OUTLINE: CONFLICT OF LAW IN TORTS AND CRIMES

A. TORTS
 Definition
 Element
B. CRIMES
C. TORTS AND CRIME: DISTINGUISHED AND SIMILARITY
D. CONFLICT OF LAW IN TORTS
 Conflict of torts arises
 Modern Theory on Foreign Tort Liability
 Foreign Tort Claim
 Conflict rules in torts in maritime zone
E. CONFLICT OF LAW IN CRIME
 Theories on jurisdiction of criminal case
 What theories we follow in the Philippine?
 Jurisdiction of crime committed aboard a vessel
F. LEX LOCI DELICTI
 Exception to the territorial rule
___________________________________________________________________

A. TORTS
 DENITION
 Is a legal wrong committed upon person or property independent of
contract.
 Spanish law: the concept of “quasi delict” of culpa acquiliana includes
all acts or omissions committed through fault or negligence causing
damage to another, independent of contract. Art. 2176 of New Civil
Code provides “Whoever by act or omission cause damage to another,
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.”
 American law: it covers legal wrong not only committed through
negligence but also those committed with malice or willful intent, but of
course, independent of contract.
 In Philippine law: Tort committed not only through fault or negligence,
but also with malice or willful intent. Art. 20 of the New Civil Code
provides that “Every person who, contrary to law, willfully of negligently
cause damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.”

 ELEMENT OF EVERY TORT ACTION

 Existence of legal duty from defendant to plaintiff
  Breach of duty, and
 Damage as proximate cause

B. CRIMES
 A crime is an act or omission punishable by law.
 If the transgression is against our Revised Penal Code, it is referred to
as a “FELONY”, if against a Special Law, it is referred to as an
“OFFENSE” and if against a local or municipal ordinance, it is known
as “Infraction”.
 Crimes may be committed thru deliberate deceit and malice or thru
negligence.

C. TORTS AND CRIMES: DISTINGUISH AND SIMILARITY

DISTINGUISHMENT
CRIMES TORT
It violates against the State It violates private rights
Prosecuted in the name of State Actions instituted by the injured
against the offender in the criminal person against the wrongdoer in a civil
case and the purpose of which are case for the purpose of which is
protection and vindication of the indemnification of damages suffered
interest of the public as a whole, the
punishment of the offender, the
reformation of the offender, or to deter
others from committing the same act.
Local in character Transitory in character

SIMILARITY
 Both are unlawful acts requiring redress
 Both are based on intent.

D. CONFLICT OF LAWS IN TORT

I. Conflict torts cases arise
 when the tortious conduct and place of resulting injury are
different and one state imposes higher standards than the other
state
 when there are different product liability laws and varying
judicial interpretations of the extent of liability
II. In general
 Lex Loci delicti commissi or the law of the place where the delict
or wrong or tort was committed
 Characterization of Locus Delicti: Three Theories
  Civil Law Theory is where the act began
 Common Law Theory is where the tortious act first
became effective
 The Theory of Dr. Rabel is the place which has the most
substantial or essential connection with the act.
 Loucks v. Standard Oil Co (1913)
 A tort committed in on state creates a right of action that
may be sued in upon in another unless public policy
forbids. A foreign statute is not law in the state, but it
gives rise to an obligation, which, if transitory, follows the
person and may be enforced wherever the person may
be found.
III. Modern Theory on foreign tort liability
 The most significant relationship
 Two-Fold Purpose
1. Identify the interested state
2. Evaluate the relevance of these contacts to the
issue in question
 Cases
1. Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA (1998)
- It ruled that the RTC of Manila has
jurisdiction to try the case, applying the
“state of the most significance relationship
rule.”
 Interest Analysis
 This approach considers the relevant concerns the state
may have in the case and its interest in having its law
applied on that issue.
 Cavers’ principle of preference
 This principle deals with rules that sanction some kinds of
conduct engaged in by a defendant in one state and
extends the benefit of this higher standard of conduct and
financial protection to the plaintiff even if the state of
injury does not create analogous liabilities.
 Cases
1. Schmidt v. Driscoll Hotel (1957)
IV. Foreign Tort Claim
 Conditions for the enforcement of tort claims
 the foreign tort is based on a civil action and not on a
crime
 the foreign tort is not contrary to the public policy of the
forum
  the judicial machinery of the forum is adequate to satisfy
the claim
 Products liability of the foreign manufacturer
 Conflicts torts cases arise due to significant differences in
the laws of states on the basis and extent of liability for
defectively manufactured products.
 Cases:
1. Asahi Metal Industry vs. Superior Court of
California (1987)
2. Worldwide Volkswagen Corp. vs. Woodson (1980)
 The Alien Tort Act
 The Alien Tort Statute granted US district courts original
JD over any civil action by an alien for a tort committed in
violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the US.
 Cases
1. Hilao vs. Estate of Ferdinand Marcos (1996)
2. Filartiga vs. Pena-Irala (1980)
3. Guinto v. Marcos (1986)
 Philippine Rule on Foreign Torts
 Two conditions for a case based on a foreign tort to be
filed in the Philippines (English Rule):
1. The wrong must be of such a character that it would
have been actionable if committed in the Philippines.
2. the act must not have been justifiable by the law of
the place where it was done
 Cases:
1. Time, Inc. v. Reyes (1971)
 Foreign Tort actionable in the Philippines?
 Yes, provided we acquire jurisdiction over the defendant
(because an action for damages is an action in
personam) and certain condition are present, namely:
1. The foreign tort must not be penal ln nature;
2. The enforcement of the tortious liability should not
contravene our public policy: and
3. Our judicial machinery must be adequate for such
enforcement.
 Cases
Slater v. Mexican National Railway Co.
V. Conflict rules in maritime zone
 If the tort is committed aboard a public vessel, whether on high
seas or in foreign territorial waters, the law of the flag is the Lex
Loci Delicti Commissi
  If the tort is committed aboard a private or merchant vessel on
the high seas, the law of registry is the Lex Loci Delicti
Commissi
 If two vessels collide and are from the same state, the law of the
registry is the Lex Loci Delicti Commissi
 If the vessels come from different states with identical laws,
apply said identical laws.
 If the vessels come from different states with different laws, the
Lex Loci Delicti Commissi is the general maritime law as
understood and applied by the forum where the case is filed.
 If the tort concerns property, whether real or personal, the lex
situs is usually also the lex loci delicti commissi.
 Cases
1. Morrisette v. Can Pac R. Co
2. Le Forest v. Telman

