CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST
WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401
MANILA HOTEL v NLRC
G.R. No. 120077, October 13, 2000
FACTS:
Private respondent Santos was an overseas worker
employed as a printer at the Mazoon Printing Press,
Sultanate of Oman. Subsequently he was directly
hired by the Palace Hotel, Beijing, People’s Republic
of China and later terminated due to retrenchment.
Petitioners are the Manila Hotel Corporation
(“MHC”) and the Manila Hotel International
Company, Limited (“MHICL”).
When the case was filed in 1990, MHC was still a
government-owned and controlled corporation
duly organized and existing under the laws of the
Philippines. MHICL is a corporation duly organized
and existing under the laws of Hong Kong. MHC is
an “incorporator” of MHICL, owning 50% of its
capital stock.
By virtue of a “management agreement” with the
Palace Hotel, MHICL trained the personnel and staff
of the Palace Hotel at Beijing, China.
During his employment with the Mazoon Printing
Press, respondent Santos received a letter from Mr.
Shmidt, General Manager, Palace Hotel, Beijing,
China. Mr. Schmidt informed respondent Santos
that he was recommended by one Buenio, a friend
of his. Mr. Shmidt offered respondent Santos the
same position as printer, but with a higher monthly
salary and increased benefits. Respondent Santos
wrote to Mr. Shmidt and signified his acceptance of
the offer.
The Palace Hotel Manager, Mr. Henk mailed a ready
to sign employment contract to respondent Santos.
Santos resigned from the Mazoon Printing Press.
Santos wrote the Palace Hotel and acknowledged
Mr. Henk’s letter. The employment contract stated
that his employment would be for a period of two
years. He then started to work at the Palace Hotel.
Subsequently, respondent Santos signed an
amended “employment agreement” with the Palace
Hotel. In the contract, Mr. Shmidt represented the
Palace Hotel. The Vice President (Operations and
Development) of petitioner MHICL Cergueda
signed the employment agreement under the word
“noted”.
After working in the Palace hotel for less than 1
year, the Palace Hotel informed respondent Santos
by letter signed by Mr. Shmidt that his employment
Estanuts by BEANIZA|CADELEÑA|ESTAVILLA|MELENDEZ|SABUSAY
Read the Full Text
ATTY.
at the Palace Hotel print shop would be terminated
due to business reverses brought about by the
political upheaval in China. The Palace Hotel
terminated the employment of Santos and paid all
benefits due him, including his plane fare back to
the Philippines. Santos was repatriated to the
Philippines.
Santos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with
the Arbitration Branch, NCR, NLRC. He prayed for
an award of AD, ED and AF for. The complaint
named MHC, MHICL, the Palace Hotel and Mr.
Shmidt as respondents. The Palace Hotel and Mr.
Shmidt were not served with summons and neither
participated in the proceedings before the LA.
The LA decided the case against petitioners.
Petitioners appealed to the NLRC, arguing that the
POEA, not the NLRC had jurisdiction over the case.
The NLRC promulgated a resolution, stating that
the appealed Decision be declared null and void for
want of jurisdiction.
Santos moved for reconsideration of the afore-
quoted resolution. He argued that the case was not
cognizable by the POEA as he was not an “overseas
contract worker. The NLRC granted the motion and
reversed itself. The NLRC directed another LA to
hear the case on the question of whether private
respondent was retrenched or dismissed. The La
found that Santos was illegally dismissed from
employment and recommended that he be paid
actual damages equivalent to his salaries for the
unexpired portion of his contract. The NLRC ruled
in favor of private respondent. Petitioners filed an
MR arguing that the LA’s recommendation had no
basis in law and in fact, however it was denied.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Is the NLRC a proper forum to decide this case?
HELD:
Petition granted; the orders and resolutions of the
NLRC are annulled.
Forum Non-Conveniens
The NLRC was a seriously inconvenient forum.
We note that the main aspects of the case
transpired in two foreign jurisdictions and the case
involves purely foreign elements. The only link that
the Philippines has with the case is that Santos is a
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST
EH401
Filipino citizen. The Palace Hotel and MHICL are
foreign corporations. Not all cases involving our
citizens can be tried here.
The employment contract. — Respondent Santos
was hired directly by the Palace Hotel, a foreign
employer, through correspondence sent to the
Sultanate of Oman, where respondent Santos was
then employed. He was hired without the
intervention of the POEA or any authorized
recruitment agency of the government.
Under the rule of forum non conveniens, a
Philippine court or agency may assume jurisdiction
over the case if it chooses to do so provided:
 that the Philippine court is one to which
the parties may conveniently resort to;
 that the Philippine court is in a position to
make an intelligent decision as to the law
and the facts;and
 that the Philippine court has or is likely to
have power to enforce its decision.
The conditions are unavailing in the case at bar.
Not Convenient. — We fail to see how the NLRC is
a convenient forum given that all the incidents of
the case — from the time of recruitment, to
employment to dismissal occurred outside the
Philippines. The inconvenience is compounded by
the fact that the proper defendants, the Palace
Hotel and MHICL are not nationals of the
Philippines. Neither .are they “doing business in the
Philippines.” Likewise, the main witnesses, Mr.
Shmidt and Mr. Henk are non-residents of the
Philippines.
No power to determine applicable law. — Neither
can an intelligent decision be made as to the law
governing the employment contract as such was
perfected in foreign soil. This calls to fore the
application of the principle of lex loci contractus
(the law of the place where the contract was made).
The employment contract was not perfected in the
Philippines. Santos signified his acceptance by
writing a letter while he was in the Republic of
Oman. This letter was sent to the Palace Hotel in the
People’s Republic of China.
No power to determine the facts. — Neither can the
NLRC determine the facts surrounding the alleged
illegal dismissal as all acts complained of took place
in Beijing, People’s Republic of China. The NLRC
Estanuts by BEANIZA|CADELEÑA|ESTAVILLA|MELENDEZ|SABUSAY
Read the Full Text
ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
was not in a position to determine whether the
Tiannamen Square incident truly adversely
affected operations of the Palace Hotel as to justify
Santos’ retrenchment.
Principle of effectiveness, no power to execute
decision. — Even assuming that a proper decision
could be reached by the NLRC, such would not have
any binding effect against the employer, the Palace
Hotel. The Palace Hotel is a corporation
incorporated under the laws of China and was not
even served with summons. Jurisdiction over its
person was not acquired.
This is not to say that Philippine courts and
agencies have no power to solve controversies
involving foreign employers. Neither are we saying
that we do not have power over an employment
contract executed in a foreign country. If Santos
were an “overseas contract worker”, a Philippine
forum, specifically the POEA, not the NLRC, would
protect him. He is not an “overseas contract
worker” a fact which he admits with conviction.
__
Even assuming that the NLRC was the proper
forum, even on the merits, the NLRC’s decision
cannot be sustained.
MHC Not Liable
Even if we assume two things: (1) that the NLRC
had jurisdiction over the case, and (2) that MHICL
was liable for Santos’ retrenchment, still MHC, as a
separate and distinct juridical entity cannot be held
liable.
True, MHC is an incorporator of MHICL and owns
50% of its capital stock. However, this is not
enough to pierce the veil of corporate fiction
between MHICL and MHC. In Traders Royal Bank v.
CA, we held that “the mere ownership by a single
stockholder or by another corporation of all or
nearly all of the capital stock of a corporation is not
of itself a sufficient reason for disregarding the
fiction of separate corporate personalities.”
