Sie sind auf Seite 1von 16

Home Insurance Company vs.

Eastern Shipping Lines also found to be complete and intact, leaving 5 cases in bad order.
The contents of these 5 packages showed several items missing in
[GR L-34382, 20 July 1983]; the total amount of $131.14; while the contents of the
undelivered 1 package were valued at $394.66, or a total of
Home Insurance vs. Nedlloyd Lijnen [GR L-34383]
$525.80 or P2,426.98. For the short-delivery of 1 package and the
missing items in 5 other packages, Home Insurance paid
International Harvester under its Insurance Cargo Policy the
Facts: [GR L-34382] On or about 13 January 1967, S. Kajita & Co., amount of P2,426.98, by virtue of which Home Insurance became
on behalf of Atlas Consolidated Mining & Development subrogated to the rights and actions of International Harvester.
Corporation, shipped on board the SS Eastern Jupiter from Osaka, Demands were made on N.V. Nedlloyd Lijnen and International
Japan, 2,361 coils of Black Hot Rolled Copper Wire Rods. The said Harvester for reimbursement thereof but they failed and refused
VESSEL is owned and operated by Eastern Shipping Lines. The to pay the same."
shipment was covered by Bill of Lading O-MA-9, with arrival
notice to Phelps Dodge Copper Products Corporation of the
Philippines at Manila. The shipment was insured with the Home
When the insurance contracts which formed the basis of these
Insurance Company against all risks in the amount of
cases were executed, Home Insurance had not yet secured the
P1,580,105.06 under its Insurance Policy AS-73633. The coils
necessary licenses and authority; but when the complaints in
discharged from the VESSEL numbered 2,361, of which 53 were in
these two cases were filed, Home Insurance had already secured
bad order. What the Phelps Dodge ultimately received at its
the necessary license to conduct its insurance business in the
warehouse was the same number of 2,361 coils, with 73 coils
Philippines. In both cases, Home Insurance made the averment
loose and partly cut, and 28 coils entangled, partly cut, and which
regarding its capacity to sue, as that it "is a foreign insurance
had to be considered as scrap. Upon weighing at Phelps Dodge's
company duly authorized to do business in the Philippines
warehouse, the 2,361 coils were found to weight 263,940.85 kilos
through its agent, Mr. Victor H. Bello, of legal age and with office
as against its invoiced weight of 264,534.00 kilos or a net
address at Oledan Building, Ayala Avenue, Makati, Rizal." The
loss/shortage of 593.15 kilos, or 1,209,56 lbs., according to the
Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XVII, however, dismissed
claims presented by the Phelps Dodge against Home Insurance,
the complaints in both cases, on the ground that Home Insurance
the Eastern Shipping, and Angel Jose Transportation Inc. For the
had failed to prove its capacity to sue. Home Insurance filed the
loss/damage suffered by the cargo, Home Insurance paid the
petitions for review on certiorari, which were consolidated.
Phelps Dodge under its insurance policy the amount of P3,260.44,
by virtue of which Home Insurance became subrogated to the
rights and actions of the Phelps Dodge. Home Insurance made
demands for payment against the Eastern Shipping and the Angel Issue: Whether Home Insurance, a foreign corporation licensed to
Jose Transportation for reimbursement of the aforesaid amount do business at he time of the filing of the case, has the capacity to
but each refused to pay the same." sue for claims on contracts made when it has no license yet to do
business in the Philippines.

[GR L-34383] On or about 22 December 1966, the Hansa


Transport Kontor shipped from Bremen, Germany, 30 packages of Held: As early as 1924, the Supreme Court ruled in the leading
Service Parts of Farm Equipment and Implements on board the case of Marshall Wells Co. v. Henry W. Elser & Co. (46 Phil. 70)
VESSEL, SS 'NEDER RIJN' owned by N. V. Nedlloyd Lijnen, and that the object of Sections 68 and 69 of the Corporation Law was
represented in the Philippines by its local agent, the Columbian to subject the foreign corporation doing business in the
Philippines, Inc.. The shipment was covered by Bill of Lading No. Philippines to the jurisdiction of Philippine courts. The
22 for transportation to, and delivery at, Manila, in favor of Corporation Law must be given a reasonable, not an unduly harsh,
International Harvester Macleod, Inc. The shipment was insured interpretation which does not hamper the development of trade
with Home Insurance company under its Cargo Policy AS-73735 relations and which fosters friendly commercial intercourse
'with average terms' for P98,567.79. The packages discharged among countries. The objectives enunciated in the 1924 decision
from the VESSEL numbered 29, of which seven packages were are even more relevant today when we commercial relations are
found to be in bad order. What International Harvester ultimately viewed in terms of a world economy, when the tendency is to re-
received at its warehouse was the same number of 29 packages examine the political boundaries separating one nation from
with 9 packages in bad order. Out of these 9 packages, 1 package another insofar as they define business requirements or restrict
was accepted by International Harvester in good order due to the marketing conditions. The court distinguished between the denial
negligible damages sustained. Upon inspection at International of a right to take remedial action and the penal sanction for non-
Harvester's warehouse, the contents of 3 out of the 8 cases were registration. Insofar as transacting business without a license is
concerned, Section 69 of the Corporation Law imposed a penal FIRST PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL BANK (Formerly Producers
sanction — imprisonment for not less than 6 months nor more Bank of the Philippines) and MERCURIO RIVERA vs. CA, CARLOS
than 2 years or payment of a fine not less than P200.00 nor more EJERCITO in substitution of DEMETRIO DEMETRIA, and JOSE
than P1,000.00 or both in the discretion of the court. There is a JANOLO
penalty for transacting business without registration. And insofar
as litigation is concerned, the foreign corporation or its assignee January 24, 1996
may not maintain any suit for the recovery of any debt, claim, or
FACTS: Producer Bank of the Philippines acquired 6 parcels of
demand whatever. The Corporation Law is silent on whether or
land at Laguna. The property used to be owned by BYME
not the contract executed by a foreign corporation with no
Investment and Development Corporation which had them
capacity to sue is null and void ab initio. Still, there is no question
mortgaged with the bank as collateral for a loan. Demetrio
that the contracts are enforceable. The requirement of
Demetria and Jose O. Janolo wanted to purchase the property and
registration affects only the remedy. Significantly, Batas
thus initiated negotiations for that purpose.
Pambansa 68, the Corporation Code of the Philippines has
corrected the ambiguity caused by the wording of Section 69 of In August 1987, Demetria and Janolo met with Mercurio Rivera,
the old Corporation Law. Section 133 of the present Corporation Manager of the Property Management Department of the Bank to
Code provides that "No foreign corporation transacting business discuss their plan to buy the property. Thereafter, they had a
in the Philippines without a license, or its successors or assigns, series of letters where parties accepted the offer of Demetria and
shall be permitted to maintain or intervene in any action, suit or Janolo. Later in October, the conservator of the bank (which has
proceeding in any court or administrative agency in the been placed under conservatorship by the Central Bank since
Philippines; but such corporation may be sued or proceeded 1984) was replaced; and subsequently the proposal of Demetria
against before Philippine courts or administrative tribunals on any and Janolo to buy the properties was under study pursuant to the
valid cause of action recognized under Philippine laws." The old new conservator’s mandate. After which, a series of demands
Section 69 has been reworded in terms of non-access to courts ensued.
and administrative agencies in order to maintain or intervene in
any action or proceeding. The prohibition against doing business ISSUE: WON the conservator may revoke a perfected and
without first securing a license is now given penal sanction which enforceable contract. NO.
is also applicable to other violations of the Corporation Code
RULING: Section 28-A of Republic Act No. 265 (otherwise known
under the general provisions of Section 144 of the Code. It is,
as the Central Bank Act) as follows:
therefore, not necessary to declare the contract null and void
even as against the erring foreign corporation. The penal sanction Section 28-A - Whenever, on the basis of a report submitted by
for the violation and the denial of access to Philippine courts and the appropriate supervising or examining department, the
administrative bodies are sufficient from the viewpoint of Monetary Board finds that a bank or a non-bank financial
legislative policy. Herein, the lack of capacity at the time of the intermediary performing quasi-banking functions is in a state of
execution of the contracts was cured by the subsequent continuing inability or unwillingness to maintain a state of
registration is also strengthened by the procedural aspects of liquidity deemed adequate to protect the interest of depositors
these cases. Home Insurance averred in its complaints that it is a and creditors, the Monetary Board may appoint a conservator to
foreign insurance company, that it is authorized to do business in take charge of the assets, liabilities, and the management of that
the Philippines, that its agent is Mr. Victor H. Bello, and that its institution, collect all monies and debts due said institution and
office address is the Oledan Building at Ayala Avenue, Makati. exercise all powers necessary to preserve the assets of the
These are all the averments required by Section 4, Rule 8 of the institution, reorganize the management thereof, and restore its
Rules of Court. Home Insurance sufficiently alleged its capacity to viability. He shall have the power to overrule or revoke the
sue. actions of the previous management and board of directors of the
bank or non-bank financial intermediary performing quasi-
banking functions, any provision of law to the contrary
notwithstanding, and such other powers as the Monetary Board
shall deem necessary.