E. CONFLICT OF LAWS IN CRIME

I. THEORIES ON JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL CASES
 TERRITORIAL THEORY
 Under this theory the state where the crime was
committed has jurisdiction to the case, and its penal code
and the penalties prescribe therein will apply
 Kinds
1. The subjective, territorial principle - under which the
state where the crime was begun may prosecute the
same, even if it was completed in another state.
2. The objective territorial principle - under which the
state can prosecute crimes begun abroad but
completed within its territory.
 NATIONALITY OR PERSONAL THEORY
 The country of which the criminal is a citizen or subject
has jurisdiction to try for crimes allegedly committed by
him, whether inside or outside its territory provided it is a
crime under said country’ penal law.
 PROTECTIVE THEORY
 Any state whose national interests may be jeopardized
has jurisdiction over criminal offenses. even if committed
outside its territory and in some cases. even if committed
by an alien.
 REAL OR ECLETIC THEORY
 Any state whose penal code has been transgressed upon
has jurisdiction to bring to justice the perpetrators of the
 crime, whether the crime was committed inside or outside
its own territory. Crimes under this theory would include
piracy, slavery', drug trafficking, immoral traffic in women
and children, etc.
 COSMOPOLITAN OR UNIVERSAL THEORY
 Any state where the criminal is found or which has
obtained custody over him, can try him for the crime he
has allegedly committed, unless extradition applies.
 PASSIVE PERSONALITY OR PASSIVE NATIONALITY
THEORY
 The State of which the victim is a citizen or subject has
jurisdiction to prosecute the offense.

II. WHAT THEORIES WE FOLLOW IN THE PHILIPPINE

 General Rule
 Territorial theory
 Exception
 Protective Theory
III. CRIME COMMITTED ON BOARD A FOREIGN VESSEL –
JURISDICTION
 English Rule Theory
 The territory where the crime was committed (in our
problem, the Philippines) will have jurisdiction except;
1. In matters relating to the internal order and discipline
of the vessel; and
2. Those which affect solely the ship and its occupants
such as minor or petty criminal offenses committed by
members of the crew.
 French Rule Theory
 The stare whose flag is flown by the vessel has
jurisdiction, except if the crime affects the peace, order,
security, and safe of the territory.

F. LEX LOCI DELICTI

I. Under the territorial principle, crime committed within the Philippines by
all persons, whether Filipino citizens or aliens, are prosecuted and
penalized under Philippine law. As a rule, criminal laws of a state are
effective only upon persons who actually commit the crime within the
state’s territory.
II. Three Exceptions to the Territorial rule:
1. Doctrine of State of Immunity: Wylie v. Rarang (1992) and Liang
(Huefeng) v. People (2000)
2. Crimes committed on board a foreign vessel even it is within the
territorial waters of the coastal state: Cases [Us v. Fowler, People
v. Won Cheng (1922), and US v. Look Chaw (1910)]
3. Crimes which, although committed by Philippine nationals abroad,
are punishable under Philippine law