It is basic that a corporation has a personality
separate and distinct from those composing it as
well as from that of any other legal entity to which
it may be related. Clear and convincing evidence is
needed to pierce the veil of corporate fiction. In this
case, we find no evidence to show that MHICL and
MHC are one and the same entity.
III. MHICL not Liable
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020)
Santos predicates MHICL’s liability on the fact that
MHICL “signed” his employment contract with the
Palace Hotel. This fact fails to persuade us.
First, we note that the Vice President (Operations
and Development) of MHICL, Cergueda signed the
employment contract as a mere witness. He merely
signed under the word “noted”.
When one “notes” a contract, one is not expressing
his agreement or approval, as a party would. In
Sichangco v. Board of Commissioners of
Immigration, the Court recognized that the term
“noted” means that the person so noting has merely
taken cognizance of the existence of an act or
declaration, without exercising a judicious
deliberation or rendering a decision on the matter.
Second, and more importantly, there was no
existing employer-employee relationship between
Santos and MHICL. In determining the existence of
an employer-employee relationship, the following
elements are considered:
 the selection and engagement of the
employee
 the payment of wages
 the power to dismiss; and
 the power to control employee’s conduct.
MHICL did not have and did not exercise any of the
aforementioned powers. It did not select
respondent Santos as an employee for the Palace
Hotel. He was referred to the Palace Hotel by his
friend, Buenio. MHICL did not engage respondent
Santos to work. The terms of employment were
negotiated and finalized through correspondence
between Santos, Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Henk, who
were officers and representatives of the Palace
Hotel and not MHICL. Neither did Santos adduce
any proof that MHICL had the power to control his
conduct. Finally, it was the Palace Hotel, through
Mr. Schmidt and not MHICL that terminated
respondent Santos’ services.
Likewise, there is no evidence to show that the
Palace Hotel and MHICL are one and the same
entity. The fact that the Palace Hotel is a member of
the “Manila Hotel Group” is not enough to pierce
the corporate veil between MHICL and the Palace
Hotel.
Considering that the NLRC was forum non-
conveniens and considering further that no
employer-employee relationship existed between
MHICL, MHC and Santos, the LA clearly had no
Estanuts by BEANIZA|CADELEÑA|ESTAVILLA|MELENDEZ|SABUSAY
Read the Full Text
CASE DIGEST ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401
jurisdiction over respondent’s claim in the NLRC
case. In all the cases under the exclusive and
original jurisdiction of the LA, an employer-
employee relationship is an indispensable
jurisdictional requirement.
Saudi Arabian Airlines V. CA
G.R. No. 122191, October 8, 1998
Laws Applicable: Art 19 and 21 of Civil Code
Lessons Applicable: Conflict of Laws, factual
situation, connecting factor, characterization,
choice of law, State of the most significant
relationship
FACTS:
Saudi Arabian Airlines (SAUDIA), foreign airlines
corporation doing business in the Philippines and
may be served summons in agent in Makati, hired
Milagros P. Morada as a flight attendant for its
airlines based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
April 27, 1990:
While on a lay-over in Jakarta, Indonesia, Morada
went to a disco dance with fellow crew members
Thamer Al-Gazzawi and Allah Al-Gazzawi, both
Saudi nationals. It was almost morning when they
returned to their hotels so they agreed to have
breakfast together at the room of Thamer. Shortly
after Allah left the room, Thamer attempted to rape
Morada.
Fortunately, a room boy and several security
personnel heard her cries for help and rescued
her. Indonesian police arrested Thamer and Allah
Al-Gazzawi, the latter as an accomplice.
When Morada returned to Jeddah, SAUDIA officials
interrogated her about the Jakarta incident and
requested her to go back to Jakarta to help arrange
the release of Thamer and Allah. In Jakarta,
SAUDIA Legal Officers negotiated with the police
for the immediate release of the detained crew
members but did not succeed.
Afraid that she might be tricked into something she
did not want because of her inability to understand
the local dialect, Morado refused to cooperate and
declined to sign a blank paper and a document
written in the local dialect. Eventually, SAUDIA
allowed Morada to return to Jeddah but barred her
from the Jakarta flights.
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST
EH401
Indonesian authorities agreed to deport Thamer
and Allah and they were again put in
service. While, Morada was transferred to Manila.
January 14, 1992: Morada was asked to see Mr. Ali
Meniewy, Chief Legal Officer of SAUDIA, in Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia. He brought her to the police station
where the police took her passport and questioned
her about the Jakarta incident. The police
pressured her to drop the case against Thamer and
Allah. Not until she agreed to do so did the police
return her passport and allowed her to catch the
afternoon flight out of Jeddah.
June 16, 1993:
Morada, while in Riyadh Saudi Arabia, was not
allowed to board the plane to Manila and instead
ordered to take a later flight to Jeddah to see Mr.
Miniewy. Khalid of the SAUDIA office brought her
to a Saudi court where she was asked to sign a
document written in Arabic. They told her that this
was necessary to close the case against Thamer and
Allah but it was actually a notice for her to appear
before the court on June 27, 1993. Plaintiff then
returned to Manila.
June 27, 1993:
SAUDIA's Manila manager, Aslam Saleemi, assured
Morada that the investigation was routinary and
that it posed no danger to her so she reported to
Miniewy in Jeddah for further investigation. She
was brought to the Saudi court.
June 28, 1993:
Saudi judge interrogated Morada through an
interpreter about the Jakarta incident for an hour
and let her go. SAUDIA officers forbidden her to
take flight. She was told to go the Inflight Service
Office where her passport was taken and they told
her to remain in Jeddah, at the crew quarters, until
further orders.
July 3, 1993:
She was brought to court again and to her
astonishment and shock, rendered a decision,
translated to her in English, sentencing her to five
months imprisonment and to 286 lashes. The
court tried her, together with Thamer and
Allah, and found her guilty of (1) adultery (2)
going to a disco, dancing and listening to the
Estanuts by BEANIZA|CADELEÑA|ESTAVILLA|MELENDEZ|SABUSAY
Read the Full Text
ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
music in violation of Islamic laws and (3)
socializing with the male crew, in
contravention of Islamic tradition.
Failing to seek the assistance of her employer,
SAUDIA, she asked the Philippine Embassy in
Jeddah to help her while her case is on appeal. She
continued to work on the domestic flight of
SAUDIA, while Thamer and Allah continued to
serve in the international flights.
Because she was wrongfully convicted, the Prince
of Makkah dismissed the case against her and
allowed her to leave Saudi Arabia. Before her
return to Manila, she was terminated from the
service by SAUDIA, without her being informed of
the cause.
November 23, 1993:
Morada filed a Complaint for damages against
SAUDIA, and Khaled Al-Balawi, its country
manager.
January 19, 1994:
SAUDIA filed an Omnibus Motion To Dismiss on
following grounds:
(1) That the Complaint states no cause of action
against SAUDIA
(2) That defendant Al-Balawi is not a real party in
interest
(3) That the claim or demand set forth in the
Complaint has been waived, abandoned or
otherwise extinguished and (4) that the trial court
has no jurisdiction to try the case.
After opposition to the motion to dismiss by
Morada and reply by SAUDIA, Morada filed an
Amended Complaint dropping Al-Balawi. SAUDIA
filed its Manifestation, Motion to Dismiss Amended
Complaint, subsequently motion for
reconsideration which were all denied.
SAUDIA filed its Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition with Prayer for Issuance of Writ of
Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary
Restraining Order with the Court of Appeals. TRO
was granted but Writ of Preliminary Injunction was
denied.
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST
EH401
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Philippines is an appropriate forum considering
that the Amended Complaint's basis for recovery of
damages is Article 21 of the Civil Code, and thus,
clearly within the jurisdiction of respondent Court.
