ectin/ t&eir interests, J "pon notice, may c!aim t&e ri/&t to appear t&erein J present t&eir side. ,i/&ts to notice and &earin/: 6ispensab!e in A cases: a. 4&en t&ere is an "r/ent need (or immediate action Bpreventive s"spension in

administrative c&ar/es, pad!oc.in/ (i!t&y resta"rants, cance!!ation o( passportC. b. 4&ere t&ere is tentativeness o( administrative action, J t&e respondent isn:t prevented

(rom en8oyin/ t&e ri/&t to notice J &earin/ at a !ater time Bs"mmary distraint J !evy o( t&e property o( a de!in9"ent taEpayer, rep!acement o( an appointeeC c. ). T'in ri/&ts &ave been o((ered, b"t t&e ri/&t to eEercise t&em &ad not been c!aimed. 4O; t&is entit!ement constit"tes a breac& o( t&e !e/a! commitments and ob!i/ation o(

T&e 6epartment o( >"stice B6O>C, t&ro"/& a desi/nated pane! proceeded 'it& t&e tec&nica! eva!"ation and assessment o( t&e eEtradition treaty '&ic& t&ey (o"nd &avin/ matters needed to be addressed. ,espondent, t&en re9"ested (or copies o( a!! t&e doc"ments inc!"ded in t&e eEtradition re9"est and (or &im to be /iven amp!e time to assess it. T&e Secretary o( >"stice denied re9"est on t&e ((. /ro"nds: 1. 5e (o"nd it premat"re to sec"re &im copies prior to t&e comp!etion o( t&e eva!"ation. At

t&e 0&i!ippine 1overnment "nder t&e ,0#2S TreatyL ;o. T&e 2.S. and t&e 0&i!ippines s&are m"t"a! concern abo"t t&e s"ppression and p"nis&ment o( crime in t&eir respective 8"risdictions. 7ot& states accord common d"e process protection to t&eir respective citi$ens. T&e administrative investi/ation doesn:t (a!! "nder t&e t&ree eEceptions to t&e d"e process o( notice and &earin/ in t&e Sec. A ,"!es 11) o( t&e ,"!es o( Co"rt. A. 4O; t&ere:s any con(!ict bet'een private respondent:s basic d"e process ri/&ts J

t&at point in time, t&e 6O> is in t&e process o( eva!"atin/ '&et&er t&e proced"res and re9"irements "nder t&e re!evant !a' B06 1*%9H0&i!ippine 3Etradition La'C and treaty B,0#2S 3Etradition TreatyC &ave been comp!ied 'it& by t&e ,e9"estin/ 1overnment. 3va!"ation by t&e 6O> o( t&e doc"ments is not a pre!iminary investi/ation !i.e in crimina! cases ma.in/ t&e constit"tiona!!y /"aranteed ri/&ts o( t&e acc"sed in crimina! prosec"tion inapp!icab!e. ). T&e 2.S. re9"ested (or t&e prevention o( "na"t&ori$ed disc!os"re o( t&e in(ormation in

provisions o( ,0#2S 3Etradition treaty ;o. 6octrine o( incorporation "nder internationa! !a', as app!ied in most co"ntries, decrees t&at r"!es o( internationa! !a' are /iven e9"a! standin/ 'it&, b"t are not s"perior to nationa! !e/is!ative acts. Treaty can repea! stat"te and stat"te can repea! treaty. ;o con(!ict. d"rin/ tria!. ,e9"est s&o"!d impose vei! at any sta/e. >"d/ment: 0etition dismissed (or !ac. o( merit. Map"nan, separate conc"rrin/ opinion: 4&i!e t&e eva!"ation process cond"cted by t&e 6O> is not eEact!y a pre!iminary investi/ation o( crimina! cases, it is a.in to a pre!iminary investi/ation beca"se it invo!ves t&e basic constit"tiona! ri/&ts o( t&e person so"/&t to be eEtradited. A person ordered eEtradited is arrested, (orcib!y ta.en (rom &is &o"se, separated (rom &is (ami!y and ei! o( secrecy is !i(ted

t&e doc"ments. A. Fina!!y, co"ntry is bo"nd to ienna convention on !a' o( treaties s"c& t&at every treaty in

