What are the modes?

1) Proof of foreign law is official publication of that foreign law.. In the Philippines, it is the official
gazette or records of congress. So you secure the official publication of that foreign law at their
counterpart or agency as that of official gazette or records of congress.
2) The usual practice which is easier to comply is the Submission of certified true copy of the
foreign law. But you have to comply with these two distinct requirements.It should be
accompanied with the attestation of the legal custodian. Attestation contains that the copy is
the faithful copy of the original in the possession of the legal custodian who signs the
attestation. It says there “This copy is a faithful reproduction of the original on files” Signed Mr.
Custodian.
Since we are talking here of document kept outside of the Philippines, other than attestation issued by
the legal custodian, you should also submit the certification. The certified copy should be accompanied
with the certification and this is Identifiable by the accompanying red ribbon to the document. Common
term is consularized document meaning duly authenticated by the Philippine consular office stationed
in the country where that foreign document is kept. Not Consular office of that foreign county but
consular office of the Philippines stationed in that foreign country.

What does this Certification contain?

Certification differs from attestation but the Certification supports the attestation.
It contains a statement that the one who issued the attestation is the legal custodian of the original
document or record which is the subject of attestation.
Other words, certification is simply a confirmation made by the Philippine government acting thru the
consular office of the Republic of the Philippines that the one who issued the certified true copy is
authorised because he or she is the legal custodian.

So the Certification therefore seeks to establish the authenticity of the certified true copy because it is
a foreign document. Hence the way to ensure that it is an authentic document is for our government
acting thru the Consular office to certify as to the authority of the one who issued the certified true
copy.

Take note that without the red ribbon and without the certification issued by Philippine Consular office,
that foreign document may not be admissible in court, so it cannot be admitted in court if your purpose
in presenting it in evidence to prove that foreign law, that document will not be accepted and not
admitted. Hence failure to prove the foreign law. Take note of these requirements certification and
attestation.

Take note, when the court already determines that it has jurisdiction and the court now proceeds to the
next level, the trial and choice of law stage. Issue on jurisdiction becomes irrelevant. Other words, the
the defendant may not move for the dismissal of the action simply on the ground that the law applicable
is a foreign law

In a dispute involving a foreign element, it is always possible that the applicable law to resolve the
dispute is a foreign law. If that is the case, that doesn’t mean that the phIlippine court where the dispute
is pending has no jurisdiction. In other words, do not equate jurisdiction with the applicable foreign law .
Do not confuse issue on jurisdiction with issue on the choice of the proper law.. They cannot be mixed
together.

This is illustrated in the case if hazegawa.annipon vs kitamura:

This is a contract between Japanese nationals, the contract was executed in japan and in Nippongo
language.So all the components of the contract relate to Japan. So applying lex contractus principle, the
intrinsic aspect of the contract it is determined by the japanese law because of the most significant
relationship principle. All the significant aspects of the transaction relate to Japan, hence Japanese law is
the applicable foreign law.

Case was filed before the philippine court, the contract is an independent contractorship agreement,
One Japanese sued the other Japanese fled before Philippine court, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss invoking among others, lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Phil court where the case is
pending. In support of their claim, the defendants argued that given the essential components of the
contract- the parties were Japanese, the contract was executed in Japan, language issued employed in
the contract was nippongo, all relate to Japanese laws in accordance to lex contractus principle and
because the applicable foreign law relate to Japanese law, the defendants argued that Philippine court
has jurisdiction because the applicable is Japanese law as if jurisdiction of the Philippine courts depends
on the application of Philippine law.

It is as if, if the law applicable is a foreign law,, our court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
action. SC said this is obviously wrong because Jurisdiction is determined by applying Philippine law on
Jurisdiction over the nature of the action, the parties and over the rest. It has nothing to do with
applicable foreign law on the issues involved in the case. The issue which law to apply is relevant the
second stage. When the court is now to render judgment. Resolve the issue, render judgment by
determining the right and obligation of the parties applying the appropriate law which law could be
Foreign law or even Philippine internal law.

So do not make a mistake of filing a motion to dismiss for lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the
applicable law is a foreign law. This is a misdirected motion to dismiss. Do not merge jurisdiction which
is the province of the first stage and the choice of law which is the concern of the 2nd stage.