It further held that certiorari is not the proper
remedy in a denial of a Motion to Dismiss,
inasmuch as the petitioner should have proceeded
to trial, and in case of an adverse ruling, find
recourse in an appeal.
SAUDIA filed its Supplemental Petition for Review
with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order that
it is a conflict of laws that must be settled at the
outset:
Morada's claim for alleged abuse of rights occurred
in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Existence of a foreign element qualifies the instant
case for the application of the law of the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia, by virtue of the lex loci delicti
commissi rule.
Morada:
Amended Complaint is based on Articles 19 and 21
of the Civil Code which is a matter of domestic law
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC of Quezon City has
jurisdiction over the case and it is the proper forum
for recovery of damages under Art. 21 of the Civil
Code which should govern.
HELD:
YES. the petition for certiorari is hereby
DISMISSED. REMANDED to RTC of Quezon City,
Branch 89 for further proceedings
Conflict of Laws
There is a foreign element in this case, hence, it
involves a conflict of laws question.
Foreign elements may appear in different forms. It
may simply consist of the fact that one of the
parties to the contract is an alien or has a foreign
domicile or that a contract between nationals of
one State involves properties situated in another
State. In other cases, the foreign element may
assume a complex form.
Estanuts by BEANIZA|CADELEÑA|ESTAVILLA|MELENDEZ|SABUSAY
Read the Full Text
ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
Here, the foreign element comes from the fact that
the plaintiff, Morada was a resident Philippine
National while SAUDIA is a resident foreign
corporation. Moreover, through Morada's
employment as a flight stewardess of SAUDIA, the
occurrences surrounding the case transpired while
she was on her travels which was across national
borders. This caused a "conflicts" situation to arise.
Jurisdiction
Weighing the relative claims of the parties, the
court found it best to hear the case in the
Philippines. If it refused to take cognizance of the
case, it would be forcing Morada to seek remedial
action elsewhere, i.e. in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia where she no longer maintains substantial
connections. That would have caused a
fundamental unfairness to her.
Moreover, by hearing the case in the Philippines no
unnecessary difficulties and inconvenience have
been shown by either of the parties. The choice of
forum of the Morada should be upheld.
Similarly, the trial court has also acquired
jurisdiction over the persons of the parties in this
case. By filing her Complaint and Amended
Complaint with the trial court, Morada has
voluntary submitted herself to the jurisdiction of
the court. Similarly, SAUDIA has filed several
motions asking the court for relief. This indicates
that SAUDIA indeed has submitted to the
jurisdiction of the trial court.
Choice-of-laws
As to the choice of applicable law, we note that
choice-of-law problems seek to answer two
important questions:
 What legal system should control a given
situation where some of the significant
facts occurred in two or more states; and
 To what extent should the chosen legal
system regulate the situation.
Although ideally, all choice-of-law theories should
intrinsically advance both notions of justice and
predictability, they do not always do so. The forum
is then faced with the problem of deciding which of
these two important values should be stressed.
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST
EH401
Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us
to determine under what category a certain set of
facts or rules fall. This process is known as
"characterization", or the "doctrine of
qualification". It is the "process of deciding whether
or not the facts relate to the kind of question
specified in a conflicts rule." The purpose of
"characterization" is to enable the forum to select
the proper law.
An essential element of conflict rules is the
indication of a "test" or "connecting factor" or
"point of contact". Choice-of-law rules invariably
consist of a factual relationship (such as property
right, contract claim) and a connecting factor or
point of contact, such as the situs of the res, the
place of celebration, the place of performance, or
the place of wrongdoing.
Lex Loci Actus
(4) the place where an act has been done, the locus
actus, such as the place where a contract has been
made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort
committed. The lex loci actus is particularly
important in contracts and torts.
Considering that the complaint in the court a quo is
one involving torts, the "connecting factor" or
"point of contact" could be the place or places
where the tortious conduct or lex loci actus
occurred. And applying the torts principle in a
conflicts case, we find that the Philippines could be
said as a situs of the tort (the place where the
alleged tortious conduct took place).
This is because it is in the Philippines where
petitioner allegedly deceived private respondent, a
Filipina residing and working here.
According to her, she had honestly believed that
petitioner would, in the exercise of its rights and in
the performance of its duties, "act with justice, give
her due and observe honesty and good faith."
Instead, petitioner failed to protect her, she
claimed.
That certain acts or parts of the injury allegedly
occurred in another country is of no moment. What
is important here is the place where the over-
all harm or the totality of the alleged injury to
the person, reputation, social standing and
human rights of complainant, had lodged,
according to the plaintiff below (herein private
respondent). All told, it is not without basis to
Estanuts by BEANIZA|CADELEÑA|ESTAVILLA|MELENDEZ|SABUSAY
Read the Full Text
ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
identify the Philippines as the situs of the alleged
tort.
In applying said principle to determine the State
which has the most significant relationship, the
following contacts are to be taken into account and
evaluated according to their relative importance
with respect to the particular issue:
(a) the place where the injury occurred;
(b) the place where the conduct causing the injury
occurred;
(c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of
incorporation and place of business of the parties,
and
(d) the place where the relationship, if any,
between the parties is centered
As already discussed, there is basis for the claim
that over-all injury occurred and lodged in the
Philippines. There is likewise no question that
private respondent is a resident Filipina national,
working with petitioner, a resident foreign
corporation engaged here in the business of
international air carriage.
Thus, the "relationship" between the parties was
centered here, although it should be stressed that
this suit is not based on mere labor law violations.
From the record, the claim that the Philippines has
the most significant contact with the matter in this
dispute, raised by private respondent as plaintiff
below against defendant (herein petitioner), in our
view, has been properly established.
Petitioner's insistence that since private
respondent instituted this suit, she has the burden
of pleading and proving the applicable Saudi law on
the matter is untenable. As aptly said by private
respondent, she has "no obligation to plead and
prove the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia since
her cause of action is based on Articles 19 and 21"
of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
In her Amended Complaint and subsequent
pleadings, she never alleged that Saudi law should
govern this case. And as correctly held by the
respondent appellate court, considering that it was
the petitioner who was invoking the applicability of
the law of Saudi Arabia, then the burden was on it
to plead and to establish what the law of Saudi
Arabia is.
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST
EH401
HASEGAWA v. KITAMURA
G.R. No. 149177, November 23, 2007
PARTIES
Petitioners:
Kazuhiro Hasegawa – Nippon’s general manager
for its International Division.
Nippon Engineering Consultants Co. Ltd.
(Nippon) – a Japanese consultancy firm providing
technical and management support in the
infrastructure projects of foreign governments.
Respondent:
Minoru Kitamura – Japanese national
permanently residing in the Philippines.
FACTS
Petitioner Nippon entered into an Independent
Contractor Agreement (ICA) with respondent
Kitamura. The agreement was that the respondent
will provide professional services to Nippon for a
year and was then subsequently assigned to work
as a project manager of the Southern Tagalog
Access Road (STAR) Project in the Philippines.
Later, the DPWH engaged the consultancy services
of Nippon for the detailed engineering and
construction supervision of the Bongabon-Baler
Road Improvement (BBRI) Project wherein the
respondent was named project manager in the
contract.
However, petitioner Hasegawa informed the
respondent that the company had no more
intention of automatically renewing his ICA. His
contract will be done only up to the substantial
completion of STAR which is just in time for the
ICA’s expiry.
Due to the impending unemployment, the
respondent negotiated with the petitioner and
requested that he be assigned to the BBRI project
but the latter rejected the former’s request.
