Northwest Valmonte Hasegawa Saudia Pcis Cases Full Text

8/11/2019 Northwest Valmonte Hasegawa Saudia Pcis Cases Full Text

1/31

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 112573 February 9, 1995

NORTHWEST ORIENT IR!INES, INC. petitioner,vs.

COURT OF PPE!S a"# C.F. SHRP $ COMPN% INC., respondents.

P&I!!, 'R., J.:

This petition for revie on certiorari see!s to set aside the decision of the "ourtof #ppeals a$r%in& the dis%issal of the petitioner's co%plaint to enforce the

(ud&%ent of a )apanese court. The principal issue here is hether a )apanesecourt can ac*uire (urisdiction over a Philippine corporation doin& business in

)apan b+ servin& su%%ons throu&h diplo%atic channels on the Philippinecorporation at its principal o$ce in Manila after prior atte%pts to servesu%%ons in )apan had failed.

Petitioner Northest Orient #irlines, Inc. hereinafter NORTHWEST-, acorporation or&anied under the las of the State of Minnesota, /.S.#., sou&htto enforce in "ivil "ase No. 01234514 of the Re&ional Trial "ourt RT"-, 6ranch78, Manila, a (ud&%ent rendered in its favor b+ a )apanese court a&ainstprivate respondent ".F. Sharp 9 "o%pan+, Inc., hereinafter S:#RP-, acorporation incorporated under Philippine las.

#s found b+ the "ourt of #ppeals in the challen&ed decision of 3; Nove%ber3


2/31

/nable to settle the case a%icabl+, the case as tried on the%erits. #fter the plainti> rested its case, defendant on #pril?3, 3-L if this isso then service of su%%ons should havebeen %ade upon the defendant in )apan inan+ of these alle&ed four branchesL asad%itted b+ the plainti> the service of thesu%%ons issued b+ the )apanese "ourtas %ade in the Philippines thru aPhilippine Sheri>. This "ourt a&rees that ifthe defendant in a forei&n court is aresident in the court of that forei&n courtsuch court could ac*uire (urisdiction overthe person of the defendant but it %ust beserved upon the defendant in the territorial

(urisdiction of the forei&n court. Such is notthe case here because the defendant asserved ith su%%ons in the Philippinesand not in )apan.

/nable to accept the said decision, plainti> on )ul+ 33, 3ect after and uponissuance of the court's denial of the %otion forreconsideration.

Defendant opposed the %otion for reconsideration to hich aRepl+ dated #u&ust ?0, 3.

On October 35, 3


3/31


4/31

#lternativel+ in the li&ht of the absence of proof re&ardin& )apanesela, the presu%ption of identit+ or si%ilarit+ or the so2called processualpresu%ption 1+%a+ be invo!ed. #ppl+in& it, the )apanese la on the %atter ispresu%ed to be si%ilar ith the Philippine la on service of su%%ons on aprivate forei&n corporation doin& business in the Philippines. Section 38, Rule38 of the Rules of "ourt provides that if the defendant is a forei&n corporationdoin& business in the Philippines, service %a+ be %ade= 3- on its residenta&ent desi&nated in accordance ith la for that purpose, or, ?- if there is nosuch resident a&ent, on the &overn%ent o$cial desi&nated b+ la to thate>ectL or 1- on an+ of its o$cers or a&ents ithin the Philippines.

If the forei&n corporation has desi&nated an a&ent to receive su%%ons, thedesi&nation is eGclusive, and service of su%%ons is ithout force and &ives thecourt no (urisdiction unless %ade upon hi%. 11

here the corporation has no such a&ent, service shall be %ade on the&overn%ent o$cial desi&nated b+ la, to it= a- the Insurance "o%%issionerin the case of a forei&n insurance co%pan+L b- the Superintendent of 6an!s, inthe case of a forei&n ban!in& corporationL and c- the Securities and KGchan&e"o%%ission, in the case of other forei&n corporations dul+ licensed to dobusiness in the Philippines. henever service of process is so %ade, the&overn%ent o$ce or o$cial served shall trans%it b+ %ail a cop+ of thesu%%ons or other le&al proccess to the corporation at its ho%e or principalo$ce. The sendin& of such cop+ is a necessar+ part of the service. 12

S:#RP contends that the las authoriin& service of process upon theSecurities and KGchan&e "o%%ission, the Superintendent of 6an!s, and theInsurance "o%%issioner, as the case %a+ be, presuppose a situation hereinthe forei&n corporation doin& business in the countr+ no lon&er has an+branches or o$ces ithin the Philippines. Such contention is belied b+ thepertinent provisions of the said las. Thus, Section 3?0 of the "orporation"ode 13and Section 3airs of )apan hich, in turn, forarded the sa%e to the

)apanese K%bass+ in Manila . Thereafter, the court processes ere delivered tothe Ministr+ no Depart%ent- of Forei&n #>airs of the Philippines, then to theKGecutive )ud&e of the "ourt of First Instance no Re&ional Trial "ourt- ofManila, ho forthith ordered Deput+ Sheri> Rolando 6alin&it to serve the

sa%e on S:#RP at its principal o$ce in Manila. This service is e*uivalent toservice on the proper &overn%ent o$cial under Section 38, Rule 38 of theRules of "ourt, in relation to Section 3?0 of the "orporation "ode. :ence,S:#RP's contention that such %anner of service is not valid under Philippinelas holds no ater. 17

In decidin& a&ainst the petitioner, the respondent court sustained the trialcourt's reliance on Boudard vs.Tait 1*here this "ourt held=

The funda%ental rule is that (urisdiction in personamovernonresidents, so as to sustain a %one+ (ud&%ent, %ust bebased upon personal service ithin the state hich rendersthe (ud&%ent.

