CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST ATTY.

WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401

MANILA HOTEL v NLRC at the Palace Hotel print shop would be terminated
G.R. No. 120077, October 13, 2000 due to business reverses brought about by the
political upheaval in China. The Palace Hotel
FACTS: terminated the employment of Santos and paid all
benefits due him, including his plane fare back to
Private respondent Santos was an overseas worker the Philippines. Santos was repatriated to the
employed as a printer at the Mazoon Printing Press, Philippines.
Sultanate of Oman. Subsequently he was directly
hired by the Palace Hotel, Beijing, People’s Republic Santos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with
of China and later terminated due to retrenchment. the Arbitration Branch, NCR, NLRC. He prayed for
Petitioners are the Manila Hotel Corporation an award of AD, ED and AF for. The complaint
(“MHC”) and the Manila Hotel International named MHC, MHICL, the Palace Hotel and Mr.
Company, Limited (“MHICL”). Shmidt as respondents. The Palace Hotel and Mr.
Shmidt were not served with summons and neither
When the case was filed in 1990, MHC was still a participated in the proceedings before the LA.
government-owned and controlled corporation
duly organized and existing under the laws of the The LA decided the case against petitioners.
Philippines. MHICL is a corporation duly organized Petitioners appealed to the NLRC, arguing that the
and existing under the laws of Hong Kong. MHC is POEA, not the NLRC had jurisdiction over the case.
an “incorporator” of MHICL, owning 50% of its The NLRC promulgated a resolution, stating that
capital stock. the appealed Decision be declared null and void for
want of jurisdiction.
By virtue of a “management agreement” with the
Palace Hotel, MHICL trained the personnel and staff Santos moved for reconsideration of the afore-
of the Palace Hotel at Beijing, China. quoted resolution. He argued that the case was not
cognizable by the POEA as he was not an “overseas
During his employment with the Mazoon Printing contract worker. The NLRC granted the motion and
Press, respondent Santos received a letter from Mr. reversed itself. The NLRC directed another LA to
Shmidt, General Manager, Palace Hotel, Beijing, hear the case on the question of whether private
China. Mr. Schmidt informed respondent Santos respondent was retrenched or dismissed. The La
that he was recommended by one Buenio, a friend found that Santos was illegally dismissed from
of his. Mr. Shmidt offered respondent Santos the employment and recommended that he be paid
same position as printer, but with a higher monthly actual damages equivalent to his salaries for the
salary and increased benefits. Respondent Santos unexpired portion of his contract. The NLRC ruled
wrote to Mr. Shmidt and signified his acceptance of in favor of private respondent. Petitioners filed an
the offer. MR arguing that the LA’s recommendation had no
basis in law and in fact, however it was denied.
The Palace Hotel Manager, Mr. Henk mailed a ready Hence, this petition.
to sign employment contract to respondent Santos.
Santos resigned from the Mazoon Printing Press. ISSUE:
Santos wrote the Palace Hotel and acknowledged
Mr. Henk’s letter. The employment contract stated Is the NLRC a proper forum to decide this case?
that his employment would be for a period of two
years. He then started to work at the Palace Hotel. HELD:

Subsequently, respondent Santos signed an Petition granted; the orders and resolutions of the
amended “employment agreement” with the Palace NLRC are annulled.
Hotel. In the contract, Mr. Shmidt represented the
Palace Hotel. The Vice President (Operations and Forum Non-Conveniens
Development) of petitioner MHICL Cergueda
signed the employment agreement under the word The NLRC was a seriously inconvenient forum.
“noted”. We note that the main aspects of the case
After working in the Palace hotel for less than 1 transpired in two foreign jurisdictions and the case
year, the Palace Hotel informed respondent Santos involves purely foreign elements. The only link that
by letter signed by Mr. Shmidt that his employment the Philippines has with the case is that Santos is a