While admittedly, the Central Bank law gives vast and far-reaching
powers to the conservator of a bank, it must be pointed out that
such powers must be related to the "(preservation of) the assets
of the bank, (the reorganization of) the management thereof and
(the restoration of) its viability." Such powers, enormous and
extensive as they are, cannot extend to the post-facto repudiation
of perfected transactions, otherwise they would infringe against Issue. Whether a non-resident corporation is subject to
the non-impairment clause of the Constitution. jurisdiction in a state in which it never had any agent or office,
merely because it was a party to a contract with a resident of the
Section 28-A merely gives the conservator power to revoke state.
contracts that are, under existing law, deemed to be defective.
Hence, the conservator merely takes the place of a bank's board Held. No. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the
of directors, so what the board cannot do; the conservator cannot Due Process clause did not preclude the California court from
do either. His power is however, not unilateral as he cannot entering a judgment binding on Defendant. The Supreme Court
simply repudiate valid obligations of the Bank. His authority would found that it is sufficient for purposes of due process that the suit
be only to bring court actions to assail such contracts. was based on a contract that had substantial connection with
California. A state has a manifest interest in providing effective
In the case, it is not disputed that the bank was under a means of redress for its residents when their insurers refuse to
conservator placed by the Central Bank of the Philippines during pay claims.
the time that the negotiation and perfection of the contract of
sale took place. Moreover, there was absolutely no evidence that Discussion. The Supreme Court, in considering fact the contract
the Conservator, at the time the contract was perfected, actually was delivered in California, the premiums were mailed from there
repudiated or overruled said contract of sale. The bank never and the insured was a resident of California when he died,
objected to the sale, what it unilaterally repudiated was—not the combined with the recognition that modern transportation and
contract —but the authority of Rivera to make a binding offer — communication have made it much less burdensome for a party
and which unarguably came months after the perfection of the sued to defend themselves in a state where they conduct
contract. business, found that it did not violate just and fair play for the
California court to enter a binding agreement on International
The conservator’s authority would be only to bring court actions Life. Moreover, the Court reasoned that California residents
to assail such contracts —as he has already done so in the instant would be at a severe disadvantage if they had to leave their own
case. A contrary understanding of the law would simply not be state to obtain payment from their insurance company.
permitted by the Constitution. Neither by common sense. To rule
otherwise would be to enable a failing bank to become solvent, at
the expense of third parties, by simply getting the conservator to
unilaterally revoke all previous dealings which had one way or SPOUSES ALFREDO D. VALMONTE and MARIA LOURDES A.
another or come to be considered unfavorable to the Bank, VALMONTE v. CLARITA ALCALA
yielding nothing to perfected contractual rights nor vested
G.R. No. 168667, 23 July 2008, SECOND DIVISION, (Brion, J.)
interests of the third parties who had dealt with the Bank.