GGG GGG GGG

The process of a court, has no eGtraterritorial e>ect, and no(urisdiction is ac*uired over the person of the defendant b+servin& hi% be+ond the boundaries of the state. Nor has a

(ud&%ent of a court of a forei&n countr+ a&ainst a resident ofthis countr+ havin& no propert+ in such forei&n countr+ basedon process served here, an+ e>ect here a&ainst either thedefendant personall+ or his propert+ situated here.

Process issuin& fro% the courts of one state or countr+cannot run into another, and althou&h a nonresidentdefendant %a+ have been personall+ served ith suchprocess in the state or countr+ of his do%icile, it ill not &ivesuch (urisdiction as to authorie a personal (ud&%ent a&ainsthi%.

It further availed of the rulin& in agdalena Estate! "nc.vs.Nieto19and #ial$orp.vs.Soriano, 2+as ell as the principle laid don b+ the Ioa Supre%e"ourt in the 3


5/31

The rst three cases are, hoever, inapplicable. Boudard involved theenforce%ent of a (ud&%ent of the civil division of the "ourt of First Instance of:anoi, French Indo2"hina. The trial court dis%issed the case because the :anoicourt never ac*uired (urisdiction over the person of the defendant considerin&that Cthe, evidence adduced at the trial conclusivel+ proves that neither theappellee Cthe defendant nor his a&ent or e%plo+ees ere ever in :anoi,French Indo2"hinaL and that the deceased Marie Theodore )ero%e 6oudard hadnever, at an+ ti%e, been his e%plo+ee. In agdalena Estate, hat asdeclared invalid resultin& in the failure of the court to ac*uire (urisdiction overthe person of the defendants in an action in personamas the service ofsu%%ons throu&h publication a&ainst non2appearin& resident defendants. Itas clai%ed that the latter concealed the%selves to avoid personal service ofsu%%ons upon the%. In #ial, the defendants ere forei&n corporations hichere not, do%iciled and licensed to en&a&e in business in the Philippines and

hich did not have o$cers or a&ents, places of business, or properties here.On the other hand, in the instant case, S:#RP as doin& business in )apan andas %aintainin& four branches therein.

Insofar as to the Philippines is concerned, Raheris a thin& of the past. In thatcase, a divided Supre%e "ourt of Ioa declared that the principle that therecan be no (urisdiction in a court of a territor+ to render a personal (ud&%enta&ainst an+one upon service %ade outside its li%its as applicable ali!e tocases of residents and non2residents. The principle as put at rest b+ the/nited States Supre%e "ourt hen it ruled in the 3ectivit+, fro% hich enli&htenin& notions of the ter%%a+ be derived.

The National Internal Revenue "ode declares that the ter%'resident forei&n corporation' applies to a forei&n corporationen&a&ed in trade or business ithin the Philippines, asdistin&uished fro% a 'non2resident forei&n corporation' . . .hich is one- not en&a&ed in trade or bussiness ithin thePhilippines. CSec. ?;, pars. h- and i-.

The O>shore 6an!in& a, Presidential Decree No. 3;18,states that branches, subsidiaries, a$liation, eGtensiono$ces or an+ other units of corporation or (uridical personor&anied under the las of an+ forei&n countr+ operatin& inthe Philippines shall be considered residents of thePhilippines. CSec. 3e-.

The eneral 6an!in& #ct, Republic #ct No. 114, placesbranches and a&encies in the Philippines of forei&nban!s . . . hich are- called Philippine branches, in thesa%e cate&or+ as co%%ercial ban!s, savin&s associations,%ort&a&e ban!s, develop%ent ban!s, rural ban!s, stoc!savin&s and loan associations hich have been for%ed andor&anied under Philippine las-, %a!in& no distinctionbeteen the for%er and the latter in so far as the ter%sban!in& institutions and ban! are used in the #ct CSec. ?,declarin& on the contrar+ that in all %atters not specicall+covered b+ special provisions applicable onl+ to forei&nban!s, or their branches and a&encies in the Philippines, saidforei&n ban!s or their branches and a&encies lafull+ doin&business in the Philippines shall be bound b+ all las, rules,

"on@ict of as 2 s(bPriorJ 7


6/31

and re&ulations applicable to do%estic ban!in& corporationsof the sa%e class, eGcept such las, rules and re&ulations asprovided for the creation, for%ation, or&aniation, ordissolution of corporations or as G the relation, liabilities,responsibilities, or duties of %e%bers, stoc!holders oro$cers of corporation. CSec. 30.