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

Read the Full Text
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401

Filipino citizen. The Palace Hotel and MHICL are was not in a position to determine whether the
foreign corporations. Not all cases involving our Tiannamen Square incident truly adversely
citizens can be tried here. affected operations of the Palace Hotel as to justify
Santos’ retrenchment.
The employment contract. — Respondent Santos
was hired directly by the Palace Hotel, a foreign Principle of effectiveness, no power to execute
employer, through correspondence sent to the decision. — Even assuming that a proper decision
Sultanate of Oman, where respondent Santos was could be reached by the NLRC, such would not have
then employed. He was hired without the any binding effect against the employer, the Palace
intervention of the POEA or any authorized Hotel. The Palace Hotel is a corporation
recruitment agency of the government. incorporated under the laws of China and was not
even served with summons. Jurisdiction over its
Under the rule of forum non conveniens, a person was not acquired.
Philippine court or agency may assume jurisdiction
over the case if it chooses to do so provided: This is not to say that Philippine courts and
agencies have no power to solve controversies
 that the Philippine court is one to which involving foreign employers. Neither are we saying
the parties may conveniently resort to; that we do not have power over an employment
contract executed in a foreign country. If Santos
 that the Philippine court is in a position to were an “overseas contract worker”, a Philippine
make an intelligent decision as to the law forum, specifically the POEA, not the NLRC, would
and the facts;and protect him. He is not an “overseas contract
worker” a fact which he admits with conviction.
 that the Philippine court has or is likely to __
have power to enforce its decision. Even assuming that the NLRC was the proper
forum, even on the merits, the NLRC’s decision
The conditions are unavailing in the case at bar. cannot be sustained.

Not Convenient. — We fail to see how the NLRC is MHC Not Liable
a convenient forum given that all the incidents of
the case — from the time of recruitment, to Even if we assume two things: (1) that the NLRC
employment to dismissal occurred outside the had jurisdiction over the case, and (2) that MHICL
Philippines. The inconvenience is compounded by was liable for Santos’ retrenchment, still MHC, as a
the fact that the proper defendants, the Palace separate and distinct juridical entity cannot be held
Hotel and MHICL are not nationals of the liable.
Philippines. Neither .are they “doing business in the
Philippines.” Likewise, the main witnesses, Mr. True, MHC is an incorporator of MHICL and owns
Shmidt and Mr. Henk are non-residents of the 50% of its capital stock. However, this is not
Philippines. enough to pierce the veil of corporate fiction
between MHICL and MHC. In Traders Royal Bank v.
No power to determine applicable law. — Neither CA, we held that “the mere ownership by a single
can an intelligent decision be made as to the law stockholder or by another corporation of all or
governing the employment contract as such was nearly all of the capital stock of a corporation is not
perfected in foreign soil. This calls to fore the of itself a sufficient reason for disregarding the
application of the principle of lex loci contractus fiction of separate corporate personalities.”
(the law of the place where the contract was made).
The employment contract was not perfected in the It is basic that a corporation has a personality
Philippines. Santos signified his acceptance by separate and distinct from those composing it as
writing a letter while he was in the Republic of well as from that of any other legal entity to which
Oman. This letter was sent to the Palace Hotel in the it may be related. Clear and convincing evidence is
People’s Republic of China. needed to pierce the veil of corporate fiction. In this
No power to determine the facts. — Neither can the case, we find no evidence to show that MHICL and
NLRC determine the facts surrounding the alleged MHC are one and the same entity.
illegal dismissal as all acts complained of took place
in Beijing, People’s Republic of China. The NLRC III. MHICL not Liable

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

Read the Full Text
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401

jurisdiction over respondent’s claim in the NLRC

Santos predicates MHICL’s liability on the fact that case. In all the cases under the exclusive and
MHICL “signed” his employment contract with the original jurisdiction of the LA, an employer-
Palace Hotel. This fact fails to persuade us. employee relationship is an indispensable
jurisdictional requirement.
First, we note that the Vice President (Operations
and Development) of MHICL, Cergueda signed the Saudi Arabian Airlines V. CA
employment contract as a mere witness. He merely G.R. No. 122191, October 8, 1998
signed under the word “noted”.
Laws Applicable: Art 19 and 21 of Civil Code
When one “notes” a contract, one is not expressing
his agreement or approval, as a party would. In Lessons Applicable: Conflict of Laws, factual
Sichangco v. Board of Commissioners of situation, connecting factor, characterization,
Immigration, the Court recognized that the term choice of law, State of the most significant
“noted” means that the person so noting has merely relationship
taken cognizance of the existence of an act or
declaration, without exercising a judicious FACTS:
deliberation or rendering a decision on the matter.
Second, and more importantly, there was no Saudi Arabian Airlines (SAUDIA), foreign airlines
existing employer-employee relationship between corporation doing business in the Philippines and
Santos and MHICL. In determining the existence of may be served summons in agent in Makati, hired
an employer-employee relationship, the following Milagros P. Morada as a flight attendant for its
elements are considered: airlines based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