This prompted respondent Kitamura to file a civil
case for specific performance and damages with
the RTC of Lipa City.
Petitioners then moved for the dismissal of the
complaint for lack of jurisdiction. They asserted
that:
Estanuts by BEANIZA|CADELEÑA|ESTAVILLA|MELENDEZ|SABUSAY
Read the Full Text
ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
The ICA had been perfected in Japan and
executed by and between Japanese nationals.
The claim of improper pre-termination of
respondent’s ICA could only be heard and
ventilated in the proper courts of Japan following
the principles of lex loci celebrationis and lex
contractus.
RTC:
This court denied the motion to dismiss by the
petitioner by stating that the matters connected
with the performance of contracts are regulated by
the law prevailing at the place of performance
(lex loci solutionis). It also subsequently denied
the petitioner’s MR.
Thus, because of the denial of the RTC, the
petitioner filed the first Petition for Certiorari
under rule 65 with the CA which was then
dismissed due to procedural grounds – lack of
statement of material dates and insufficient
verification and certification against forum
shopping. A second Petition for Certiorari was
then filed with the complete requirements.
CA:
This court found no GAD in the RTC’s denial of the
motion to dismiss. It ruled by stating that the
principle of lex loci celebrationis was not
applicable to the case, because nowhere in the
pleadings was the validity of the written
agreement put in issue. Petitioner’s MR was also
subsequently denied by the CA.
Thus, petitioner instituted the instant Petition for
Review on Certiorari with the SC.
ISSUE
Whether the subject matter jurisdiction of the
Philippine Courts in civil cases for specific
performance and damages involving contracts
executed outside the country by foreign nationals
may be assailed by the principles of lex loci
celebrationis, lex contractus, the “state of the
most significant relationship rule”, or non forum
conveniens.
RULING:
NO.
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST
EH401
It was discussed by the SC that in the judicial
resolution of conflicts problems, 3 consecutive
phases are involved:
 jurisdiction
 choice of law
 recognition and enforcement of judgments
Jurisdiction & choice of law are 2 distinct
concepts. Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair
to cause a defendant to travel to this state; choice of
law asks the further question whether the
application of a substantive law w/c will determine
the merits of the case is fair to both parties.
The power to exercise jurisdiction does not
automatically give a state constitutional authority
to apply forum law. While jurisdiction and the
choice of the lex fori will often coincide, the
“minimum contacts” for one do not always provide
the necessary “significant contacts” for the other.
The question of whether the law of a state can be
applied to a transaction is different from the
question of whether the courts of that state have
jurisdiction to enter a judgment.
In this case, only the 1st phase is at issue—
jurisdiction. Jurisdiction, however, has various
aspects. For a court to validly exercise its power to
adjudicate a controversy, it must have jurisdiction
over the plaintiff/petitioner, over the
defendant/respondent, over the subject matter,
over the issues of the case and, in cases involving
property, over the res or the thing w/c is the subject
of the litigation. In assailing the trial court's
jurisdiction herein, Nippon is actually referring
to subject matter jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a judicial
proceeding is conferred by the sovereign authority
w/c establishes and organizes the court. It is given
only by law and in the manner prescribed by law. It
is further determined by the allegations of the
complaint irrespective of whether the plaintiff is
entitled to all or some of the claims asserted
therein. To succeed in its motion for the dismissal
of an action for lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the claim, the movant must show that the
court or tribunal cannot act on the matter
submitted to it because no law grants it the power
to adjudicate the claims.
In the instant case, Nippon, in its MTD, does not
claim that the RTC is not properly vested by law w/
jurisdiction to hear the subject controversy for a
Estanuts by BEANIZA|CADELEÑA|ESTAVILLA|MELENDEZ|SABUSAY
Read the Full Text
ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
civil case for specific performance & damages is
one not capable of pecuniary estimation & is
properly cognizable by the RTC of Lipa City.
What they rather raise as grounds to question
subject matter jurisdiction are the principles of lex
loci celebrationis and lex contractus, and the “state
of the most significant relationship rule.”
The Court finds the invocation of these grounds
unsound.
Lex loci celebrationis relates to the “law of the
place of the ceremony” or the law of the place
where a contract is made. The doctrine of lex
contractus or lex loci contractus means the “law
of the place where a contract is executed or to be
performed.” It controls the nature, construction,
and validity of the contract and it may pertain to
the law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties or
the law intended by them either expressly or
implicitly. Under the “state of the most significant
relationship rule,” to ascertain what state law to
apply to a dispute, the court should determine
which state has the most substantial connection to
the occurrence and the parties.
In a case involving a contract, the court should
consider where the contract was made, was
negotiated, was to be performed, and the domicile,
place of business, or place of incorporation of the
parties. This rule takes into account several
contacts and evaluates them according to their
relative importance with respect to the particular
issue to be resolved.
Since these 3 principles in conflict of laws make
reference to the law applicable to a dispute,
they are rules proper for the 2nd phase, the
choice of law. They determine which state's law is
to be applied in resolving the substantive issues of
a conflicts problem. Necessarily, as the only issue
in this case is that of jurisdiction, choice-of-law
rules are not only inapplicable but also not yet
called for.
Further, Nippon’s premature invocation of choice-
of-law rules is exposed by the fact that they have
not yet pointed out any conflict between the laws
of Japan and ours. Before determining which law
should apply, 1st there should exist a conflict of
laws situation requiring the application of the
conflict of laws rules. Also, when the law of a
foreign country is invoked to provide the proper
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST
EH401
rules for the solution of a case, the existence of such
law must be pleaded and proved.
It should be noted that when a conflicts case, one
involving a foreign element, is brought before a
court or administrative agency, there are 3
alternatives open to the latter in disposing of it: (1)
dismiss the case, either because of lack of
jurisdiction or refusal to assume jurisdiction over
the case; (2) assume jurisdiction over the case and
apply the internal law of the forum; or (3) assume
jurisdiction over the case and take into account or
apply the law of some other State or States.
The court’s power to hear cases and controversies
is derived from the Constitution and the laws.
While it may choose to recognize laws of foreign
nations, the court is not limited by foreign
sovereign law short of treaties or other formal
agreements, even in matters regarding rights
provided by foreign sovereigns.
Neither can the other ground raised, forum non
conveniens, be used to deprive the RTC of its
jurisdiction.
First, it is not a proper basis for a motion to dismiss
because Sec. 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court does
not include it as a ground. Second, whether a suit
should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of
the said doctrine depends largely upon the facts of
the particular case and is addressed to the sound
discretion of the RTC. In this case, the RTC decided
to assume jurisdiction. Third, the propriety of
dismissing a case based on this principle requires a
factual determination; hence, this conflicts
principle is more properly considered a matter of
defense.
Cadalin vs. POEA,
G.R. No. 104776, December 5, 1994
(taas pa kesa sa ako height ang kaso, so, issues and
facts relevant to conflict ra ang gibutang, mostly
procedural ang facts [civ pro] so advice nako basaha
nalang full text, daghan man mog time, so if mag ask
si torney og sikot2 ma slay gyapon ninyo, make this
as your guide nala, okay?!)
Principle:
As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not
be applied in the forum. This is true even if the
action is based upon a foreign substantive law.
Prescription laws are sui generis that it may be
Estanuts by BEANIZA|CADELEÑA|ESTAVILLA|MELENDEZ|SABUSAY
Read the Full Text
ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
procedural or substantive, depending on the
characterization.
The characterization becomes irrelevant when the
country of the forum has a “borrowing statute”.