This court itself has alread+ had occasion to hold C"laudeNeon i&hts, Fed. Inc. vs. Philippine #dvertisin& "orp., 74 Phil.5;4 that a forei&n corporation licitl+ doin& business in thePhilippines, hich is a defendant in a civil suit, %a+ not beconsidered a non)resident ithin the scope of the le&alprovision authoriin& attach%ent a&ainst a defendant notresiding in the *hilippine "slandsL CSec. 8?8, in relation to Sec.

83? of #ct No. 3


7/31

*adilla! Bellosillo! +uaison and ,apunan! --.! concur.

SECON& &IISION

-G.R. No. 1+*53*. 'a"uary 22, 199)

!OUR&ES . !MONTE a"# !FRE&O &. !MONTE,petitioners, vs.THE HONOR/!E COURT OF PPE!S, THIR& &IISION a"# ROSIT

&IM!NT, respondents.

& E C I S I O N

MEN&O0, '.

Petitioner ourdes #. Val%onte is a forei&n resident. The *uestion is hether inan action for partition led a&ainst her and her husband, ho is also herattorne+, su%%ons intended for her %a+ be served on her husband, ho has ala o$ce in the Philippines. The Re&ional Trial "ourt of Manila, 6ranch 80, saidno and refused to declare ourdes #. Val%onte in default, but the "ourt of#ppeals said +es. :ence this petition for revie on certiorari.

The facts of the case are as follos=

Petitioners ourdes #. Val%onte and #lfredo D. Val%onte are husband and ife.The+ are both residents of


8/31

This is in response to +our letter, dated ?; )une 3


9/31

there as no strict co%pliance ith the re*uire%ent b+ leavin& a cop+ of thesu%%ons and co%plaint ith petitioner #lfredo D. Val%onte. Privaterespondent, upon the other hand, asserts that petitioners are invo!in& atechnicalit+ and that strict adherence to the rules ould onl+ result in a uselesscere%on+.

e hold that there as no valid service of process on ourdes #. Val%onte.

To provide perspective, it ill be helpful to deter%ine rst the nature of theaction led a&ainst petitioners ourdes #. Val%onte and #lfredo D. Val%onte b+private respondent, hether it is an action in personam! in rem or quasi inrem.This is because the rules on service of su%%ons e%bodied in Rule 38appl+ accordin& to hether an action is one or the other of these actions.

In an action in personam! personal service of su%%ons or, if this is not possibleand he cannot be personall+ served, substituted service, as provided in Rule38, 420?C? is essential for the ac*uisition b+ the court of (urisdiction over theperson of a defendant ho does not voluntaril+ sub%it hi%self to the authorit+of the court.1C1 If defendant cannot be served ith su%%ons because he iste%poraril+ abroad, but otherise he is a Philippine resident, service ofsu%%ons %a+, b+ leave of court, be %ade b+ publication.8C8 Otherisestated, a resident defendant in an action in personam! ho cannot bepersonall+ served ith su%%ons, %a+ be su%%oned either b+ %eans ofsubstituted service in accordance ith Rule 38, 0 or b+ publication asprovided in 34 and 30 of the sa%e Rule.7C7

In all of these cases, it should be noted, defendant %ust be a resident of thePhilippines, otherise an action in personam cannot be brou&ht because

(urisdiction over his person is essential to %a!e a bindin& decision.

On the other hand, if the action is in rem or quasi in rem!(urisdiction over theperson of the defendant is not essential for &ivin& the court (urisdiction so lon&as the court ac*uires (urisdiction over the res. If the defendant is a nonresident

and he is not found in the countr+, su%%ons %a+ be served eGtraterritoriall+ inaccordance ith Rule 38, 34, hich provides=

34. Extraterritorial service. 2 hen the defendant does not reside and is notfound in the Philippines and the action a>ects the personal status of theplainti> or relates to, or the sub(ect of hich is, propert+ ithin the Philippines,in hich the defendant has or clai%s a lien or interest, actual or contin&ent, or

?

1

8

7

in hich the relief de%anded consists, holl+ or in part, in eGcludin& thedefendant fro% an+ interest therein, or the propert+ of the defendant has beenattached ithin the Philippines, service %a+, b+ leave of court, be e>ected outof the Philippines b+ personal service as under Section 4L or b+ publication in anespaper of &eneral circulation in such places and for such ti%e as the court%a+ order, in hich case a cop+ of the su%%ons and order of the court shallbe sent b+ re&istered %ail to the last !non address of the defendant, or inan+ other %anner the court %a+ dee% su$cient. #n+ order &rantin& suchleave shall specif+ a reasonable ti%e, hich shall not be less than siGt+ 5;-da+s after notice, ithin hich the defendant %ust anser.