The Court does not consider the variance between the dates as
McGee v. International Life Insurance Co
fatal to the Valmontes’ case because the variance did not
Brief Fact Summary. A California resident and the beneficiary of a necessarily lead to the conclusion that no verification was made,
life insurance policy, sued an insurance company when the or that the verification was false. More importantly, the variance
company failed to pay following the death of the insured. totally lost significance after the Valmontes sent from the US and
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A state court’s jurisdiction satisfies due submitted to the CA the required Verification/Certification in
process when it is based on a contract with substantial connection compliance with their previously manifested intent. As this Court
with that state. noted in a case where compliance with a certificate of non-forum
shopping was at issue, the fact that the Rules require strict
Facts. In 1944, Lowell Franklin, a resident of California, purchased compliance merely underscores its mandatory nature; it cannot be
a life insurance policy form an insurer subsequently bought by dispensed with or its requirements altogether disregarded, but it
Defendant International Life Insurance Co., who then mailed a does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its
reinsurance certificate to Franklin in California offering to insure provisions under justifiable circumstances, as we find in this case.
him. Franklin accepted the offer and paid premiums by mail from
his California home to Defendant’s office in Texas until his death
in 1950. When the beneficiary, Plaintiff McGee, notified
Facts: The Spouses Alfredo and Maria Lourdes Valmonte are the
Defendant of Franklin’s death, they refused to pay. Neither the
unregistered owners of Apartment No. 1411 which they leased to
original insurer nor respondent ever had any office or agent in
respondent Alcala, since they were migrating to the United States.
California.
Due to Alcala’s subsequent failure to pay the agreed rentals
despite written demand, the Spouses Valmonte filed a complaint
for unlawful detainer against her before the Metropolitan Trial The Court finds this conclusion erroneous for the following
Court (MTC). As the Spouses Valmonte were already US residents reasons:
at that time, they signed the required Verification/Certification of
Non-Forum Shopping of their complaint before a notary public in
the state of Washington, and had this Verification/Certification
First, the variance in dates does not necessarily contradict the
authenticated by the Philippine Consulate General in San
categorical declaration made by Valmontes in their affidavit that
Francisco. The MTC ruled in favor of the Spouses Valmonte,
they read and understood the contents of the pleading. The
however, it was reversed by the Regional Trial Court on appeal by
Valmontes’ claim in this regard is that they read a copy of the CA
Alcala.
Petition through an electronic mail (e-mail) sent to them by their
The Spouses Valmonte filed a Petition for Review (CA Petition) lawyers. The Court finds this claim, under the circumstances more
with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed. The Spouses fully discussed below, to be a reasonable explanation of why a
Valmonte then filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was variance in dates existed. We should not lose sight of the reality
likewise denied by the CA, on the ground that while the that pleadings are prepared and signed by the counsel at the
verification/certification was purportedly executed on March 17, instructions of the client; the latter merely provides the
2005, the petition is dated March 31, 2005. Hence, this petition. supporting facts of the pleading and, as needed, verifies that the
allegations are true and correct. In short, the pleading and the
verification are prepared separately and a variance in their dates
is a matter that may satisfactorily be explained. To demand the
ISSUE: litigants to read the very same document that is to be filed before
the courts is too rigorous a requirement; what the Rules require is
Whether or not the variance between the dates of the
for a party to read the contents of a pleading without any specific
Verification/Certification that the Valmontes executed abroad and
requirement on the form or manner in which the reading is to be
the CA Petition conclude that they did not read the petition
done. That a client may read the contents of a pleading without
before it was filed in court
seeing the same pleading to be actually filed with the court is, in
these days of e-mails and other technological advances in
communication, not an explanation that is hard to believe.
HELD: Apparently in this case, counsel sent a copy of the draft petition
by e- mail and finalized it as soon as it was approved by the
Petition GRANTED.
Valmontes. The latter, on the other hand, complied with their end
Generally, a pleading is not required to be verified unless required not only by approving the terms of the petition, but also by
by law or by the Rules of Court. One such requirement is found in sending a copy of their sworn statement (as yet unauthenticated)
Section 1 of Rule 42 which requires a party appealing from a in order to file the petition soonest, thereby complying with the
decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate required timeliness for the filing of the petition. To the Court’s
jurisdiction to file a verified petition for review with the CA. mind, beyond the manner of these exchanges, what is important
is that efforts were made to satisfy the objective of the Rule – to
Verification, when required, is intended to secure an assurance ensure good faith and veracity in the allegations of a pleading –
that the allegations of a pleading are true and correct; are not thereby allowing the courts to act on the case with reasonable
speculative or merely imagined; and have been made in good certainty that the Valmontes’ real positions have been pleaded.
faith. To achieve this purpose, the verification of a pleading is
made through an affidavit or sworn statement confirming that the
affiant has read the pleading whose allegations are true and
Second, the “circumstances” the Court mentioned above refer to
correct of the affiant’s personal knowledge or based on authentic
the Valmontes’ unique situation as parties residing overseas who
records.
are litigating locally through their local counsel. While these
overseas litigants are not excused from complying with our Rules
such as the strict observance of the periods for appeal and the
Apparently, the CA concluded that no real verification, as above verification requirement, we must take into account the
required, had been undertaken since the CA Petition was dated attendant realities brought into play because they are suing from
March 31, 2005 while the Verification/Certification carried an overseas or via long distance communications with their counsel.
earlier date – March 17, 2005; the petition “was still inexistent” In the verification requirement, there are added formalities
when the Verification/Certification was executed. required for the acceptance in the Philippines of statements
sworn overseas before foreign notaries; we require their
authentication by our consulates. This is a process whose
completion time may vary depending, among others, on various
factors such as the location of the requesting party from the complaint through their lawyers and had read and understood the
consulate; the peculiarities of foreign laws on notaries; the allegations of the complaint. The material facts alleged in the CA
volume of transactions in a consulate, noting particularly the time Petition are likewise stated in the records of the case, as part of
of year when the authentication is requested; and the mode of the findings of facts made by the MTC and the RTC. Verification as
sending the authenticated documents to the Philippines. to the truth of these facts in the petition for review before the CA
Apparently compelled by one or a combination of these reasons, was, therefore, strictly a redundancy; its filing remained a
the Valmontes in fact manifested when they filed their petition necessity only because the Rules on the filing of a petition for
(on March 31, 2005) that they were submitting a photostatic copy review before the CA require it. This consideration could have led
of the Verification/Certification executed in Washington on March to a more equitable treatment of the Valmontes’ failure to strictly
17, 2005 since the original was still with the Philippine Consulate comply with the Rules, additionally justified by the fact that the
in San Francisco for authentication. The Court takes judicial notice failure to comply with the rules on verification is a formal rather
that the Valmontes’ request for authentication coincided with the than a jurisdictional defect.
observance of the Holy Week – a traditional period of prayer and
holidays in the Philippines, for the Philippines’ foreign embassies In sum, the Court finds sufficient justification to rule – under the
and consulates, and even for Filipinos overseas. The Court finds it circumstances of this case – that the CA committed a reversible
significant that, conformably with their Manifestation, the error when it dismissed the petition for failure to strictly follow
Valmontes’ counsel filed on April 8, 2005 the duly sworn and the verification requirements. Stated otherwise, the Court does
authenticated Verification as soon as counsel received it. Under not consider the variance between the dates as fatal to the
these circumstances, there is every reason for an equitable and Valmontes’ case because the variance did not necessarily lead to
relaxed application of the rules to the Valmontes’ situation. the conclusion that no verification was made, or that the
verification was false. More importantly, the variance totally lost
significance after the Valmontes sent from the US and submitted
to the CA the required Verification/Certification in compliance
Third, the Court discerns utmost good faith on the part of the with their previously manifested intent. As this Court noted in a
Valmontes when they filed their Manifestation about their case where compliance with a certificate of non-forum shopping
problem, intent, and plan of compliance with the verification was at issue, the fact that the Rules require strict compliance
requirement. They in fact stated early on through this merely underscores its mandatory nature; it cannot be dispensed
Manifestation that their verification had been executed on March with or its requirements altogether disregarded, but it does not
17, 2005 in Washington, that is, at a date much earlier than the thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under
filing of their petition and manifestation. Unfortunately, the CA justifiable circumstances, as we find in this case.
failed to note the variance in dates at the earliest opportunity;
thus, the CA dismissed the petition on some other ground, only to
hark back later on to the variance in dates in their reconsideration
of the earlier dismissal. Given this good faith and the early
disclosure, it was basically unfair for the CA – who had earlier
EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 111 S. Ct. 1227, 113 L.
overlooked the variance in dates – to subsequently make this
Ed. 2d 274, 1991 U.S. LEXIS 1855, 59 U.S.L.W. 4225, 55 Fair Empl.
ground the basis of yet another dismissal of the petition. The CA –
Prac. Cas. (BNA) 449, 55 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P40,607 (U.S.
after overlooking the variance in dates at the first opportunity –
Mar. 26, 1991)
should have at least asked for the petitioners’ explanation on why
the variance should not be an additional ground for the dismissal Brief Fact Summary
of the petition, instead of reflecting in their order on Boureslan (Plaintiff), an American working abroad for Aramco
reconsideration that it could have granted the motion for (Defendant), an American corporation, claimed employment
reconsideration based on attachments already made, but there discrimination in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
existed another reason – the variance in dates – for maintaining
the dismissal of the petition. Synopsis of Rule of Law.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act does not apply to American employers
abroad.