This statute directs the state of the forum to apply
the foreign statute of limitations to the pending
claims based on a foreign law.
Facts:
Cadalin and 1,767 (originally 728) other overseas
contract workers instituted a class suit with the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA) for money claims from their recruitment by
AIBC and employment by BRII. (AIBC and BRII
respondents)
BRII is a foreign corporation based in Houston,
Texas engaged in the business of construction;
while AIBC is a domestic corporation licensed as a
service contractor to recruit, mobilize, and deploy
Filipino workers for overseas employment on
behalf of its foreign principals.
The complaint sought for the payment of the:
 Unexpired portion of the employment
contracts, which was prematurely
terminated;
 Payment of interest of the earnings of the
Travel and Reserved Fund;
 interest on all unpaid benefits such as area
wage and salary differential pay;
 Fringe benefits;
 Refund of SSS premiums;
 Refund of withholding tax; and
 Penalties for committing prohibited
practices.
TL;DR facts
*This case actually involves, claim of workers
working in different parts of the world. But the main
focus in the case are those workers working in
Bahrain covered under the Amiri Decree. The
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST
EH401
respondents, urged that the claims had already
prescribed.
POEA Ruling
POEA Administrator rendered a decision in favor of
only 324 claimants. POEA opined that Article 291
of the Labor Code applies when the claims arise
from the employer’s violation of the employee’s
right provided in the said code. What was violated
was the Amiri Decree, which amended the workers'
contracts. Respondents failed to follow the said
decree. Hence the 10 year prescriptive period of
the Civil Code will apply.
Claimants filed in the NLRC a Manifestational
Motion praying that all the 1,767 claimants be
awarded with their money claims for failure of
private respondents to file their answers.
NLRC Ruling:
The NLRC rendered a decision on these following
issues (relevant lang):
Whether or not complainants are entitled to the
benefits of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of Bahrain.
Yes it should form part of the overseas employment
contract of the complainants since it is more
favorable to them. However the decree only applies
to workers stationed in Bahrain.
Whether or not the claims under the Amiri Decree
No. 23 of Bahrain have prescribed.
The NLRC ruled that the prescriptive period for filing
the claim was 3 years under Article 291 of the Labor
Code, and not 10 years under Article 1144 of the Civil
Code nor 1 year under the Amiri Decree.
Whether or not the case qualifies as a class suit.
The NLRC ruled that it does not qualify as a class suit
as not all the complainants worked in Bahrain and
therefore, not a subject matter of the action; it is not
of common or general interest to all the
complainants.
It also ruled that BRII and AIBC are solidarily liable
for the claims as BRII was the actual employer and
AIBC as the labor contractor. Moreover,
jurisdiction over BRII was acquired by the POEA
through the summons served on AIBC’s local agent.
Estanuts by BEANIZA|CADELEÑA|ESTAVILLA|MELENDEZ|SABUSAY
Read the Full Text
ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
The NLRC disagreed with the POEA that the 3 year
prescriptive period applies only to money claims
recoverable under the Labor Code as the law gives
no such indication. The cause of action cannot be
said that it was a violation of the employment
contract. The 1 year prescriptive period cannot
apply because it is a procedural statute. The
procedural law of the forum shall apply.
The NLRC dismissed 94 claims for having
prescribed and ordered respondents to pay the 149
complainants for their claims. 19 were set aside as
they were not working in Bahrain, and all other
claims were dismissed for lack of substantial
evidence.
Arguments of Each Party by Petition:
G.R. No. 104776 and 104911-14
Claimants contended that NLRC gravely abused its
discretion in applying the 3 year prescriptive
period under the Labor Code, and not the 10 year
prescriptive period under the Civil Code. (no
justification was given).
Respondents countered that the Labor Code as a
special law prevails over the Civil Code, a general
law, so the 3 year period applies.
G.R. No. 105029-32
Respondents contended that the employment
contracts will be enforced not the Amiri Decree.
However, assuming the Amiri Decree applies, the
one year period to claim had already lapsed. To
bolster this argument, there is in force in the
Philippines a “borrowing statute”.
Issue:
Whether or not the law on prescription of Bahrain
law based on the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 will
apply.
Ruling:
The law of Bahrain will not apply as it contravenes
public policy
No. As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will
not be applied in the forum. This is true even if the
action is based upon a foreign substantive law.
Prescription laws are sui generis that it may be
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST
EH401
procedural or substantive, depending on the
characterization.
The characterization becomes irrelevant when the
country of the forum has a “borrowing statute”.
This statute directs the state of the forum to apply
the foreign statute of limitations to the pending
claims based on a foreign law.
One form provides that an action barred by the
laws of the place where it accrued, will not be
enforced in the forum even though the local statute
has not run against it. If by the laws of the state or
country where the cause of action arose, the action
is barred, it is also barred in the Philippines.
However, the courts of the forum will not enforce
any foreign claim if it contravenes public policy. To
enforce the 1 year claim would contravene the
public policy on the protection of labor.
The 3 years prescriptive period under the Labor Code
applies
The claim is the cases at bench all arose from the
employer-employee relations, which is broader in
scope than claims arising from a specific law or
from the collective bargaining agreement. (If CBA -
Civil Code; EE - Labor Code)
Side Discussion:
NLRC correctly applied the greater benefits of the
Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976. (There was an
argument by the respondents that benefits under the
employment contract should be enforced)
The overseas-employment contracts, which were
prepared by AIBC and BRII themselves, provided
that the laws of the host country became applicable
to said contracts if they offer terms and conditions
more favorable that those stipulated therein. The
overseas-employment contracts in question as
adopting the provisions of the Amiri Decree No. 23
of 1976 as part and parcel thereof.
By such reference to the provisions of the foreign
law, the contract does not become a foreign
contract to be governed by the foreign law. The said
law does not operate as a statute but as a set of
contractual terms deemed written in the contract.
*This happened because there was an ambiguous
stipulation in the contract, and the said contract was
a contract of adhesion. Basic in contracts that the
Estanuts by BEANIZA|CADELEÑA|ESTAVILLA|MELENDEZ|SABUSAY
Read the Full Text
ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
party making the ambiguity shall not be favored;
and besides contracts of adhesion are construed
against the one making it. So the Supreme COurt
interpreted it against respondents so the workers
benefited from the law with the higher benefits.
The ambiguous stipulation:
“....total remuneration and benefits do not fall below
that of the host country regulation or custom, it
being understood that should applicable laws
establish that fringe benefits, or other such benefits
additional to the compensation herein agreed
cannot be waived, Employee agrees that such
compensation will be adjusted downward so that the
total compensation hereunder, plus the non-
waivable benefits shall be equivalent to the
compensation herein agreed"
No class suit
A class suit is proper where the subject matter of
the controversy is one of common or general
interest to many and the parties are so numerous
that it is impracticable to bring them all before the
court.
In the present case there were workers who were
not working in Bahrain, only those who were
working in Bahrain are entitled to file their claims
in a class suit. However, It appears that each
claimant is only interested in collecting his own
claims. A
claimants has no concern in protecting the
interests of the other claimants as shown by the
fact that hundreds of them have abandoned their
co-claimants and have entered into separate
compromise settlements of their respective claims.
A principle basic to the concept of "class suit" is that
plaintiffs brought on the record must fairly
represent and protect the interests of the others.
Bank of America, NT and SA vs. American
Realty Corp. & CA
G.R. No. 133876, Dec. 29, 1999
PRINCIPLE:
When the foreign law, judgment, or contract, even if
applicable pursuant to the COL rules, is contrary to a
sound and established public policy of the forum, the
said foreign law, judgment or order shall not be
applied.