In such cases, hat &ives the court (urisdiction in an action in rem or quasi inrem is that it has (urisdiction over the res! i.e. the personal status of theplainti> ho is do%iciled in the Philippines or the propert+ liti&ated or

attached. Service of su%%ons in the %anner provided in 34 is not for thepurpose of vestin& it ith (urisdiction but for co%pl+in& ith the re*uire%entsof fair pla+ or due process, so that he ill be infor%ed of the pendenc+ of theaction a&ainst hi% and the possibilit+ that propert+ in the Philippines belon&in&to hi% or in hich he has an interest %a+ be sub(ected to a (ud&%ent in favorof the plainti> and he can thereb+ ta!e steps to protect his interest if he is so%inded.5C5

#ppl+in& the fore&oin& rules to the case at bar, private respondentQs action,hich is for partition and accountin& under Rule 5ectin&the defendantQs interest in a specic propert+ and not to render a (ud&%enta&ainst hi%. #s eGplained in the leadin& case of Banco Espa1ol 2ilipino v.*alanca 34[7]

C#n action quasi in rem is an action hich hile not strictl+ spea!in& an actionin rem parta!es of that nature and is substantiall+ such. . . . The action quasi inrem di>ers fro% the true action in rem in the circu%stance that in the for%eran individual is na%ed as defendant and the purpose of the proceedin& is tosub(ect his interest therein to the obli&ation or lien burdenin& the propert+. #ll

proceedin&s havin& for their sole ob(ect the sale or other disposition of thepropert+ of the defendant, hether b+ attach%ent, foreclosure, or other for%of re%ed+, are in a &eneral a+ thus desi&nated. The (ud&%ent entered inthese proceedin&s is conclusive onl+ beteen the parties.

#s petitioner ourdes #. Val%onte is a nonresident ho is not found in thePhilippines, service of su%%ons on her %ust be in accordance ith Rule 38, 34. Such service, to be e>ective outside the Philippines, %ust be %ade either3- b+ personal serviceL ?- b+ publication in a nespaper of &eneral circulationin such places and for such ti%e as the court %a+ order, in hich case a cop+of the su%%ons and order of the court should be sent b+ re&istered %ail to the

5

4"on@ict of as 2 s(bPriorJ


10/31

last !non address of the defendantL or 1- in an+ other %anner hich thecourt %a+ dee% su$cient.

Since in the case at bar, the service of su%%ons upon petitioner ourdes #.Val%onte as not done b+ %eans of an+ of the rst to %odes, the *uestion ishether the service on her attorne+, petitioner #lfredo D. Val%onte, can be

(ustied under the third %ode, na%el+, in an+ . . . %anner the court %a+dee% su$cient.

e hold it cannot. This %ode of service, li!e the rst to, %ust be %adeoutside the Philippines, such as throu&h the Philippine K%bass+ in the forei&ncountr+ here the defendant resides.0C0 Moreover, there are several reasonsh+ the service of su%%ons on #tt+. #lfredo D. Val%onte cannot be considered

a valid service of su%%ons on petitioner ourdes #. Val%onte. In the rstplace, service of su%%ons on petitioner #lfredo D. Val%onte as not %adeupon the order of the court as re*uired b+ Rule 38, 34 and certainl+ as not a%ode dee%ed su$cient b+ the court hich in fact refused to consider theservice to be valid and on that basis declare petitioner ourdes #. Val%onte indefault for her failure to le an anser.

In the second place, service in the atte%pted %anner on petitioner as not%ade upon prior leave of the trial court as re*uired also in Rule 38, 34. #sprovided in 3 or so%e person on his behalf and settin&forth the &rounds for the application.

Finall+, and %ost i%portantl+, because there as no order &rantin& such leave,petitioner ourdes #. Val%onte as not &iven a%ple ti%e to le her #nserhich, accordin& to the rules, shall be not less than siGt+ 5;- da+s after notice.It %ust be noted that the period to le an #nser in an action a&ainst aresident defendant di>ers fro% the period &iven in an action led a&ainst anonresident defendant ho is not found in the Philippines. In the for%er, theperiod is fteen 5/06 da+s fro% service of su%%ons, hile in the latter, it is atleast siGt+ 5;- da+s fro% notice.

Strict co%pliance ith these re*uire%ents alone can assure observance of dueprocess. That is h+ in one case,


11/31

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed fro% is REERSE&and the orders dated)ul+ 1, 3


12/31

&uaranteed to pa+ sic- all %onies due, or to beco%e due, tothe plainti> fro% PIS"- and an+ liabilit+ of the latter arisin&out of the leasin& or purchasin& of e*uip%ent fro% theplainti> or an+ of its subsidiaries, a$liates andHor a&ents ofI.S.". dr+ car&o containers andHor chassis, includin& but notli%ited, to per die% leasin& char&es, da%a&es protectionplan char&es, da%a&es char&e andHor replace%ent costs ofconstructivel+ andHor totall+ lost containers as ell ashandlin& and drop2o> char&es KGhibit )-. 3

The other defendants, na%el+= 3- eor&e i%L ?- Marcos6autistaL 1- "arlos aude 8- Tan Sin& i%L 7- #ntonio iu aoand 5- On& Teh, unconditionall+ and irrevocabl+ &uaranteedto pa+ sic- plainti> all pa+%ents due to it under the Master

K*uip%ent easin& #&ree%ent KGhibit "- and Me%bership#&ree%ent and :irin& "onditions KGhibit 6- dated )une 0,3ered or incurred b+ plainti>, arisin& out of or inconnection ith an+ failure b+ defendant PhilippineInternational Shippin& "orporation to perfor% an+ of itsobli&ations under the aforesaid #&ree%ents KGhibit D, K, F,, :, and I-.(

In 3, the latter led on Nove%ber 35, 3


13/31

Norberto V. Doblado, )r., of the o$ce of the Ma!ati Sheri>, asspecial sheri> for the purpose #nneG D-. 12

On ?; Nove%ber 3


14/31

ords, not based upon the Me%bership #&ree%ent and the Master K*uip%enteasin& #&ree%ent to hich the+ ere not parties. The Ne Aor! aard of /.S.