Fourth, the Court notes that most of the material allegations set Facts
forth by the Valmontes in their CA Petition are already in their Boureslan (Plaintiff) had been an employee of Arabian American
complaint for unlawful detainer filed before the MTC on April 26, Oil Co. (Aramco) (Defendant), working in Saudia Arabia. He was
2002. Attached to the complaint was a Verification/Certification discharged, and afterward filed a suit in U.S. District Court,
dated March 18, 2002 (authenticated by the Philippine Consulate claiming employment discrimination on the basis of race, religion,
in San Francisco on March 27, 2002) in which the Valmontes and national origin, in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The
declared under oath that they had caused the preparation of the
district court dismissed, ruling that the Act did not have Conclusion
extraterritorial application. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, and the
Supreme Court granted review. No. In a 5-3 opinion delivered by Justice Stephen Breyer, the
Court held that the federal law's phrase, "convicted in any court,"
Issue encompassed only domestic, not foreign, convictions. The
Does the 1964 Civil Rights Act apply to American employers majority reasoned that in determining the scope of the phrase, it
abroad? was appropriate to assume Congress had domestic concerns in
mind. Moreover, the statute's overall language suggested no
Held intent to reach beyond domestic convictions.
(Rehnquist, C.J.) No. The 1964 Civil Rights Act does not apply
to American employers abroad. The only determination to make
in this issue is the intent to Congress. The analysis begins with
the presumption that laws are not intended to have SIM v. NLRC
extraterritorial application. To reach a contrary conclusion, a
G.R. No. 157376
court must find clear evidence of legislative intent. The Act
contains no language to this effect. The jurisdictional language Petitioner: CORAZON C. SIM
in the statute, while broad, is unclear regarding extraterritorial
application. In addition, the Act provides no mechanisms for Respondents: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND
foreign enforcements and contains no provisions for conflicts with EQUITABLE PCI-BANK
foreign laws, as most statutes with foreign application do. In
Petition: Illegal dismissal; Appeal by Certiorari under Rule 45 of
this case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
the Rules of Court
(Plaintiff), which has intervened, urges extraterritorial
application. Courts must show some regard to administrative FACTS:
agency interpretations of law, but the final decision must be left
to the courts. It seems clear in this case that Congress did not 1. Corazon Sim filed a case for illegal dismissal with the
intend the Act to have foreign application. Affirmed. Labor Arbiter, alleging that she was initially employed by
Equitable PCI-Bank in 1990 as Italian Remittance
Discussion Marketing Consultant to the Frankfurt Representative
The presumption against extraterritorial application of a law is Office.
merely that, a presumption. It does not address the power of
Congress to legislate in such a manner. This power, without 2. Eventually, she was promoted to Manager position, until
doubt, exists. It is universally recognized in international law September 1999, when she received a letter from
that a government can legislate regarding the activities of its Remegio David -- the Senior Officer, European Head of
citizens abroad. PCIBank, and Managing Director of PCIB- Europe --
informing her that she was being dismissed due to loss of
trust and confidence based on alleged mismanagement
and misappropriation of funds.
Small v. United States
3. Equitable PCI Bank denied any employer-employee
Facts of the case
relationship between them, and sought the dismissal of
Federal law made gun possession illegal for any person "convicted the complaint.
in any court" for crimes punishable by more than a year in prison.
4. The Labor Arbiter rendered its Decision dismissing the
A Japanese court convicted Gary Sherwood Small for crimes
case for want of jurisdiction and/or lack of merit.
punishable by a prison term longer than one year. Years later a
According to the Labor Arbiter: It should be stressed at
U.S. District Court convicted Small, because of his prior conviction,
this juncture that the labor relations system in the
of illegally possessing a gun. Small appealed and argued the term
Philippines has no extra-territorial jurisdiction. It is
"convicted in any court" did not include convictions in foreign
limited to the relationship between labor and capital
courts. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Small.
within the Philippines.
Question
5. Sim was accused of withdrawing P3,000,000.00 lire from
Federal law made gun possession illegal for any person "convicted the bank's account.
in any court" for crimes punishable by more than a year in prison.
6. Sim does not deny withdrawing the said amount. What
Does "convicted in any court" include convictions in foreign
she submits is that she used said amount for the Radio
courts?
Pilipinas sa Roma radio program of the company.
7. Equitable PCI-Bank countered that at the time Sim 6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social
withdrew said amount, the radio program was already Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other
off the air. She is a managerial employee. Thus, loss of claims, arising from employer-employee relations,
trust and confidence is a valid ground for her dismissal. including those of persons in domestic or household
service, involving an amount of exceeding five thousand
pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied
with a claim for reinstatement.
ISSUE/S:
(b) The commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
1. Whether or not the Labor Relations System of the
all cases decided by Labor Arbiters.
Philippines has extraterritorial jurisdiction

2. Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission


has jurisdiction over overseas Filipino workers Moreover, Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, or the
Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, provides:

RULING/RATIO: Yes to both issues. The Labor relations system in


the Philippines has extra-territorial jurisdiction and the Labor SECTION 10. Money Claims. — Notwithstanding any provision of
Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) have law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor
jurisdiction to hear and decide, within the claims arising out of an Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive
employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days
contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an
including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or
damages. contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment
including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of
damages.
Article 217 of the Labor Code provides for the jurisdiction of the
Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission, viz.:
Also, Section 62 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations
Implementing R.A. No. 8042 provides that the Labor Arbiters of
ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. – (a) the NLRC shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear
Except as otherwise provided under this Code the Labor Arbiters and decide all claims arising out of employer-employee
shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino
within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual,
the parties for decision without extension, even in the absence of moral, exemplary and other forms of damages, subject to the
stenographic notes, the following cases involving all workers, rules and procedures of the NLRC. In Philippine National Bank v.
whether agricultural or non-agricultural: Cabansag, the Court pronounced:

1. Unfair labor practice cases;

2. Termination disputes; “Whether employed locally or overseas, all Filipino workers enjoy
the protective mantle of Philippine labor and social legislation,
3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those contract stipulations to the contrary notwithstanding. This
cases that workers may file involving wage, rates of pay, pronouncement is in keeping with the basic public policy of the
hours of work and other terms and conditions of State to afford protection to labor, promote full employment,
employment; ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed,
and regulate the relations between workers and employers. For
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of
the State assures the basic rights of all workers to self-
damages arising from the employer-employee relations;
organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this and humane conditions of work [Article 3 of the Labor Code of the
Code, including questions involving the legality of strikes Philippines; See also Section 18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII,
and lockouts; and 1987 Constitution]. This ruling is likewise rendered imperative by
Article 17 of the Civil Code which states that laws "which have for
their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not
be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by Ruling:
determination or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country."
Physical violence is only the most visible form of abuse.
Psychological abuse, particularly forced social and economic
isolation of women, is also common."[30] In this regard, Section 3
DISPOSITIVE: Petition was denied due to procedural issues. The of R.A. No. 9262 made it a point to encompass in a non-limiting
CA did not commit any error in dismissing the petition before it manner the various forms of violence that may be committed
for failure to file a prior motion for reconsideration with the NLRC. against women and their children... what R.A. No. 9262
The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC's factual findings as regards the criminalizes is not the marital infidelity per se but the
validity of petitioner's dismissal are accorded great weight and psychological violence causing mental or emotional suffering on
respect and even finality when the same are supported by the wife.
substantial evidence.
Marital infidelity as cited in the law is only one of the various acts
by which psychological violence may be committed... the mental
or emotional suffering of the victim is an essential and distinct
DOCTRINE: Labor arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction
element in the commission of the offense.
over claims arising from employer-employee relations, including
termination disputes involving all workers, among whom are Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262 is that the law contemplates that acts
overseas Filipino workers. of violence against women and their children may manifest as
transitory or continuing crimes

We say that even if the alleged extra marital affair causing the
AAA v. BBB, GR No. 212448, 2018-01-11
offended wife mental and emotional anguish is committed
Facts: abroad, the same does not place a prosecution under R.A. No.
9262 absolutely beyond the reach of Philippine courts.
AAA and BBB were married on August 1, 2006 in Quezon City.
Their union produced two children: CCC was born on March 4,
2007 and DDD on October 1, 2009.
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2013)
BBB started working in Singapore as a chef, where he acquired
Facts of the case
permanent resident status
Supap Kirtsaeng came to the United States from Thailand in 1997.
BBB sent little to no financial support,... compelled her to fly extra
He obtained an undergraduate degree at Cornell University
hours and take on additional jobs to augment her income as a
before being accepted into a PhD program at the University of
flight attendant... allegations of virtual abandonment,
Southern California. To subsidize the cost of his education,
mistreatment of her and their son CCC, and physical and sexual
Kirtsaeng asked friends and family in Thailand to buy copies of
violence. To make matters worse, BBB supposedly started having
textbooks in Thailand and to ship those books to him in the
an affair with a Singaporean woman
United States. Kirstaeng then sold the textbooks on eBay at a
AAA and BBB had a violent altercation at a hotel room in profit. Among the books Kirtsaeng sold, were eight textbooks
Singapore during her visit with their kids. printed in Asia by John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

AAA was also able to secure a Hold-Departure Order against BBB Wiley sued Kirtsaeng in district court for copyright infringement
who continued to evade the warrant of arres under Section 602(a)(1) of the Copyright Act, which makes it
impermissible to import a work "without the authority of the
Granting the motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction owner." Kirtsaeng asserted a defense under Section 109(a) of the
and thereby dismissing the case, the trial court Copyright Act, which allows the owner of a copy "lawfully made
under this title" to sell or otherwise dispose of the copy without
Granting the motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
the copyright owner's permission. The district court rejected
and thereby dismissing the case, the trial court r
Kirtsaeng's argument, and held that the doctrine was inapplicable
Issues: to goods manufactured in a foreign country.