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020)
FACTS:
Bank of America NT & SA (BANTSA) is an
international banking and financing institution
duly licensed to do business in the Philippines,
organized and existing under and by virtue of the
laws of the State of California, while respondent
American Realty Corporation (ARC) is a
domestic corporation.
Bank of America International Limited (BAIL),
on the other hand, is a limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of England.
BANTSA and BAIL on several occasions granted
three major multi-million US Dollar loans to three
corporate borrowers, all of which are existing
under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of
Panama and are foreign affiliates of private
respondent.
Due to the default in the payment of the loan
amortizations, BANTSA and the corporate
borrowers signed and entered into restructuring
agreements. As additional security for the
restructured loans, private respondent ARC as
third party mortgagor executed two real estate
mortgages over its parcels of land including
improvements in Bulacan.
Even with the restructuring agreement, the 3
corporate borrowers still failed to pay which
prompted petitioner BANTSA to file civil actions for
the collection of the principal loan before foreign
courts in England and Hong Kong. ARC, being a
third party mortgagor, was not impleaded as party-
defendant.
Petitioner BANTSA also filed before the Office of
the Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan an application for
extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage
despite the pendency of the collection suit. The
mortgaged real properties were then sold at public
auction in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale with
Integrated Credit and Corporation Services. Co
(ICCS) as the highest bidder.
Because of the action of the petitioner, ARC
instituted an action for damages, alleging that it
was illegal for the Bank of America to still foreclose
the mortgage when it already decided to collect
the unpaid loan by filing a collection suit before
the courts in England and Hongkong, invoking the
rule enforced in the Philippines which prohibits
the splitting of a single cause of action.
Estanuts by BEANIZA|CADELEÑA|ESTAVILLA|MELENDEZ|SABUSAY
Read the Full Text
CASE DIGEST ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401
The rule provides that a single cause of action may
allow a party to resort to two or more remedies but
because there is only one cause of action, the resort
to these remedies should be on an alternative basis
and not cumulative. If the party avails of one
remedy arising from one single cause of action, he
is deemed to have abandoned the other remedies.
The bank argued that in all the loan contracts
between the bank and the borrowers, it is
stipulated that any dispute that may arise out of the
transaction should be governed by the laws of
England. Under English law, splitting a single
cause of action is not prohibited and thus the
creditor may resort to both remedies: to file an
action for collection and, at the same time, enforce
the security.
Additionally, petitioner submits that a waiver of
the remedy of foreclosure requires the
concurrence of two requisites: an ordinary civil
action for collection should be filed and
subsequently a final judgment be correspondingly
rendered therein.
After trial, the lower court rendered a decision
declaring that the filing in foreign courts by the
bank of collection suits against the principal
debtors operated as a waiver of the security of the
mortgages.
The CA affirmed the assailed decision of the lower
court.
ISSUE:
WON the requisites of filing the action for collection
and rendition of final judgment should concur?
WON the foreign law (English Law ITCAB) should
be applied. (related to the topic)
RULING:
1. No. In our jurisdiction, the remedies available to
the mortgage creditor are deemed alternative and
not cumulative. An election of one remedy operates
as a waiver of the other.
Accordingly, petitioner, by the expediency of filing
four civil suits before foreign courts, necessarily
abandoned the remedy to foreclose the real estate
mortgages constituted over the properties of third-
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST
EH401
party mortgagor and herein private respondent
ARC.
Incidentally, BANTSA alleges that under English
Law, which according to petitioner is the governing
law with regard to the principal agreements, the
mortgagee does not lose its security interest by
simply filing civil actions for sums of money.
2. NO. The Philippine law shall be applied
notwithstanding the evidence presented by
petitioner to prove the English law on the matter.
A foreign law must be properly pleaded and proved
as a fact. Thus, if the foreign law involved is not
properly pleaded and proved, our courts will
presume that the foreign law is the same as our
local or domestic or internal law. This is what we
refer to as the doctrine of processual
presumption.
Assuming arguendo that the English Law on the
matter were properly pleaded and proved in
accordance with Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules
of Court and the jurisprudence, said foreign law
would still not find applicability for being
contrary to a sound and established public
policy of the forum.
Additionally, prohibitive laws concerning persons,
their acts or property, and those which have for
their object public order, public policy and good
customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws
or judgments promulgated, or by determinations
or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.
The public policy sought to be protected in the
instant case is the principle imbedded in our
jurisdiction proscribing the splitting up of a single
cause of action. Section 4, Rule 2 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure provides: "If two or more
suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of
action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the
merits in any one is available as a ground for the
dismissal of the others." (splitting of a single cause
of action)
Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when
its application would work undeniable injustice to
the citizens or residents of the forum. To give
justice is the most important function of law; hence,
a law, or judgment or contract that is obviously
unjust negates the fundamental principles of
Conflict of Laws.
Estanuts by BEANIZA|CADELEÑA|ESTAVILLA|MELENDEZ|SABUSAY
Read the Full Text
ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
By filing the four civil actions and by eventually
foreclosing extra-judicially the mortgages,
petitioner in effect transgressed the rules against
splitting a cause of action well enshrined in
jurisprudence and our statute books. Clearly then,
English Law is not applicable.
DEL SOCORRO VS. VAN WILSEM
GR. NO. 193707, DECEMBER 10, 2014
Principles:
1. Family rights and duties are governed by the
national law of the person.
2. GR: Foreign laws in order to be applicable,
should be properly pleaded and proven in our
courts.
Exc: Even if properly pleaded and proven, if foreign
laws are contrary to public policy of the forum, the
same should not be applied.
3. Doctrine of Processual Presumption
Facts:
Petitioner (woman) and respondent (ex-husband)
were married in Holland on September 25, 1990.
Petitioner gave birth to their son who was a minor
upon filing of the case against respondent.
Eventually, their marriage bond ended on July 19,
1995 by virtue of a Divorce Decree issued by the
appropriate Court of Holland. Petitioner together
with her son returned to Cebu City. According to
the petitioner, respondent made a promise to
provide support to their son in the amount of
17,500 pesos monthly. However, respondent failed
to keep his promise. Upon finding out that
respondent got married in Cebu City, petitioner
filed a case against respondent under the
provisions of RA 9262 (VAWC) for the latter’s
unjust refusal to provide support in favor of their
son. Petitioner contends that under Article 195 of
the Family Code, respondent is obliged to support
his son.
Decision of Trial Court:
The trial court then dismissed the case on the
ground that the information filed against did not
constitute an offense on the ground that he is an
alien.
Trial Court on denying the MR:
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST
EH401
Reiterates its ruling that since the accused is a
foreign national he is not subject to our national
law (The Family Code) in regard to a parent's duty
and obligation to give support to his child.
*CA not involved because issue involves pure
question of law.
Respondent’s Arguments:
no sufficient and clear basis presented by
petitioner that she, as well as her minor son, are
entitled to financial support. He added that by
reason of the Divorce Decree, he is not obligated to
petitioner for any financial support
Issue:
WON an alien is obliged to support his minor child?
Ruling:
Yes. Respondent is obliged to support his minor
child under Philippine Law.
Petitioner however is mistaken in relying Article
195 of the Family Code in demanding support from
respondent since Article 15 of the Civil Code
stresses the principle of Nationality. The obligation
to provide support is a part of Family rights and
duties. As such, with respect to the provisions of
the Family Code, it only applies to Filipino Citizens.