15/31

On 35 )ul+ 3


16/31

presence of forei&n ele%ents in the dispute W na%el+, the parties anditnesses involved are #%erican corporations and citiens and the evidence tobe presented is located outside the Philippines W that renders our local courtsinconvenient foru%s. Petitioner theories that the forei&n ele%ents of thedispute necessitate the i%%ediate application of the doctrine of forum nonconveniens.

Recentl+ in Hasega@a v. ,itamura,?5the "ourt outlined three consecutivephases involved in (udicial resolution of con@icts2of2las proble%s, na%el+=

(urisdiction, choice of la, and reco&nition and enforce%ent of (ud&%ents.Thus, in the instances?4here the "ourt held that the local (udicial %achiner+as ade*uate to resolve controversies ith a forei&n ele%ent, the folloin&re*uisites had to be proved= 3- that the Philippine "ourt is one to hich theparties %a+ convenientl+ resortL ?- that the Philippine "ourt is in a position to

%a!e an intelli&ent decision as to the la and the factsL and 1- that thePhilippine "ourt has or is li!el+ to have the poer to enforce its decision. ?0

On the %atter of (urisdiction over a con@icts2of2las proble% here the case isled in a Philippine court and here the court has (urisdiction over the sub(ect%atter, the parties and the res, it %a+ or can proceed to tr+ the case even ifthe rules of con@ict2of2las or the convenience of the parties point to a forei&nforu%. This is an eGercise of soverei&n prero&ative of the countr+ here thecase is led.?


17/31

#s correctl+ pointed out b+ the "ourt of #ppeals, the *uestion of hetherpetitioner, 6MSI and R/ST %er&ed to&ether re*uires the presentation of furtherevidence, hich onl+ a full2blon trial on the %erits can a>ord.

WHEREFORE,the instant petition for revie on certiorari is &ENIE&.TheDecision and Resolution of the "ourt of #ppeals in "#2.R. SP No. 54;;3 arehereb+ FFIRME&."osts a&ainst petitioner.

SO OR&ERE&.

&NTE O. TING(ssociate -ustice

FIRST &IISION

-G.R. No. 122191. O


18/31

O$cer of S#/DI#. hen she did, a certain Bhalid of the S#/DI#o$ce brou&ht her to a Saudi court here she as as!ed to si&n adocu%ent ritten in #rabic. The+ told her that this as necessar+ toclose the case a&ainst Tha%er and #llah. #s it turned out, plainti>si&ned a notice to her to appear before the court on )une ?4, 3 to reportto )eddah once a&ain and see Minie+ on )une ?4, 3 to the sa%e Saudicourt on )une ?4, 3


19/31

"onse*uentl+, on Februar+ ?;, 3


20/31

/nder the factual antecedents obtainin& in this case, there is no dispute thatthe interpla+ of events occurred in to states, the Philippines and Saudi #rabia.

#s stated b+ private respondent in her #%ended "o%plaintGGGviiiC10 dated )une?1, 3


21/31

#fter a careful stud+ of the private respondentQs #%ended "o%plaint,GlivC88and the "o%%ent thereon, e note that she aptl+ predicated her cause ofaction on #rticles 3< and ?3 of the Ne "ivil "ode.

On one hand, #rticle 3< of the Ne "ivil "ode providesL

#rt. 3


22/31

reliefs under the pre%ises. /ndeniabl+, petitioner S#/DI# has e>ectivel+sub%itted to the trial courtQs (urisdiction b+ pra+in& for the dis%issal of the#%ended "o%plaint on &rounds other than lac! of (urisdiction.

#s held b+ this "ourt in Repu'lic vs. ,er and $ompan&! 7td.=liC73

e observe that the %otion to dis%iss led on #pril 38, 3Qs cause of action has prescribed. 6+ interposin& suchsecond &round in its %otion to dis%iss, Ber and "o., td. availed ofan a$r%ative defense on the basis of hich it pra+ed the court toresolve controvers+ in its favor. For the court to validl+ decide the

said plea of defendant Ber 9 "o., td., it necessaril+ had to ac*uire(urisdiction upon the latterQs person, ho, bein& the proponent ofthe a$r%ative defense, should be dee%ed to have abandoned itsspecial appearance and voluntaril+ sub%itted itself to the

(urisdiction of the court.