whether or not Philippine courts are deprived of territorial Kirtsaeng appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
jurisdiction over a criminal charge of psychological abuse under Second Circuit. A divided panel acknowledged that it was a
R.A. No. 9262 when committed through marital infidelity and the difficult question of statutory construction, but the majority held
alleged illicit relationship took place outside the Philippines. that Section 109(a) referred specifically to works that are made in
the United States and did not apply to works manufactured English-language versions of his textbooks there, where they were
abroad. Kirtsaeng's request for rehearing was denied, and he cheaper, and mail them to him. Kirtsaeng would then sell the
appealed the appellate court's decision. textbooks in America, where they were worth more, reimburse
his friends and family, and make a profit.
Question
In 2008, Wiley sued Kirtsaeng for copyright infringement. The case
If a copy was made legally, acquired abroad and then imported went to the U.S. Supreme Court on the question of whether
into the United States, can that foreign-made copy ever be resold Kirtsaeng was barred from asserting an affirmative defense
within the United States without the copyright owner's because the copyrighted works in question were manufactured
permission under Section 602(a)(1) and Section 109(a) of the abroad. The Court held that the affirmative defense was available
copyright act? to Kirtsaeng and remanded the case. Kirtsaeng won the case on
remand and sought an award of attorneys' fees and
Conclusion
reimbursement of litigation expenses pursuant to Section 505 of
Yes. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion of the 6-3 the Copyright Act. The district court held that Section 505
majority. The Supreme Court held that there was no geographic provides that the court may “in its discretion” award attorney’s
restriction on the "first sale" doctrine, which states that the fees but is not bound to do so. Because Wiley’s suit was not
copyright owner maintains control of the first sale only. The “frivolous” or “objectively unreasonable,” the district court held
language and common-law history of the Copyright Act support a that awarding Kirtsaeng attorney’s fees would “not promote the
non-geographic reading of the Act that allows for unrestricted purposes of the Copyright Act.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
resale of copyrighted goods regardless of the location of their Second Circuit affirmed.
manufacture. The Court also held that a geography-based reading
Question
of the "first sale" doctrine would drastically harm the used-book
business as it would force book sellers to be subject to the whim What constitutes the appropriate standard for awarding
of foreign copyright holders. attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party under Section 505 of the
Copyright Act?
In her concurring opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the
majority's decision did not limit copyright protection for copyright Conclusion
owners any further than previous decisions had. She argued that a
stricter reading of copyright protection goes against the When deciding whether to grant attorney’s fees under Section
demonstrated legislative intent of the Act. Justice Samuel A. Alito, 505 of the Copyright Act, courts should give substantial weight to
Jr. joined in the concurrence. the objective reasonableness of the losing party’s position, but
that determination should not be the controlling factor. Justice
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion in which Elena Kagan delivered the opinion for the unanimous Court, which
she argued that the majority's opinion runs counter to the held that, while the objective reasonableness of the losing party’s
Copyright Act's purpose of protecting copyright owners from the position should be given substantial weight, the court retained
importation of low-cost versions of their products. The language discretion to consider that factor in light of other relevant
and legislative history of the Copyright Act indicate that Congress considerations. While the language of Section 505 clearly granted
did not intend the "first sale" doctrine to apply to copies a court discretion in awarding attorney’s fees, the Supreme Court
manufactured abroad. She also argued that the majority's opinion had created some restrictions that advanced the overall goals of
drastically shifts the government's policy in regards to the Copyright Act -- to encourage creation while allowing others
international copyright agreements. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy to build on previous work. The objective reasonableness factor for
and Justice Antonin Scalia joined in the dissent. determining fee awards furthered useful copyright litigation
because it encouraged both parties to advance strong legal
positions and deterred frivolous suits based on weak claims.
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons (2016) However, any fee award analysis must take into account more
than only this factor, as others were relevant to the court’s
Facts of the case determination.

Academic textbook publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (Wiley) owns
the American copyright for textbooks and often assigns its rights
to its foreign subsidiaries to publish, print, and sell its textbooks
abroad. Supap Kirtsaeng is a Thai citizen who came to the United
States in 1997 to study mathematics. While he was in the United
States, Kirtsaeng asked friends and family in Thailand to buy the
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore citizens by prohibiting deceptive trade practices. State
sovereignty, however, prevents states from imposing economic
Brief Fact Summary. The Respondent, Ira Gore, Jr. (Respondent), sanctions with the intent of changing the tortfeasors’ lawful
purchased a new BMW and later learned that the car had been conduct in other States. Alabama does not have the power to
repainted. In a suit for suppression of a material fact, the punish petitioner for conduct that was lawful where it occurred
Respondent was awarded $2 million in punitive damages. The and had no impact on Alabama.
Petitioner, BMW of North America, Inc. (Petitioner), appeals, * Three guideposts lead the Supreme Court of the United States
claiming the punitive damages award is grossly excessive. (Supreme Court) to the determination that the $2 million award
against Petitioner is grossly excessive: (i) the degree of
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Due Process Clause of the 14th reprehensibility; (ii) the disparity between the harm suffered and
Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution) limits the punitive damage award; and (iii) the difference between this
the amount recoverable in punitive damages when the damages remedy and civil penalties authorized in comparable cases.
constitute grossly excessive punishment for a tortfeasor. * First, the degree of reprehensibility. Nonviolent crimes are less
serious than violent crimes. Trickery and deceit is more
reprehensible than negligence. The harm Petitioner inflicted was
Facts. The Respondent purchased a BMW sports sedan from an
purely economic in nature. There is no evidence Petitioner acted
authorized BMW dealer in Birmingham, Alabama. After
in bad faith. Petitioner reasonably relied on state disclosure
approximately nine months, Respondent took the car to an
statutes, allowing the car sales in this case in most states. Based
independent detailer to have the car detailed. The proprietor of
on these facts, Petitioner’s conduct was not sufficiently
the independent detailer detected evidence that the car had been
reprehensible to warrant a $2 million exemplary damages award.
repainted. The repainting was done by BMW to repair acid rain
* Second, the ratio between the harm suffered and the punitive
damage that occurred when the car was in transit from Germany.
damage award. There must be a reasonable relationship between
Respondent brought suit against the Petitioner alleging that the
the punitive damages award and the compensatory damages.
failure to disclose the fact that the car had been repainted
Although the Supreme Court refuses to draw a mathematical
constituted suppression of a material fact. At trial, Petitioner
bright line, this punitive damages award is 500 times the amount
acknowledged it had adopted a nationwide policy of selling cars
of the actual harm determined by the jury. This exceptional
as new without advising the dealer that any repairs had been
difference raises suspicions.
made when the repair cost did not exceed three percent of the
* Third, sanctions for comparable misconduct. Substantial
suggested retail price. At trial, Respondent introduced evidence
deference should be given to legislative judgments concerning
that his repainted car was worth less than a car that had not been
appropriate sanctions for the conduct at issue. In this case, the
refinished. In support of a punitive damages claim, he introduced
punitive damages were tantamount to that of a severe criminal
evidence that since 1983 Petitioner had sold nine hundred eighty
penalty. This Court believes that based on these three guidelines,
three refinished cars as new, including fourteen in Alabama.
the punitive damage award imposed, violates the constitutional
Petitioner disputed evidence that refinished cars were worth less,
limit of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
argued that its good-faith belief made punitive damages
inappropriate and that transactions other than Alabama had no
Dissent. Justice Antonin Scalia’s (J. Scalia) dissent, in which Justice
relevance to respondent’s claim. The jury found Petitioner liable
Clarence Thomas (J. Thomas) joined, is omitted. Justice Ruth
for $4,000 in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive
Bader Ginsburg’s (J. Ginsburg) dissent, in which the Chief Justice
damages. The trial judge denied Petitioner’s motion to set aside
joined, is omitted.
the punitive damages, finding that it was not grossly excessive,
Concurrence. Justice Stephen Breyer’s (J. Breyer) concurrence, in
and therefore did not violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th
which Justice Sandra Day O’Conner (J. O’Connor) and Justice
Amendment of the Constitution. After post-trial motions, the
David Souter (J. Souter) joined, is omitted.
Alabama Supreme Court reduced the award to $2 million on the
ground that the jury improperly multiplied Gore’s compensatory
Discussion. On remand, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered a
damages by the number of similar sales in all States.
remittitur of the punitive damages award to $50,000 and
Respondent accepted.
Issue. Was the $2 million punitive damages award to the
purchaser of a refinished car grossly excessive, so as to violate the
Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution?