With respect to the respondent, the law that
applies to him would be the laws of his country
with respect to family rights and duties. This does
not conclude however that respondent is not
obliged to support his son.
In international law, the party who wants to have a
foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the
burden of proving the foreign law. As such,
respondent has the burden in proving that the laws
of his country do not oblige him to support his son.
In this case, respondent only pleaded the laws of
his country (Holland) but failed to prove the same.
Further, the courts do not take judicial notices of
the laws of a foreign country. The alien alleging the
same has the burden of proving it.
Since respondent failed to prove the laws of his
country which do not oblige him to provide
support. The doctrine of processual presumption
shall be applied. Under this doctrine, if the foreign
law involved is not properly pleaded and proved,
our courts will presume that the foreign law is the
Estanuts by BEANIZA|CADELEÑA|ESTAVILLA|MELENDEZ|SABUSAY
Read the Full Text
ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
same as our local or domestic or internal law. As
such, it is now presumed that the laws of the
foreign country are the same as that of our laws and
therefore respondent is obliged to provide support
to his minor son.
Further, even if respondent successfully pleaded
and proved foreign laws which do not obliged him
to provide support to his son, such should not be
applied. According to our laws, when the foreign
law, judgment or contract is contrary to a sound
and established public policy of the forum, the said
foreign law, judgment or order shall not be applied.
Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when
its application would work undeniable injustice to
the citizens or residents of the forum. To give
justice is the most important function of law; hence,
a law, or judgment or contract that is obviously
unjust negates the fundamental principles of
Conflict of Laws.
Additional notes:
-Respondent can be held liable under RA 9262
applying territoriality principle of criminal law
which applies to all persons living and sojourning
in the Philippines.
-Prescription does not apply since in the case at bar
failure to provide support is a continuing crime.
-Respondent is liable only for support of the child,
not his ex-wife.
EDI-STAFFBUILDERS vs NLRC
GR. NO. 136804, FEBRUARY 19, 2013
FACTS:
Petitioner EDI, a recruitment and placement
agency, upon request of Omar Ahmed Ali Bin Bechr
(OAB), a company in Saudi Arabia, sent to the latter
CVs from which OAB can choose a computer
specialist. Eleazar Gran was selected.
Gran signed an employment contract that granted
him a monthly salary of USD 850.00 for a period of
two years. He was then deployed to Riyadh. But 5
months into his service, Gran received a
termination letter with the grounds mentioned
therefor:
1. Non-compliance to contract requirements by the
recruitment agency primarily on your salary and
contract duration.
2. Non-compliance to pre-qualification
requirements by the recruitment agency
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST
EH401
3. Insubordination or disobedience to Top
Management Order and/or instructions (non-
submittal of daily activity reports despite several
instructions).
Gran filed a complaint for underpayment of
wages/salaries and illegal dismissal.
LA: Dismissed complaint. Gran (1) did not submit
a single activity report of his daily activity as
dictated by company policy; (2) not qualified for
the job as computer specialist due to his
insufficient knowledge in programming and lack of
knowledge in ACAD system; (3) refused to follow
management's instruction for him to gain more
knowledge of the job to prove his worth as
computer specialist.
NLRC:
reversed the decision of LA. Gran was not afforded
the required notice and investigation of his
offenses.
CA:
EDI failed to prove that private respondent was
terminated for a valid cause and in accordance with
due process; x x x no evidence was presented to
show how and why Gran was considered to be
incompetent. The court held that since the law
requires the recruitment agencies to subject OFWs
to trade tests before deployment, Gran must have
been competent and qualified; otherwise, he would
not have been hired and deployed abroad.
ISSUE:
W/N Gran's dismissal is justifiable by reason of
incompetence, insubordination, and disobedience
HELD:
NO, SC applied PH labor laws. In cases involving
OFWs, the rights and obligations among and
between the OFW, the local recruiter/agent, and
the foreign employer/principal are governed by
the employment contract. A contract freely entered
into is considered law between the parties; and
hence, should be respected. x x x
In the present case, the employment contract
signed by Gran specifically states that Saudi Labor
Laws will govern matters not provided for in the
contract (e.g. specific causes for termination,
termination procedures, etc.). Being the law
Estanuts by BEANIZA|CADELEÑA|ESTAVILLA|MELENDEZ|SABUSAY
Read the Full Text
ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
intended by the parties (lex loci intentiones) to
apply to the contract, Saudi Labor Laws should
govern all matters relating to the termination of the
employment of Gran.
In international law, the party who wants to
have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case
has the burden of proving the foreign law. The
foreign law is treated as a question of fact to be
properly pleaded and proved as the judge or
labor arbiter cannot take judicial notice of a
foreign law. He is presumed to know only
domestic or forum law.
Unfortunately for petitioner, it did not prove the
pertinent Saudi laws on the matter; thus, the
International Law doctrine of presumed-identity
approach or processual presumption comes into
play. Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if
pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that
foreign law is the same as ours. Thus, we apply
Philippine labor laws in determining the issues
presented before us.
MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST CO. v
RAFAEL MA. GUERRERO
G.R. 136804, February 19, 2003
FACTS:
Respondent Guerrero filed a complaint for
damages against petitioner Manufacturers
Hanover Trust Co. and/or Chemical Bank (The
Bank) with the RTC. Guerrero sought payment of
damages allegedly for:
 Illegally withheld taxes charged against
interests on his checking account with The
Bank;
 Returned check due to signature
verification problems; and
 Unauthorized conversion of his account.
The Bank in its answer alleged that by stipulation,
Guerrero’s account is governed by New York law
and this law does not permit any of Guerrero’s
claim except of actual damages. Thus, a Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment was filed seeking the
dismissal of Guerrero’s claims and that trial should
be limited to the issue of actual damages. The
affidavit of Alyssa Walden, a New York attorney
supported the the Bank’s motion. The Walden
Affidavit stated that Guerrero’s New York bank
account stipulated that the governing law is New
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020)
York Law and that this law bars all of his claims
except actual damages. Guerrero opposed said
motion.
The RTC denied the Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.
The CA sustained the RTC orders denying the
motion. The Walden Affidavit does not serve as proof
of the New York law and Jurisprudence. It is
considered as a public document under Section 19,
Rule 132 of Rules of Evidence and thus, procedure
outlined in section 24, Rule 132 should be followed
in proving foreign law.
ISSUE/S:
WON the Walden Affidavit was sufficient proof of
the New York law and jurisprudence for the Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment be granted.
WON Guerrero admitted the averments in the
Bank's motion for partial summary judgment and
the Walden affidavit for failure to submit an
opposing affidavit.
RULING:
No. The Walden Affidavit failed to prove New York
law and jurisprudence. |||
In a motion for summary judgment, the crucial
question is: are the issues raised in the
pleadings genuine, sham or fictitious, as shown
by affidavits, depositions or admissions
accompanying the motion?||
Petitioner's motion for summary judgment is not
proper as it does not demonstrate that
respondent's claims are sham, fictitious, or
contrived. There can be no summary judgment
where material allegations of the pleadings are in
dispute and can be resolved only by trial on the
merits. On the alleged foreign law applicable, the
Walden affidavit and attached US court decisions
therein are not proper substantiation thereof for
failure to comply with Sec. 24, Rule 132 on proof of
foreign laws, records, and decisions.|||
There can be no summary judgment where
questions of fact are in issue or where material
allegations of the pleadings are in dispute. The
resolution of whether a foreign law allows only the
recovery of actual damages is a question of fact as
far as the trial court is concerned since foreign laws
Estanuts by BEANIZA|CADELEÑA|ESTAVILLA|MELENDEZ|SABUSAY
Read the Full Text
CASE DIGEST ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401
do not prove themselves in our courts. Foreign
laws are not a matter of judicial notice. Like any
other fact, they must be alleged and proven.