 the selection and engagement of the April 27, 1990:

employee
 the payment of wages While on a lay-over in Jakarta, Indonesia, Morada
 the power to dismiss; and went to a disco dance with fellow crew members
 the power to control employee’s conduct. Thamer Al-Gazzawi and Allah Al-Gazzawi, both
Saudi nationals. It was almost morning when they
MHICL did not have and did not exercise any of the returned to their hotels so they agreed to have
aforementioned powers. It did not select breakfast together at the room of Thamer. Shortly
respondent Santos as an employee for the Palace after Allah left the room, Thamer attempted to rape
Hotel. He was referred to the Palace Hotel by his Morada.
friend, Buenio. MHICL did not engage respondent
Santos to work. The terms of employment were Fortunately, a room boy and several security
negotiated and finalized through correspondence personnel heard her cries for help and rescued
between Santos, Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Henk, who her. Indonesian police arrested Thamer and Allah
were officers and representatives of the Palace Al-Gazzawi, the latter as an accomplice.
Hotel and not MHICL. Neither did Santos adduce
any proof that MHICL had the power to control his When Morada returned to Jeddah, SAUDIA officials
conduct. Finally, it was the Palace Hotel, through interrogated her about the Jakarta incident and
Mr. Schmidt and not MHICL that terminated requested her to go back to Jakarta to help arrange
respondent Santos’ services. the release of Thamer and Allah. In Jakarta,
SAUDIA Legal Officers negotiated with the police
Likewise, there is no evidence to show that the for the immediate release of the detained crew
Palace Hotel and MHICL are one and the same members but did not succeed.
entity. The fact that the Palace Hotel is a member of
the “Manila Hotel Group” is not enough to pierce Afraid that she might be tricked into something she
the corporate veil between MHICL and the Palace did not want because of her inability to understand
Hotel. the local dialect, Morado refused to cooperate and
Considering that the NLRC was forum non- declined to sign a blank paper and a document
conveniens and considering further that no written in the local dialect. Eventually, SAUDIA
employer-employee relationship existed between allowed Morada to return to Jeddah but barred her
MHICL, MHC and Santos, the LA clearly had no from the Jakarta flights.

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

Read the Full Text
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401

music in violation of Islamic laws and (3)

