SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 122191, October 8, 1998

1. CONVENIENCE OF THE LITIGANTS IS OF PRAGMATIC CONSIDERATIONS. —

Pragmatic considerations, including the convenience of the parties, also weigh heavily in favor of
the RTC Quezon City assuming jurisdiction. Paramount is the private interest of the litigant.
Enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained is quite obvious. Relative advantages and obstacles
to a fair trial are equally important. Plaintiff may not, by choice of an inconvenient forum, 'vex',
'harass', or 'oppress' the defendant, e.g., by inflicting upon him needless expense of disturbance. But
unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely
be disturbed. Weighing the relative claims of the parties, the court a quo found it best to hear the
case in the Philippines. Had it refused to take cognizance of the case, it would be forcing plaintiff 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 plaintiff should be upheld.

2. CHARACTERIZATION (DOCTRINE OF QUALIFICATION) DEFINED. — As to the

choice of applicable law, we note that choice-of-law problems seek to answer two important
questions: (1) What legal system should control a given situation where some of the significant facts
occurred in two or more states; and (2) to what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the
situation. 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.

3. PHILIPPINES IS THE SITUS OF THE TORT. — Considering that the complaint in the court
a quo is one involving torts, the "connecting factor" or "point of contract" 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 places 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.

4. STATE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP RULE APPLIES IN THE CASE

AT BAR. — Moreover, with the widespread criticism of the traditional rule of lex loci delicti
commissi, modern theories and rules on tort liability have been advanced to offer fresh judicial
approaches to arrive at just results. In keeping abreast with the modern theories on tort liability, we
find here an occasion to apply the "State of the most significant relationship" rule, which in our view
should be appropriate to apply now, given the factual context of this case. 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.

CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DOCTRINES | Carlota Villaroman

 HASEGAWA vs. KITAMURA
G.R. No. 149177, November 23, 2007

1. To elucidate, IN THE JUDICIAL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTS PROBLEMS, THREE

CONSECUTIVE PHASES ARE INVOLVED: jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and
enforcement of judgments. Corresponding to these phases are the following questions: (1) Where
can or should litigation be initiated? (2) Which law will the court apply? and (3) Where can the
resulting judgment be enforced?

2. ANALYTICALLY, JURISDICTION AND CHOICE OF LAW ARE TWO 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 which 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.

3. LEX LOCI CELEBRATIONIS RELATES TO THE " LAW OF THE PL ACE 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 contracts
and evaluates them according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue to be
resolved.

4. It should be noted that when a conflicts case, one involving a foreign element, is brought before a
court or administrative agency, THERE ARE THREE 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.

CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DOCTRINES | Carlota Villaroman

 SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES (SAUDIA) vs. REBESENCIO
G.R. No. 198587, January 14, 2015

1. FORUM NON CONVENIENS LITERALLY TRANSLATES TO " THE FORUM IS

INCONVENIENT." It is a concept in private international law and was devised to combat the
"less than honorable" reasons and excuses that litigants use to secure procedural advantages, annoy
and harass defendants, avoid overcrowded dockets, and select a "friendlier" venue. Thus, the
doctrine of forum non conveniens addresses the same rationale that the rule against forum shopping
does, albeit on a multijurisdictional scale.

2. This court underscored that a PHILIPPINE COURT MAY PROPERLY ASSUME

JURISDICTION over a case if it chooses to do so to the extent: "(1) that the Philippine Court is
one to which the parties may conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine Court is in a position to
make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine Court has or is
likely to have power to enforce its decision."

3. The use of the word "may" (i.e., "may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction") in the decisions shows
that the MATTER OF JURISDICTION RESTS ON THE SOUND DISCRETION OF A
COURT. Neither the mere invocation of forum non conveniens nor the averment of foreign
elements operates to automatically divest a court of jurisdiction. Rather, a court should renounce
jurisdiction only "after 'vital facts are established, to determine whether special circumstances' require
the court's desistance." As the propriety of applying forum non conveniens is contingent on a factual
determination, it is, therefore, a matter of defense.

4. Consistent with forum non conveniens as fundamentally a factual matter, IT IS IMPERATIVE

THAT IT PROCEED FROM A FACTUALLY ESTABLISHED BASIS. IT would be
improper to dismiss an action pursuant to forum non conveniens based merely on a perceived, likely,
or hypothetical multiplicity of fora. Thus, a defendant must also plead and show that a prior suit has,
in fact, been brought in another jurisdiction.

5. FORUM NON CONVENIENS RELATES TO FORUM, NOT TO THE CHOICE OF

GOVERNING LAW. That forum non conveniens may ultimately result in the application of
foreign law is merely an incident of its application. In this strict sense, forum non conveniens is not
applicable. It is not the primarily pivotal consideration in this case.

6. Any evaluation of the propriety of contracting parties' choice of a forum and its incidents must
grapple with TWO (2) CONSIDERATIONS: first, the availability and adequacy of recourse to a
foreign tribunal; and second, the question of where, as between the forum court and a foreign court,
the balance of interests inhering in a dispute weighs more heavily.

CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DOCTRINES | Carlota Villaroman

 PUYAT vs. ZABARTE
G.R. No. 141536, February 26, 2001

1. Under the principle of forum non conveniens, even if the exercise of jurisdiction is authorized by
law, courts may nonetheless refuse to entertain a case for any of the following practical reasons:
a. The belief that the matter can be better tried and decided elsewhere, either because the
main aspects of the case transpired in a foreign jurisdiction or the material witnesses have
their residence there;
b. The belief that the non-resident plaintiff sought the forum[,] a practice known as forum
shopping[,] merely to secure procedural advantages or to convey or harass the defendant;
c. The unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to non-residents or aliens when the
docket may already be overcrowded;
d. The inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for effectuating the right sought to be
maintained; and
e. The difficulty of ascertaining foreign law.

2. Under Section 48, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a judgment in an action in
personam rendered by a foreign tribunal clothed with jurisdiction is PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE
of a right as between the parties and their successors-in-interest by a subsequent title. Also, under
Section 5(n) of Rule 131, a court — whether in the Philippines or elsewhere — enjoys the
PRESUMPTION THAT IT IS ACTING IN THE LAWFUL EXERCISE OF ITS
JURISDICTION, and that it is regularly performing its official duty. Its judgment may, however,
be assailed if there is evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud
or clear mistake of law or fact. But precisely, this possibility signals the need for a local trial court to
exercise jurisdiction. Clearly, the application of forum non conveniens is not called for.

CONFLICT OF LAWS CASE DOCTRINES | Carlota Villaroman