Certainly, the conflicting allegations as to whether
New York law or Philippine law applies to
Guerrero's claims present a clear dispute on
material allegations which can be resolved only by
a trial on the merits.|||
Certain exceptions to Rule 24 of Rule 132 were
recognized in Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals.
The Bank, however, cannot rely thereon to support
its cause. These cases involved attorneys testifying
in open court during the trial in the Philippines and
quoting the particular foreign laws sought to be
established. On the other hand, the Walden
affidavit was taken abroad ex parte and the affiant
never testified in open court. The Walden affidavit
cannot be considered as proof of New York law on
damages not only because it is self-serving but also
because it does not state the specific New York law
on damages.|||
The Walden affidavit states conclusions from the
affiant's personal interpretation and opinion of the
facts of the case vis a vis the alleged laws and
jurisprudence without citing any law in particular.
The citations in the Walden affidavit of various U.S.
court decisions do not constitute proof of the
official records or decisions of the U.S. courts. While
the Bank attached copies of some of the U.S. court
decisions cited in the Walden affidavit, these copies
do not comply with Section 24 of Rule 132 on proof
of official records or decisions of foreign courts.|||
The Bank makes much of Guerrero's failure to
submit an opposing affidavit to the Walden
affidavit. However, the pertinent provision of
Section 3, Rule 35 of the old Rules of Court did not
make the submission of an opposing affidavit
mandatory.
Guerrero cannot be said to have admitted the
averments in the Bank's motion for partial
summary judgment and the Walden affidavit just
because he failed to file an opposing affidavit.
Guerrero opposed the motion for partial summary
judgment, although he did not present an opposing
affidavit. Guerrero did not admit, expressly or
impliedly, the veracity of the statements in the
Walden affidavit. The Bank still had the burden of
proving New York law and jurisprudence even if
Guerrero did not present an opposing affidavit. As
the party moving for summary judgment, the Bank
has the burden of clearly demonstrating the
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST
EH401
absence of any genuine issue of fact and that any
doubt as to the existence of such issue is resolved
against the movant. |||
ASIAVEST LIMITED vs. THE COURT OF
APPEALS
G.R. No. 128803, September 25, 1998
FACTS:
Plaintiff Asiavest Limited filed a complaint against
the defendant Antonio Heras praying that he be
ordered to pay to the plaintiff the amounts
awarded by the Hong Kong Court Judgment. The
action filed in Hong Kong against Heras was in
personam, since it was based on his personal
guarantee of the obligation of the principal debtor.
At the pre-trial conference, the parties agreed on
the following stipulations of facts:
1. The defendant admits the existence of the
judgment dated December 28, 1984 as well as its
amendment dated April 13, 1987, but not
necessarily the authenticity or validity thereof;
2. The plaintiff is not doing business and is not
licensed to do business in the Philippines;
3. The residence of defendant, Antonio Heras, is
New Manila, Quezon City.
The trial court held that since the Hong Kong court
judgment had been duly proved, it is a presumptive
evidence of a right as between the parties. Hence,
the party impugning it had the burden to prove
want of jurisdiction over his person. HERAS failed
to discharge that burden. He did not testify to state
categorically and under oath that he never received
summons. The Hong Kong court judgment should
be recognized and given effect in this jurisdiction
for failure of HERAS to overcome the legal
presumption in favor of the foreign judgment.
Heras appealed the decision to the CA.
The CA rendered its decision reversing the decision
of the trial court and dismissing ASIAVEST's
complaint without prejudice. It underscored the
fact that a foreign judgment does not of itself have
any extraterritorial application. For it to be given
effect, the foreign tribunal should have acquired
jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter.
If such tribunal has not acquired jurisdiction, its
judgment is void.
Estanuts by BEANIZA|CADELEÑA|ESTAVILLA|MELENDEZ|SABUSAY
Read the Full Text
ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court
that matters of remedy and procedure such as
those relating to service of summons upon the
defendant are governed by the lex fori, which was,
in this case, the law of Hong Kong.
It then stressed that where the action is in
personam and the defendant is in the Philippines,
the summons should be personally served on the
defendant. Heras was physically present in Hong
Kong for nearly 14 years. There was not even an
attempt to serve summons on HERAS therein, thus,
the Hong Kong Supreme Court did not acquire
jurisdiction over his person.
ISSUE:
WON Hong Kong acquired jurisdiction over the
person of Heras.
WON the Hong Kong Court Judgment is enforceable
in the Philippines.
RULING:
No.
During the trial, Mr. Lousich was presented as an
expert on the laws of Hong Kong, and as a
representative of the law office of the defendant's
counsel who made a verification of the record of
the case filed by the plaintiff in Hong Kong against
the defendant as well as the procedure in serving
Court processes in Hong Kong. He testified that the
Hong Kong court authorized service of summons
on HERAS outside of its jurisdiction, particularly in
the Philippines. He also declared that such service
of summons would be valid under Hong Kong laws
provided that it was in accordance with Philippine
laws.
Jurisprudence provides that testimony of an expert
witness may be allowed to prove a foreign law.
However, nothing in the testimony of Mr. Lousich
touched on the specific law of Hong Kong in respect
of service of summons either in actions in rem or in
personam, and where the defendant is either a
resident or nonresident of Hong Kong. In view of
the absence of proof of the Hong Kong law on this
particular issue, the presumption of identity or
similarity or the so-called processual presumption
shall come into play. It will thus be presumed that
the Hong Kong law on the matter is similar to the
Philippine law.
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401

In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the

person of the defendant is necessary for the court
to validly try and decide the case. Significantly, in
the pre-trial conference, the parties came up with
stipulations of facts, among which was that "the
residence of defendant, Antonio Heras, is New
Manila, Quezon City."|||

With that stipulation of fact, ASIAVEST cannot now

claim that HERAS was a resident of Hong Kong at
the time. The summons should have been
personally served on him in Hong Kong. The
extraterritorial service in the Philippines was
therefore invalid and did not confer on the Hong
Kong court jurisdiction over his person. It follows
that the Hong Kong court judgment cannot be given
force and effect here in the Philippines for having
been rendered without jurisdiction.

No.

Under paragraph (b) of Section 50, Rule 39 of the

Rules of Court, which was the governing law at the
time this case was decided by the trial court and
respondent Court of Appeals, a foreign judgment
against a person rendered by a court having
jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment is
presumptive evidence of a right as between the
parties and their successors in interest by the
subsequent title. However, the judgment may be
repelled by evidence of want of jurisdiction, want
of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear
mistake of law or fact.

The extraterritorial service in the Philippines was

therefore invalid and did not confer on the Hong
Kong court jurisdiction over his person. It follows
that the Hong Kong court judgment cannot be given
force and effect here in the Philippines for having
been rendered without jurisdiction. On the same
note, Heras was also an absentee, hence, he should
have been served with summons in the same
manner as a non-resident not found in Hong Kong.
Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court providing
for extraterritorial service will not apply because
the suit against him was in personam. Neither can
we apply Section 18, which allows extraterritorial
service on a resident defendant who is temporarily
absent from the country, because even if Heras be
considered as a resident of Hong Kong, the
undisputed fact remains that he left Hong Kong not
only temporarily but for good.

Estanuts by BEANIZA|CADELEÑA|ESTAVILLA|MELENDEZ|SABUSAY UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

Read the Full Text