Si%ilarl+, the case of #e idgel& vs. 2erandos, held that=

hen the appearance is b+ %otion for the purpose of ob(ectin& tothe (urisdiction of the court over the person, it %ust be for the soleand separate purpose of ob(ectin& to the (urisdiction of the court. Ifhis %otion is for an+ other purpose than to ob(ect to the (urisdictionof the court over his person, he thereb+ sub%its hi%self to the

(urisdiction of the court. # special appearance b+ %otion %ade forthe purpose of ob(ectin& to the (urisdiction of the court over theperson ill be held to be a &eneral appearance, if the part+ in said%otion should, for eGa%ple, as! for a dis%issal of the action uponthe further &round that the court had no (urisdiction over thesub(ect %atter.liiC7?

"learl+, petitioner had sub%itted to the (urisdiction of the Re&ional Trial "ourtof Uueon "it+. Thus, e nd that the trial court has (urisdiction over the caseand that its eGercise thereof, (ustied.

#s to the choice of applicable la, e note that choice2of2la proble%s see! toanser to i%portant *uestions= 3- hat le&al s+ste% should control a &ivensituation here so%e of the si&nicant facts occurred in to or %ore statesLand ?- to hat eGtent should the chosen le&al s+ste% re&ulate the situation.liii

C71

Several theories have been propounded in order to identif+ the le&al s+ste%that should ulti%atel+ control. #lthou&h ideall+, all choice2of2la theoriesshould intrinsicall+ advance both notions of (ustice and predictabilit+, the+ donot ala+s do so. The foru% is then faced ith the proble% of decidin& hichof these to i%portant values should be stressed. livC78

6efore a choice can be %ade, it is necessar+ for us to deter%ine under hatcate&or+ a certain set of facts or rules fall. This process is !non ascharacteriation, or the doctrine of *ualication. It is the process ofdecidin& hether or not the facts relate to the !ind of *uestion specied in acon@icts rule.lvC77 The purpose of characteriation is to enable the foru%to select the proper la.lviC75

Our startin& point of anal+sis here is not a le&al relation, but a factual situation,event, or operative fact.lviiC74 #n essential ele%ent of con@ict rules is theindication of a test or connectin& factor or point of contact. "hoice2of2la rules invariabl+ consist of a factual relationship such as propert+ ri&ht,contract clai%- and a connectin& factor or point of contact, such as the situsofthe res, the place of celebration, the place of perfor%ance, or the place ofron&doin&.lviiiC70

Note that one or %ore circu%stances %a+ be present to serve as the possibletest for the deter%ination of the applicable la.liGC7


23/31

It also covers contractual relationships particularl+ contracts ofa>rei&ht%ent.lGC5; /nderscorin& ours.-

#fter a careful stud+ of the pleadin&s on record, includin& alle&ations in the#%ended "o%plaint dee%ed sub%itted for purposes of the %otion to dis%iss,e are convinced that there is reasonable basis for private respondentQsassertion that althou&h she as alread+ or!in& in Manila, petitioner brou&hther to )eddah on the pretense that she ould %erel+ testif+ in an investi&ationof the char&es she %ade a&ainst the to S#/DI# cre %e%bers for the attac!on her person hile the+ ere in )a!arta. #s it turned out, she as the one%ade to face trial for ver+ serious char&es, includin& adulter+ and violation ofIsla%ic las and tradition.

There is li!eise lo&ical basis on record for the clai% that the handin& overor turnin& over of the person of private respondent to )eddah o$cials,petitioner %a+ have acted be+ond its duties as e%plo+er. PetitionerQspurported act contributed to and a%plied or even proGi%atel+ causedadditional hu%iliation, %iser+ and su>erin& of private respondent. Petitionerthereb+ alle&edl+ facilitated the arrest, detention and prosecution of privaterespondent under the &uise of petitionerQs authorit+ as e%plo+er, ta!in&advanta&e of the trust, condence and faith she reposed upon it. #spurportedl+ found b+ the Prince of Ma!!ah, the alle&ed conviction andi%prison%ent of private respondent as ron&ful. 6ut these capped the in(ur+or har% alle&edl+ in@icted upon her person and reputation, for hich petitionercould be liable as clai%ed, to provide co%pensation or redress for the ron&sdone, once dul+ proven.

"onsiderin& that the co%plaint in the court a quois one involvin& torts, theconnectin& factor or point of contact could be the place or places herethe tortious conduct or lex loci actus occurred. #nd appl+in& the torts principlein a con@icts case, e nd that the Philippines could be said as a situsof thetort the place here the alle&ed tortious conduct too! place-. This is becauseit is in the Philippines here petitioner alle&edl+ deceived private respondent,a Filipina residin& and or!in& here. #ccordin& to her, she had honestl+

believed that petitioner ould, in the eGercise of its ri&hts and in theperfor%ance of its duties, act ith (ustice, &ive her her due and observehonest+ and &ood faith. Instead, petitioner failed to protect her, she clai%ed.

