Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

WING ON COMPANY V.

SYYAP
-Wing On Company incorporated in NY
-Syyap Co., Inc. incorporated in RP
-contract entered in NY:
for the purchase of clothing material, w/ verbal agreement that Syyap would pay Wing On the
value of the clothing material, then after the sale, the profits would be divided between them
-clothing materials worth $22,246.04 shipped from NY to RP
-only $3,530.04 paid. Syyap failed to settle debt and account for profits.

Defendant alleged further that it dealt with one Murray Kern of New York regarding the
clothing materials in question, who, in turn, contracted with the plaintiff; that the agreement
between the defendant and Murray Kern was that any profits which might be realized from
the sale of the goods received by it from Murray Kern would be equally divided between
them

-Wing On Company sued Syyap in RP.

Appellant contends, too, that the trial court should have


declined jurisdiction over the present suit, pursuant to the principle of forum non -
conveniens in Private International Law “that where the ends of justice strongly indicate that
the controversy may be more suitably tried elsewhere, then jurisdiction should be declined
and the parties relegated to relief to be sought in another forum.'

TC: for Wing On

Arguments of Syyap:
(1) no jurisdiction: Wing On is not licensed to do business in RP, no legal capacity to sue

As a special defense, defendant alleged that the plaintiff had no legal capacity to sue and be
sued, it being a foreign corporation not duly licensed to transact business in the Philippines.

Appellant now contends that the court a, qicp had no


jurisdiction to try and decide the case for the reasons that the action was filed by one who is
not the agent or representative of the plaintiff authorized to bring and. maintain the suit .and
that the plaintiff had no legal capacity to sue
the defendant.

(2) should have declined jurisdiction: forum non conveniens

HELD

1. In the case of Marshall-Wells Co. vs. Henry W. Elser, Co., supra, the Supreme Court
stated: “The object of the statute was to subject the foreign corporation
doing business in the Philippines to the jurisdiction of its courts.

The object of the statute was not to prevent the foreign corporation from performing single
acts, but to prevent it from acquiring a domicile for the purpose of business’without taking
the steps necessary to render it amenable to suit in the local courts.

2. There, is no merit in this contention.


It is a well-established practice in the application of the principle of forumnon conveniens
that unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum
should rarely be disturbed, .and that, furthermore, the consideration of inadequacy-
to.enforce the judgment, which is one of the important factors to be considered in the
application of said principle, would precisely constitute a problem to the plaintiff if the local
courts decline to assume jurisdiction on the basis of said principle, considering that the
defendant is a resident of the Philippines.

It is true that the agreement in question involving the purchase of clothing materials was
entered into in New York, U.S.A. The goods, however, were delivered to, and received and
sold by the- defendant in this jurisdiction.

the Wing On Company of New York may sue in Philippine courts in connection with the
transaction in question and, considering, further, . that the present suit arising from said
transaction is in the nature of a personal action, the case may be commenced -and tried
where the defendant-resides or may be found, or » where the plaintiff resides, at the election
of the plaintiff. (Section 2b, Kule 4 of the Rules of Court.)

Consequently, venue in the instant case was not improperly laid and the court a quo did not
err in taking cognizance of the case.

Affirm!
On Forum non Conveniens
WHEN COURT WOULD DECLINE JURISDICTION BASED ON FOUM NON
CONVENIENS
-Unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should
rarely be disturbed
-Consideration of inadequacy to enforce the judgment
HERE: Defendant in the Philippines. So for the court to assume jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant, RP Court is the convenient forum.
-the present suit is a PERSONAL ACTION, the case may be commenced and tried where the
defendant resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff resides, at the election of the
plaintiff.
Summary: should consider both public and private interests
Private interests:
*relative ease of access to source of proof
*Availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses
*cost of obtaining and attendance off willing witnesses
*possibility of viewing the premises if appropriate
*all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive
Public Interest
*administrative difficulties encountered when courts are congested
*jury duty: burden on community
*appropriateness of having the trial in a court that is familiar with the applicable state law
rather than getting another forum enmeshed in a complicated conflict-of-laws problem
WHEN CAN'T REFUSE TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION:
*when the forum is the only state where jurisdiction over defendant can be obtained
*when the forum provides procedural remedies not available in another state

2. ASSUME JURISDICTION
GR: apply law of the forum
1. A specific law of the forum decrees that internal law should apply
Civil Code
Article 16: makes real and personal proerty subject to the law of the country where they are
situated
Intestate and testamentary succession: governed by lex nationale of the person whose
succession is under consideration
Article 829: makes revocation done outside the Philippines valid according to the law of the
place where the will was made or lex domicilli
Article 819: prohibits Filipinos from making joint wills even if valid in the country where they
were executed

2. The proper foreign law was not properly pleaded and proved
-no Judicial notice of foreign law
Relevant rules of evidence:
 To prove written foreign law: follow requirements in Sec 24-25, Rule 132
 May be subject of judicial admission
 Processual presumption - no proof nor admission, foreign law presumed to be the same as
that in the Philippines

Rule 132
Section 19 - CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS
For the purpose of their presentation evidence,
documents are either public or private.
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS are:
a. The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority,
official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a
foreign country;
b. Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last wills and testaments;
and
c. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to the
entered therein.
All other writings are PRIVATE.
Section 24 - PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORD
The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19,
when admissible for any purpose,
may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or
by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines,
with a certificate that such officer has the custody.
If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country,
the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general,
consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the
Philippines
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept,
and authenticated by the seal of his office.
Section 25 - WHAT ATTESTATION OF COPY MUST STATE
Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested
for the purpose of evidence,
the attestation must state, in substance,
that the copy is a correct copy of the original,
or a specific part thereof, as the case may be.
The attestation must be
under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or
if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court.

To prove unwritten foreign law – Sec 46, Rule 130
Section 46 - LEARNED TREATISES
A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science, or art is
admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial
notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in the
treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the
subject.
 Requisites:
1. The court takes judicial notice thereof
2. The same is testified to by a witness expert in the subject
 CA took judicial notice of the Ballantyne Scale of Values[1]
Legal treatises also included