Held. Yes. Judgment reversed and case remanded.


* Punitive damages may be imposed to further a State’s
legitimate interests in punishing unlawful conduct and deterring
its repetition. States have considerable flexibility to protect its
Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd with its barrier-removal provisions clearly would affect the
internal order of the ship because the physical aspect of the ship
Brief Fact Summary. A class action which sought declarative and would be altered and some of this is related to safety, which
injunctive relief against the Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd (NCL) (D) under international law traditionally has been the province of the
under the Title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination ship’s flag state. This would not be in consonance with the
based on disability was filed by disabled individuals (P) and their International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and
companions (P) who had bought tickets for round-trip cruises other similar inconsistencies might exist between the structural
from a U.S. port. requirements of Title III and the disability laws of other countries.
According, the ADA should not apply to foreign-flag cruise ships in
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Title III of the Americans with
U.S. waters.
Disabilities Act does not seek to regulate a vessel’s internal affairs
but it is applies to foreign-flag ships in U.S. waters. Discussion. Unlike the statute’s unambiguous general terms, the
clear-statement rul is an implied limitation and operates much
Facts. With its principal place of business in Miami, Florida, NCL
like other implied rules, which avoid applications of otherwise
(D), a Bermuda Corporation, operated cruise ships that departed
unambiguous statutes that would intrude on sensitive domains in
from and returned to port in the United States. A large chunk of
a way that Congress is unlikely to have intended had it considered
the company’s revenue came from the U.S but almost all of NCL’s
the matter.
(D) vessels were registered in other countries. A class action was
An all-or-nothing approach to the rule was avoided by the court in
brought against the cruise company by disabled individuals (P)
this case, under which a statute is altogether inapplicable if but
and their companions (P) who had purchased tickets for round-
one of its specific applications trenches on the domain protected
trip cruises from a U.S. port.
by a clear-statement rule. This approach taking would change the
The plaintiffs sought declarative and injunctive relief against NCL
clear-statement rule from a principle of interpretive caution into a
(D) under the Title III of the ADA, which prohibit discrimination.
trap for an unwary Congress, which would require the
Because the ADA does not apply to foreign-flag vessels in U.S.
cancellation of the entire statute or of some arbitrary set of
territory absent a clear indication of congressional intent to the
applications larger than the domain the rule protects.
contrary, the court of appeals dismissed the claim. But the U.S.
Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue. Does the Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act seek Pennoyer v. Neff
to regulate a vessel’s internal affairs and does it applies to
foreign-flag ships in U.S. waters? Citation. 95 U.S. 714, 5 Otto 714, 24 L. Ed. 565 (1878).

Held. (kennedy, J.) Yes. The Title III of the Americans with Brief Fact Summary. Defendant Neff was being sued by Mitchell
Disabilities Act does not seek to regulate a vessel’s internal affairs in Oregon for unpaid legal fees. A default judgment was entered
but it is applies to foreign-flag ships in U.S. waters. It is only when against Defendant for his failure to come to court or otherwise
the of the United States or its citizens rather than the interest resist the lawsuit, despite the fact that he was not personally
internal to the ship are at stake that the general statutes are served with process, nor was a resident of Oregon. Later, in an
presumed to apply to conduct that takes place aboard a foreign- attempt to collect upon his judgment, Mitchell attached land
flag vessel in U.S. territory. located in Oregon belonging to Defendant, and had it sold to
The absence of a clear statement of congressional intent is the Plaintiff Pennoyer through a Sheriff’s sale.
narrow exception to this presumption which is based on
international comity, and the general statute is not applicable to Synopsis of Rule of Law. Proceedings in a court of law to
foreign-flag vessels as to matters involving order and discipline of determine the personal rights and obligations of parties over
the vessel. If the Title III were to be read to require permanent whom the court has not jurisdiction are invalid for want of due
and significant structural modifications to foreign vessels, then process of law.
clear-statement rule would most likely come into play. Otherwise,
Title III is applicable to NCL’s (D) foreign-flag cruise ship. Reversed
and remanded. Facts. Mitchell, a lawyer, sued Defendant, his client, in Oregon
state court for unpaid legal fees. At the time Defendant was a
Dissent. (Scalia, J) It is when laws interfere with the regulation of
non-resident of the state who was not personally served with
a ship internal order that the clear-statement rule comes into play
process. Constructive service was issued upon Defendant by
and this is designed to promote international comity and avoid
publication. Defendant did not come to court or otherwise resist
international discord. It is not applicable in situation whereby the
the lawsuit, and default judgment was entered against him. After
pervasive regulation of the internal order of a ship is not present.
the default judgment, Defendant acquired 300 acres of land in
The structural modifications needed under Title III for compliance
Oregon. To satisfy his judgment against Defendant, Mitchell had
the sheriff seize and sell Defendant’s land. The land was Asiavest CDCP Sdn. Bhd. and Construction and Development
purchased by Plaintiff, who received a sheriff’s deed as evidence Corporation of the Philippines.”
of title. The sheriff then turned the sale proceeds over to Mitchell.
Shortly after the sheriff’s sale, Defendant discovered what had Petitioner sought to recover the indemnity of the performance
happened to his land and brought suit against Plaintiff to recover bond it had put up in favor of private respondent to guarantee the
the land. This appeal followed after Defendant lost his suit against completion of the Felda Project and the nonpayment of the loan it
Plaintiff. extended to Asiavest-CDCP Sdn. Bhd. for the completion of Paloh
Hanai and Kuantan By Pass; Project.
Issue. Can judgments obtained against non-residents who fail to
appear in court be sustained by default judgments where service The High Court of Malaya (Commercial Division) rendered
of process is accomplished solely through publication (i.e. judgment in favor of the petitioner and against the private
constructive service)? respondent. Following unsuccessful attempts to secure payment
Is constructive service sufficient notice to attach property within from private respondent under the judgment, petitioner initiated
the forum state owned by a non-resident? the complaint before RTC of Pasig, Metro Manila, to enforce the
judgment of the High Court of Malaya.
Held. No. The personal judgment recovered in the state court of
Oregon against Plaintiff was without validity, and the decision of Private respondent sought the dismissal of the case via a Motion
the Court of Appeals overturning that judgment was affirmed. to Dismiss, contending that the alleged judgment of the High
When a suit is merely in personam (i.e. against a person), Court of Malaya should be denied recognition or enforcement
constructive service through publication upon a non-resident is since on in face, it is tainted with want of jurisdiction, want of
ineffective. notice to private respondent, collusion and/or fraud, and there is
a clear mistake of law or fact. Dismissal was, however, denied by
No state can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over the trial court considering that the grounds relied upon are not
persons or property without its territory. However, a state may the proper grounds in a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the
subject property within its boundaries to the payments of its Revised Rules of Court.
citizens, even when the land is owned by a non-resident, without
infringing upon the sovereignty of the state of residency of the Subsequently, private respondent filed its Answer with
landowner. Compulsory Counter claim’s and therein raised the grounds it
brought up in its motion to dismiss. In its Reply filed, the
petitioner contended that the High Court of Malaya acquired
Discussion. Here the Supreme Court of the United States is jurisdiction over the person of private respondent by its voluntary
distinguishing between suits in personam, and in rem. An in submission the court’s jurisdiction through its appointed counsel.
personam suit is a suit against a person, whose purpose is to Furthermore, private respondent’s counsel waived any and all
determine the personal rights and obligations of the defendant. objections to the High Court’s jurisdiction in a pleading filed
An in rem action, meanwhile, is an action where jurisdiction before the court.
pertains to property. Thus the court reasoned that constructive
service is sufficient to inform parties of action taken against any In due time, the trial court rendered its decision dismissing
properties owned by them within the forum state, because petitioner’s complaint. Petitioner interposed an appeal with the
property is always in possession of the owner, and seizure of the Court of Appeals, but the appellate court dismissed the same and
property will inform the owner of legal action taken against him. affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in denying recognition and