That certain acts or parts of the in(ur+ alle&edl+ occurred in another countr+ isof no %o%ent. For in our vie hat is i%portant here is the place here theover2all har% or the fatalit+ of the alle&ed in(ur+ to the person, reputation,social standin& and hu%an ri&hts of co%plainant, had lod&ed, accordin& to theplainti> belo herein private respondent-. #ll told, it is not ithout basis toidentif+ the Philippines as the situsof the alle&ed tort.

Moreover, ith the idespread criticis% of the traditional rule of lex loci delicticommissi, %odern theories and rules on tort liabilit+lGiC53 have been advancedto o>er fresh (udicial approaches to arrive at (ust results. In !eepin& abreastith the %odern theories on tort liabilit+, e nd here an occasion to appl+ theState of the %ost si&nicant relationship rule, hich in our vie should beappropriate to appl+ no, &iven the factual conteGt of this case.

In appl+in& said principle to deter%ine the State hich has the %ost si&nicantrelationship, the folloin& contacts are to be ta!en into account and evaluatedaccordin& to their relative i%portance ith respect to the particular issue= a-the place here the in(ur+ occurredL b- the place here the conduct causin&the in(ur+ occurredL c- the do%icile, residence, nationalit+, place ofincorporation and place of business of the parties, and d- the place here therelationship, if an+, beteen the parties is centered.lGiiC5?

#s alread+ discussed, there is basis for the clai% that over2all in(ur+ occurredand lod&ed in the Philippines. There is li!eise no *uestion that privaterespondent is a resident Filipina national, or!in& ith petitioner, a residentforei&n corporation en&a&ed here in the business of international air carria&e.

Thus, the relationship beteen the parties as centered here, althou&h itshould be stressed that this suit is not based on %ere labor la violations.

Fro% the record, the clai% that the Philippines has the %ost si&nicant contactith the %atter in this dispute,lGiiiC51 raised b+ private respondent as plainti>belo a&ainst defendant herein petitioner-, in our vie, has been properl+established.

Prescindin& fro% this pre%ise that the Philippines is the situsof the tortco%plaint of and the place havin& the %ost interest in the proble%, e nd,b+ a+ of recapitulation, that the Philippine la on tort liabilit+ should havepara%ount application to and control in the resolution of the le&al issuesarisin& out of this case. Further, e hold that the respondent Re&ional Trial"ourt has (urisdiction over the parties and the sub(ect %atter of the co%plaintLthe appropriate venue is in Uueon "it+, hich could properl+ appl+ Philippinela. Moreover, e nd untenable petitionerQs insistence that Csince privaterespondent instituted this suit, she has the burden of pleadin& and provin& theapplicable Saudi la on the %atter.lGivC58 #s aptl+ said b+ private respondent,she has no obli&ation to plead and prove the la of the Bin&do% of Saudi#rabia since her cause of action is based on #rticles 3< and ?3 of the "ivil"ode of the Philippines. In her #%ended "o%plaint and subse*uent pleadin&sshe never alle&ed that Saudi la should &overn this case. lGvC57 #nd ascorrectl+ held b+ the respondent appellate court, considerin& that it as the

petitioner ho as invo!in& the applicabilit+ of the la of Saudi #rabia, thusthe burden as on it Cpetitioner to plead and to establish hat the la ofSaudi #rabia is.lGviC55

astl+, no error could be i%puted to the respondent appellate court inupholdin& the trial courtQs denial of defendantQs herein petitionerQs- %otion todis%iss the case. Not onl+ as (urisdiction in order and venue properl+ laid,but appeal after trial as obviousl+ available, and the eGpeditious trial itselfindicated b+ the nature of the case at hand. Indubitabl+, the Philippines is thestate inti%atel+ concerned ith the ulti%ate outco%e of the case belo not

(ust for the benet of all the liti&ants, but also for the vindication of thecountr+Qs s+ste% of la and (ustice in a transnational settin&. ith these&uidelines in %ind, the trial court %ust proceed to tr+ and ad(ud&e the case inthe li&ht of relevant Philippine la, ith due consideration of the forei&nele%ent or ele%ents involved. Nothin& said herein, of course, should beconstrued as pre(ud&in& the results of the case in an+ %anner hatsoever.

"on@ict of as 2 s(bPriorJ ?1


24/31

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is hereb+ DISMISSKD. "ivil"ase No. U2


25/31

i

T:IRD DIVISION

B#Y/:IRO :#SK## and NIPPON KNINKKRIN "ONS/T#NTS "O., TD.,

Petitioners,

2 versus 2

MINOR/ BIT#M/R#,

Respondent.

.R. No. 38


26/31

For their part, petitioners, contendin& that the I"# had been perfected in )apan and eGecuted b+ and beteen )apanese

nationals, %oved to dis%iss the co%plaint for lac! of (urisdiction. The+ asserted that the clai% for i%proper pre2ter%ination

of respondent's I"# could onl+ be heard and ventilated in the proper courts of )apan folloin& the principles of leG loci

celebrationis and leG contractus. C3?

In the %eanti%e, on )une ?;, ?;;;, the DP: approved Nippon's re*uest for the replace%ent of Bita%ura b+ a certain A.

Bota!e as pro(ect %ana&er of the 66RI Pro(ect. C31

On )une ?


