Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 204 views

    1 Hasegawa Vs Kitamura 1

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous wINMQaN
    The Supreme Court ruled that Philippine courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a case involving a contract executed outside the country between foreign nationals. Specifically: 1) The case involved a contract between a Japanese consultancy firm and a Japanese national residing in the Philippines for work on infrastructure projects in the Philippines. 2) The defendant claimed Philippine courts did not have jurisdiction based on principles of where the contract was executed and nationality of parties. 3) The Court found these principles only apply to the choice of law phase, not the jurisdiction phase, and jurisdiction only considers if a defendant can fairly be brought to court, not what law applies.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    1 Hasegawa Vs Kitamura 1

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous wINMQaN
    204 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Philippine courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a case involving a contract executed outside the country between foreign nationals. Specifically: 1) The case involved a contract between a Japanese consultancy firm and a Japanese national residing in the Philippines for work on infrastructure projects in the Philippines. 2) The defendant claimed Philippine courts did not have jurisdiction based on principles of where the contract was executed and nationality of parties. 3) The Court found these principles only apply to the choice of law phase, not the jurisdiction phase, and jurisdiction only considers if a defendant can fairly be brought to court, not what law applies.

    Original Description:

    a

    Original Title

    1 Hasegawa vs Kitamura 1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Philippine courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a case involving a contract executed outside the country between foreign nationals. Specifically: 1) The case involved a contract between a Japanese consultancy firm and a Japanese national residing in the Philippines for work on infrastructure projects in the Philippines. 2) The defendant claimed Philippine courts did not have jurisdiction based on principles of where the contract was executed and nationality of parties. 3) The Court found these principles only apply to the choice of law phase, not the jurisdiction phase, and jurisdiction only considers if a defendant can fairly be brought to court, not what law applies.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    204 views2 pages

    1 Hasegawa Vs Kitamura 1

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous wINMQaN
    The Supreme Court ruled that Philippine courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a case involving a contract executed outside the country between foreign nationals. Specifically: 1) The case involved a contract between a Japanese consultancy firm and a Japanese national residing in the Philippines for work on infrastructure projects in the Philippines. 2) The defendant claimed Philippine courts did not have jurisdiction based on principles of where the contract was executed and nationality of parties. 3) The Court found these principles only apply to the choice of law phase, not the jurisdiction phase, and jurisdiction only considers if a defendant can fairly be brought to court, not what law applies.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    KAZUHIRO HASEGAWA and NIPPON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CO., LTD.

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

    FACTS:

    Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd. (Nippon), a Japanese consultancy firm providing
    technical and management support in the infrastructure projects of foreign governments, entered into an
    Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA) with Minoru Kitamura, a Japanese national permanently
    residing in the Philippines. The agreement, which was executed in Japan, provides that respondent was
    to extend professional services to Nippon for a year. Nippon then assigned respondent to work as the
    project manager of the STAR Project in the Philippines.

    When the STAR Project was near completion, the DPWH engaged the consultancy services of
    Nippon this time for the detailed engineering and construction supervision of the Bongabon-Baler Road
    Improvement (BBRI) Project. Kitamura was named as the project manager.

    Later, Nippon informed Katamura that the company had no more intention of automatically
    renewing his ICA. Katamura tried to negotiate. As he was not able to generate a positive response from
    the petitioners, respondent consequently initiated a civil case for specific performance and damages with
    the RTC Lipa City.

    Nippon moved to dismiss the case by contending that the ICA had been perfected in Japan and
    executed by and between Japanese nationals and that therefore RTC Lipa had no jurisdiction.

    ISSUE:

    Whether the ―subject matter jurisdiction‖ of Philippine courts in civil cases for specific
    performance and damages involving contracts executed outside the country by foreign nationals may be
    assailed on the principles of lex loci celebrationis, lex contractus, the "state of the most significant
    relationship rule," or forum non conveniens.

    HELD:

    The Court ruled in the negative.

    In the judicial resolution of conflicts problems, three consecutive phases are involved: jurisdiction,
    choice of law, and recognition and enforcement of judgments. Invoking such principles is premature and
    are applicable only to the ―choice of law phase.

    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 question of whether the law of a state can be applied to a transaction
    (choice of law) is different from the question of whether the courts of that state have jurisdiction to enter
    a judgment (jurisdiction).

    In this case, only the first phase is at issue—jurisdiction. 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.

    Since these three principles in conflict of laws make reference to the law applicable to a dispute,
    they are rules proper for the second 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.

    You might also like