Indonesian authorities agreed to deport Thamer socializing with the male crew, in
and Allah and they were again put in contravention of Islamic tradition.
service. While, Morada was transferred to Manila.
Failing to seek the assistance of her employer,
January 14, 1992: Morada was asked to see Mr. Ali SAUDIA, she asked the Philippine Embassy in
Meniewy, Chief Legal Officer of SAUDIA, in Jeddah, Jeddah to help her while her case is on appeal. She
Saudi Arabia. He brought her to the police station continued to work on the domestic flight of
where the police took her passport and questioned SAUDIA, while Thamer and Allah continued to
her about the Jakarta incident. The police serve in the international flights.
pressured her to drop the case against Thamer and
Allah. Not until she agreed to do so did the police Because she was wrongfully convicted, the Prince
return her passport and allowed her to catch the of Makkah dismissed the case against her and
afternoon flight out of Jeddah. allowed her to leave Saudi Arabia. Before her
return to Manila, she was terminated from the
June 16, 1993: service by SAUDIA, without her being informed of
the cause.
Morada, while in Riyadh Saudi Arabia, was not
allowed to board the plane to Manila and instead November 23, 1993:
ordered to take a later flight to Jeddah to see Mr.
Miniewy. Khalid of the SAUDIA office brought her Morada filed a Complaint for damages against
to a Saudi court where she was asked to sign a SAUDIA, and Khaled Al-Balawi, its country
document written in Arabic. They told her that this manager.
was necessary to close the case against Thamer and
Allah but it was actually a notice for her to appear January 19, 1994:
before the court on June 27, 1993. Plaintiff then
returned to Manila. SAUDIA filed an Omnibus Motion To Dismiss on
following grounds:
June 27, 1993:
(1) That the Complaint states no cause of action
SAUDIA's Manila manager, Aslam Saleemi, assured against SAUDIA
Morada that the investigation was routinary and
that it posed no danger to her so she reported to (2) That defendant Al-Balawi is not a real party in
Miniewy in Jeddah for further investigation. She interest
was brought to the Saudi court.
(3) That the claim or demand set forth in the
June 28, 1993: Complaint has been waived, abandoned or
otherwise extinguished and (4) that the trial court
Saudi judge interrogated Morada through an has no jurisdiction to try the case.
interpreter about the Jakarta incident for an hour
and let her go. SAUDIA officers forbidden her to After opposition to the motion to dismiss by
take flight. She was told to go the Inflight Service Morada and reply by SAUDIA, Morada filed an
Office where her passport was taken and they told Amended Complaint dropping Al-Balawi. SAUDIA
her to remain in Jeddah, at the crew quarters, until filed its Manifestation, Motion to Dismiss Amended
further orders. Complaint, subsequently motion for
reconsideration which were all denied.
July 3, 1993:
SAUDIA filed its Petition for Certiorari and
She was brought to court again and to her Prohibition with Prayer for Issuance of Writ of
astonishment and shock, rendered a decision, Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary
translated to her in English, sentencing her to five Restraining Order with the Court of Appeals. TRO
months imprisonment and to 286 lashes. The was granted but Writ of Preliminary Injunction was
court tried her, together with Thamer and denied.
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 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

Read the Full Text
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Here, the foreign element comes from the fact that
Philippines is an appropriate forum considering the plaintiff, Morada was a resident Philippine
that the Amended Complaint's basis for recovery of National while SAUDIA is a resident foreign
damages is Article 21 of the Civil Code, and thus, corporation. Moreover, through Morada's
clearly within the jurisdiction of respondent Court. employment as a flight stewardess of SAUDIA, the
It further held that certiorari is not the proper occurrences surrounding the case transpired while
remedy in a denial of a Motion to Dismiss, she was on her travels which was across national
inasmuch as the petitioner should have proceeded borders. This caused a "conflicts" situation to arise.
to trial, and in case of an adverse ruling, find
recourse in an appeal. Jurisdiction

SAUDIA filed its Supplemental Petition for Review Weighing the relative claims of the parties, the
with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order that court found it best to hear the case in the
it is a conflict of laws that must be settled at the Philippines. If it refused to take cognizance of the
outset: case, it would be forcing Morada to seek remedial
action elsewhere, i.e. in the Kingdom of Saudi
Morada's claim for alleged abuse of rights occurred Arabia where she no longer maintains substantial
in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. connections. That would have caused a
fundamental unfairness to her.
Existence of a foreign element qualifies the instant
case for the application of the law of the Kingdom Moreover, by hearing the case in the Philippines no
of Saudi Arabia, by virtue of the lex loci delicti unnecessary difficulties and inconvenience have
commissi rule. been shown by either of the parties. The choice of
forum of the Morada should be upheld.
Morada:
Similarly, the trial court has also acquired
Amended Complaint is based on Articles 19 and 21 jurisdiction over the persons of the parties in this
of the Civil Code which is a matter of domestic law case. By filing her Complaint and Amended
Complaint with the trial court, Morada has
ISSUE: voluntary submitted herself to the jurisdiction of
the court. Similarly, SAUDIA has filed several
Whether or not the RTC of Quezon City has motions asking the court for relief. This indicates
jurisdiction over the case and it is the proper forum that SAUDIA indeed has submitted to the
for recovery of damages under Art. 21 of the Civil jurisdiction of the trial court.
Code which should govern.
Choice-of-laws
HELD:
As to the choice of applicable law, we note that
YES. the petition for certiorari is hereby choice-of-law problems seek to answer two
DISMISSED. REMANDED to RTC of Quezon City, important questions:
Branch 89 for further proceedings
 What legal system should control a given
Conflict of Laws situation where some of the significant
facts occurred in two or more states; and
There is a foreign element in this case, hence, it
involves a conflict of laws question.  To what extent should the chosen legal
system regulate the situation.
Foreign elements may appear in different forms. It
may simply consist of the fact that one of the Although ideally, all choice-of-law theories should
parties to the contract is an alien or has a foreign intrinsically advance both notions of justice and
domicile or that a contract between nationals of predictability, they do not always do so. The forum
one State involves properties situated in another is then faced with the problem of deciding which of
State. In other cases, the foreign element may these two important values should be stressed.
assume a complex form.