The same argument was raised and overruled in the case of Saudia Arabian airline vs CA involving a
Filipina stewardess, Ms. Morada. When she sued Saudia Arabia Airlines for damages based on Artice 19
and 20. Of the Civil Code. The defendant move for the dismissal of the action on the ground of the lack
of jurisdiction allegedly because the applicable law is Saudi Arabian laws given that tortuous acts
involve in the series of act originating from the alleged rape of Ms. Morada up to the time she was
incarcerated in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Hence applicable law is Saudi Arabia.

The Supreme court again said it is a misplaced argument that just because the applicable law is a foreign
law, Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the action because in a conflict of law problem our
Philippine Court may take cognizance of the action and in the process of resolving the dispute, it may
apply foreign law or apply Internal law because that is precisely the province of conflict of laws rule.

What are other instances where our court in the Phil has no choice but to apply Philippine internal law?
Another important principle is even after applying our Philippine conflict of law rule, foreign law is the
applicable law but that foreign law is contrary to the established public policy of the forum. Meaning
against Philippine public policy. That foreign law cannot be applied and given effect in the Philippines
and instead our court will have to apply Philippine internal law.
Case in point. POEA vs CADALIN, which involves a class action filed by Filipino contract workers who had
an opportunity to work in Bahrain, they are all terminated, upon their return they filed an action labor
complaints against their alien employer. The action seeks recovery of certain labor benefits that the
claim were not paid. The defense of respondent is, the action for recovery of certain benefits have
already prescribed because under Bahrain law the prescriptive period is only 1 year. Take note that the
contracts were executed and implemented in Bahrain and therefore the extrinsic aspect of the contract
like liabilities, prescription and the like should be governed by the laws of Bahrain. Prescription is
appropriately governed by Bahrain law applying Philippine Conflict of Laws rule on intrinsic validity of
contract and yet the SC said while it appears that Bahrain law is the applicable law. Philippine court
cannot give effect or apply that Bahrain law on the prescription of 1 year because doing so would
contravene Philippine Policy, which refers to Constitutional protection to labor which is the public
policy. So instead of applying the Bahrain law which is 1 year prescriptive period, the court had to apply
Philippine internal law on prescription involving monetary claims of workers pursuant to Art 291 of
Labor Code which is 3 years.

Also the case of American Realty Corporation, there was this loan contract between American Bank and
three foreign corporations of borrowers for failure to pay the loan, a restructuring agreement was
subsequently entered into by the parties but the bank would only agree to a restructuring agreement if
the borrowers could put up a collateral. And this where American realty came into the picture, a
domestic corporation acting as a guarantor by constituting a real estate mortgage over its two
properties located in the Philippine. But despite the restructuring agreement, the three borrowers
defaulted in the payment which constrained the American Bank to 1) Institute Collection Suits before
courts in Hongkong and in England and 2)Foreclosure the Real Estate Mortgage constituted by
American Realty Corp. It succeeded in the foreclosure, American Realty Corp sued for damages alleging
illegal foreclosure arguing that it was improper for American Bank to foreclose the real estate mortgage
having filed an action for the collection of sums of money. Obviously invoking the proscription against
splitting a single cause of action, invoking Philippine rule on the matter. Policy in the Philippines is
alternative, the filing of one forecloses the filing of another. Now, the defendants Bank argued however
that based on their contract the loan document, the parties expressly stipulate that in case of dispute
arising from their transactions the laws of England should govern the dispute. Lex Contractus,
particulary lex voluntatis. The law expressly stated by the parties in the contract. So applying conflict of
laws rule on contracts particularly intrinsic validity of contract, the laws applicable really is the laws of
England. And under the laws of England the creditor can pursue simultaneously the remedies of
collection and foreclosure. In England, their rules do not prohibit splitting of a single cause of action
contrary to our policy in the Philippines. So applying the principle that in a case where the foreign law
contravenes the public policy of the forum, that foreign law may not be applied and may not be given
effect in the Philippines. SC said we cannot apply the laws in England that allows filing of simultaneous
remedies, therefore it is improper and illegal for the bank to foreclosure the real estate mortgage
despite the pendency of the action for collection because it contravenes the public policy of the forum,
the public policy being violated is the policy that prohibits splitting a single cause of action.