27/31

Necessaril+, because the said dis%issal is ithout pre(udice and has no res (udicata e>ect, and even if petitioners still

indicated in the verication and certication of the second certiorari petition that the rst had alread+ been dis%issed on

procedural &rounds, C11 petitioners are no lon&er re*uired b+ the Rules to indicate in their certication of non2foru%

shoppin& in the instant petition for revie of the second certiorari petition, the status of the aforesaid rst petition before

the "#. In an+ case, an o%ission in the certicate of non2foru% shoppin& about an+ event that ill not constitute res

(udicata and litis pendentia, as in the present case, is not a fatal defect. It ill not arrant the dis%issal and nullication of

the entire proceedin&s, considerin& that the evils sou&ht to be prevented b+ the said certicate are no lon&er present. C18

The "ourt also nds no %erit in respondent's contention that petitioner :ase&aa is onl+ authoried to verif+ and certif+,

on behalf of Nippon, the certiorari petition led ith the "# and not the instant petition. True, the #uthoriation C17 dated

Septe%ber 8, ?;;;, hich is attached to the second certiorari petition and hich is also attached to the instant petition for

revie, is li%ited in scopeits ordin&s indicate that :ase&aa is &iven the authorit+ to si&n for and act on behalf of the

co%pan+ onl+ in the petition led ith the appellate court, and that authorit+ cannot eGtend to the instant petition for

revie. C15 In a plethora of cases, hoever, this "ourt has liberall+ applied the Rules or even suspended its application

henever a satisfactor+ eGplanation and a subse*uent fulll%ent of the re*uire%ents have been %ade. C14 iven that

petitioners herein su$cientl+ eGplained their %is&ivin&s on this point and appended to their Repl+ C10 an updated

#uthoriation C1erent theor+ hen the+ elevated the case to the appellate

court. In the Motion to Dis%iss C80 led ith the trial court, petitioners never contended that the RT" is an inconvenient

foru%. The+ %erel+ ar&ued that the applicable la hich ill deter%ine the validit+ or invalidit+ of respondent's clai% is

that of )apan, folloin& the principles of leG loci celebrationis and leG contractus. C8


28/31

#nal+ticall+, (urisdiction and choice of la are to distinct concepts. C78 )urisdiction considers hether it is fair to cause a

defendant to travel to this stateL choice of la as!s the further *uestion hether the application of a substantive la hich

ill deter%ine the %erits of the case is fair to both parties. The poer to eGercise (urisdiction does not auto%aticall+ &ive a

state constitutional authorit+ to appl+ foru% la. hile (urisdiction and the choice of the leG fori ill often coincide, the

%ini%u% contacts for one do not ala+s provide the necessar+ si&nicant contacts for the other. C77 The *uestion of

hether the la of a state can be applied to a transaction is di>erent fro% the *uestion of hether the courts of that state

have (urisdiction to enter a (ud&%ent. C75

In this case, onl+ the rst phase is at issue(urisdiction. )urisdiction, hoever, has various aspects. For a court to validl+

eGercise its poer to ad(udicate a controvers+, it %ust have (urisdiction over the plainti> or the petitioner, over the

defendant or the respondent, over the sub(ect %atter, over the issues of the case and, in cases involvin& propert+, over the

res or the thin& hich is the sub(ect of the liti&ation. C74 In assailin& the trial court's (urisdiction herein, petitioners are

actuall+ referrin& to sub(ect %atter (urisdiction.

)urisdiction over the sub(ect %atter in a (udicial proceedin& is conferred b+ the soverei&n authorit+ hich establishes and

or&anies the court. It is &iven onl+ b+ la and in the %anner prescribed b+ la. C70 It is further deter%ined b+ the

alle&ations of the co%plaint irrespective of hether the plainti> is entitled to all or so%e of the clai%s asserted therein.

C7


29/31

#ccordin&l+, since the RT" is vested b+ la ith the poer to entertain and hear the civil case led b+ respondent and the

&rounds raised b+ petitioners to assail that (urisdiction are inappropriate, the trial and appellate courts correctl+ denied the

petitionersQ %otion to dis%iss.

:KRKFORK, pre%ises considered, the petition for revie on certiorari is DKNIKD.

SO ORDKRKD.

#NTONIO KD/#RDO 6. N#":/R#

#ssociate )ustic

ii

iii

iv

v

vi

vii

viii

iG

G

Gi

Gii

Giii

Giv

Gv

Gvi

Gvii

Gviii

GiG

GG

GGi

GGii

GGiii

GGiv

GGv


30/31

GGvi

GGvii

GGviii

GGiG

GGG

GGGi

GGGii

GGGiii

GGGiv

GGGv

GGGvi

GGGvii

GGGviii

GGGiG

Gl

Gli

Glii

Gliii

Gliv

Glv

Glvi

Glvii

Glviii

GliG

l

li

lii


31/31

liii

liv

lv

lvi

lvii

lviii

liG

lG

lGi

lGii

lGiii

lGiv

lGv

lGvi

Northwest Valmonte Hasegawa Saudia Pcis Cases Full Text

Documents