enforcement to the Malaysian Court judgment.
ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD vs. CA and PNCC
G.R. No. 110263, July 20, 2001 Ruling: Yes.

Facts: Petitioner Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad is a Generally, in the absence of a special compact, no sovereign is
corporation organized under the laws of Malaysia while private bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered
respondent Philippine National Construction Corporation is a by a tribunal of another country; however, the rules of comity,
corporation duly incorporated and existing under Philippine laws. utility and convenience of nations have established a usage
among civilized states by which final judgments of foreign courts
Petitioner initiated a suit for collection against private of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered
respondent, then known as Construction and Development efficacious under certain conditions that may vary in different
Corporation of the Philippines, before the High Court of Malaya in countries.
Kuala Lumpur entitled “Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad v.
In this jurisdiction, a valid judgment rendered by a foreign tribunal Kuala Lumpur in a series of dates where private respondent was
may be recognized insofar as the immediate parties and the represented by counsel; and that the end result of all these
underlying cause of action are concerned so long as it is proceedings is the judgment sought to be enforced.
convincingly shown that there has been an opportunity for a full
and fair hearing before a court of competent jurisdiction; that the In addition to the said testimonial evidence, petitioner also
trial upon regular proceedings has been conducted, following due offered the documentary evidence to support their claim.
citation or voluntary appearance of the defendant and under a
Having thus proven, through the foregoing evidence, the
system of jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial
existence and authenticity of the foreign judgment, said foreign
administration of justice; and that there is nothing to indicate
judgment enjoys presumptive validity and the burden then fell
either a prejudice in court and in the system of laws under which
upon the party who disputes its validity, herein private
it is sitting or fraud in procuring the judgment.
respondent, to prove otherwise. However, private respondent
A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the failed to sufficiently discharge the burden that fell upon it – to
country from which it comes, until a contrary showing, on the prove by clear and convincing evidence the grounds which it
basis of a presumption of regularity of proceedings and the giving relied upon to prevent enforcement of the Malaysian High Court
of due notice in the foreign forum Under Section 50(b), Rule 39 of judgment.
the Revised Rules of Court, which was the governing law at the
Banco do Brasil vs CA
time the instant case was decided by the trial court and
respondent appellate court, a judgment, against a person, of a Petitioner: BANCO DO BRASIL
tribunal of a foreign country having jurisdiction to pronounce the
same is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties Respondents: THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ARSENIO M.
and their successors in interest by a subsequent title. The GONONG, and CESAR S. URBINO, SR.
judgment may, however, be assailed by evidence of want of
Topic: Extra-territorial service of summons;
jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear
mistake of law or fact. In addition, under Section 3(n), Rule 131 of Facts:
the Revised Rules of Court, a court, whether in the Philippines or
elsewhere, enjoys the presumption that it was acting in the lawful Cesar Urbino, Sr. sued Poro Point Shipping Services for damages
exercise of its jurisdiction. Hence, once the authenticity of the the former incurred when one of the latter’s ship ran aground
foreign judgment is proved, the party attacking a foreign causing losses to Urbino. Urbino impleaded Banco Do Brasil
judgment, is tasked with the burden of overcoming its (BDB), a foreign corporation not engaged in business in the
presumptive validity. Philippines nor does it have any office here or any agent. BDB was
impleaded simply because it has a claim over the sunken ship.
In the instant case, petitioner sufficiently established the BDB however failed to appear multiple times. Eventually, a
existence of the money judgment of the High Court of Malaya by judgment was rendered and BDB was adjudged to pay
the evidence it offered. Petitioner’s sole witness, testified to the $300,000.00 in damages in favor of Urbino for BDB being a
effect that he is in active practice of the law profession in nuisance defendant.
Malaysia; that he was connected with Skrine and Company as
Legal Assistant up to 1981; that private respondent, then known BDB assailed the said decision as it argued that there was no valid
as Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines, service of summons because the summons was issued to the
was sued by his client, Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad, in ambassador of Brazil. Further, the other summons which were
Kuala Lumpur; that the writ of summons were served on March made through publication is not applicable to BDB as it alleged
17, 1983 at the registered office of private respondent and on that the action against them is in personam.
March 21, 1983 on Cora S. Deala, a financial planning officer of
private respondent for Southeast Asia operations; that upon the ISSUE: Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction over Banco
filing of the case, Messrs. Allen and Gledhill, Advocates and Do Brasil.
Solicitors, with address at 24th Floor, UMBC Building, Jalan
HELD: No. Banco Do Brasil is correct. Although the suit is
Sulaiman, Kuala Lumpur, entered their conditional appearance for
originally in rem as it was BDB’s claim on the sunken ship which
private respondent questioning the regularity of the service of the
was used as the basis for it being impleaded, the action
writ of summons but subsequently withdrew the same when it
nevertheless became an in personam one when Urbino asked for
realized that the writ was properly served; that because private
damages in the said amount. As such, only a personal service of
respondent failed to file a statement of defense within two (2)
summons would have vested the court jurisdiction over BDB.
weeks, petitioner filed an application for summary judgment and
Where the action is in personam, one brought against a person on
submitted affidavits and documentary evidence in support of its
the basis of his personal liability, jurisdiction over the person of
claim; that the matter was then heard before the High Court 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. 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 therefore
cannot validly try and decide the case against him.

Significantly, the publication of summons effected by private


respondent is invalid and ineffective for the trial court to acquire
jurisdiction over the person of petitioner.