(orce is bindin/ "pon t&e parties. T&e respondent (i!ed (or petition o( mandam"s, certiorari, and pro&ibition. T&e ,TC o( ;C, r"!ed in (avor o( t&e respondent. Secretary o( >"stice 'as made to iss"e a copy o( t&e re9"ested papers, as 'e!! as cond"ctin/ ("rt&er proceedin/s. Iss"es: 1. &earin/ <es. I)BaC o( 06 1*8% de(ines eEtradition as +t&e remova! o( an acc"sed (rom t&e 0&i!ippines 'it& t&e ob8ect o( p!acin/ &im at t&e disposa! o( (orei/n a"t&orities to enab!e t&e re9"estin/ state or /overnment to &o!d &im in connection 'it& any crimina! investi/ation directed a/ainst &im in connection 'it& any crimina! investi/ation directed a/ainst &im or t&e eEec"tion o( a pena!ty imposed on &im "nder t&e pena! or crimina! !a' o( t&e re9"estin/ state or /overnment.- A!t&o"/& t&e in9"isitoria! po'er eEercised by t&e 6O> as an administrative a/ency d"e to t&e (ai!"re o( t&e 6FA to comp!y !ac.s any 8"dicia! discretion, it primari!y sets t&e '&ee!s (or t&e eEtradition process 4O; private is respondent entit!ed to t&e t'o basic d"e process ri/&ts o( notice and

de!ivered to a (orei/n state. 5is ri/&ts o( abode, to privacy, !iberty and p"rs"it o( &appiness are ta.en a'ay (rom &imHa (ate as &ars& and cr"e! as a conviction o( a crimina! o((ense. For t&is reason, &e is entit!ed to &ave access to t&e evidence a/ainst &im and t&e ri/&t to controvert t&em. 0"no, dissentin/: Case at bar does not invo!ve /"i!t or innocence o( an acc"sed b"t t&e interpretation o( an eEtradition treaty '&ere at sta.e is o"r /overnment:s internationa! ob!i/ation to s"rrender to a (orei/n state a citi$en o( its o'n so &e can be tried (or an a!!e/ed o((ense committed 'it&in t&at 8"risdiction. 0an/aniban, dissentin/: Instant petition re(ers on!y to t&e eva!"ation sta/e. A'er" an a"rl"nes vs. .a

327 scra !2 "ontract of "arriage

0rivate respondent Amadeo Seno p"rc&ased (rom Sin/apore Air!ines in Mani!a con8"nction tic.ets. In 1eneva, t&e petitioner decided to (ore/o &is trip to Copen&a/en, and /o strai/&t to ;e' <or., private respondent eEc&an/ed t&e "n"sed portion o( t&e con8"nction tic.et (rom Internationa! Air Transport Association c!earin/ &o"se in 1eneva. 0rivate respondent (i!ed an action (or dama/es be(ore t&e ,TC o( Ceb" (or t&e a!!e/ed embarrassment and menta! an/"is& &e s"((ered at t&e 1eneva Airport '&en t&e petitioner:s sec"rity o((icers prevented &im (rom boardin/ t&e p!ane, detained &im (or abo"t an &o"r and a!!o'ed &im to board t&e p!ane on!y a(ter a!! t&e passen/ers &ave boarded.

ISSUE6 4&et&er or not t&e 0&i!ippine co"rts &ave 8"risdiction over t&e action (or dama/es.

*ELD6 T&e S"preme Co"rt r"!ed t&at t&e case 'as proper!y (i!ed in t&e 0&i!ippines. It &e!d t&at t&e petitioner acted as an a/ent o( t&e Sin/apore Air!ines "nder IATA r"!es and as an a/ent o( t&e principa! carrier t&e petitioner may be &e!d !iab!e "nder contract o( carria/e in Mani!a.