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

Read the Full Text
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401

Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us identify the Philippines as the situs of the alleged
to determine under what category a certain set of tort.
facts or rules fall. This process is known as
"characterization", or the "doctrine of In applying said principle to determine the State
qualification". It is the "process of deciding whether which has the most significant relationship, the
or not the facts relate to the kind of question following contacts are to be taken into account and
specified in a conflicts rule." The purpose of evaluated according to their relative importance
"characterization" is to enable the forum to select with respect to the particular issue:
the proper law.
(a) the place where the injury occurred;
An essential element of conflict rules is the
indication of a "test" or "connecting factor" or (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury
"point of contact". Choice-of-law rules invariably occurred;
consist of a factual relationship (such as property
right, contract claim) and a connecting factor or (c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of
point of contact, such as the situs of the res, the incorporation and place of business of the parties,
place of celebration, the place of performance, or and
the place of wrongdoing.
(d) the place where the relationship, if any,
Lex Loci Actus between the parties is centered

(4) the place where an act has been done, the locus As already discussed, there is basis for the claim
actus, such as the place where a contract has been that over-all injury occurred and lodged in the
made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort Philippines. There is likewise no question that
committed. The lex loci actus is particularly private respondent is a resident Filipina national,
important in contracts and torts. working with petitioner, a resident foreign
corporation engaged here in the business of
Considering that the complaint in the court a quo is international air carriage.
one involving torts, the "connecting factor" or
"point of contact" could be the place or places Thus, the "relationship" between the parties was
where the tortious conduct or lex loci actus centered here, although it should be stressed that
occurred. And applying the torts principle in a this suit is not based on mere labor law violations.
conflicts case, we find that the Philippines could be From the record, the claim that the Philippines has
said as a situs of the tort (the place where the the most significant contact with the matter in this
alleged tortious conduct took place). dispute, raised by private respondent as plaintiff
below against defendant (herein petitioner), in our
This is because it is in the Philippines where view, has been properly established.
petitioner allegedly deceived private respondent, a
Filipina residing and working here. Petitioner's insistence that since private
respondent instituted this suit, she has the burden
According to her, she had honestly believed that of pleading and proving the applicable Saudi law on
petitioner would, in the exercise of its rights and in the matter is untenable. As aptly said by private
the performance of its duties, "act with justice, give respondent, she has "no obligation to plead and
her due and observe honesty and good faith." prove the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia since
Instead, petitioner failed to protect her, she her cause of action is based on Articles 19 and 21"
claimed. of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

That certain acts or parts of the injury allegedly In her Amended Complaint and subsequent
occurred in another country is of no moment. What pleadings, she never alleged that Saudi law should
is important here is the place where the over- govern this case. And as correctly held by the
all harm or the totality of the alleged injury to respondent appellate court, considering that it was
the person, reputation, social standing and the petitioner who was invoking the applicability of
human rights of complainant, had lodged, the law of Saudi Arabia, then the burden was on it
according to the plaintiff below (herein private to plead and to establish what the law of Saudi
respondent). All told, it is not without basis to Arabia is.

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

Read the Full Text
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401

HASEGAWA v. KITAMURA
G.R. No. 149177, November 23, 2007 The ICA had been perfected in Japan and
executed by and between Japanese nationals.
PARTIES The claim of improper pre-termination of
Petitioners: respondent’s ICA could only be heard and
ventilated in the proper courts of Japan following
Kazuhiro Hasegawa – Nippon’s general manager the principles of lex loci celebrationis and lex
for its International Division. contractus.

Nippon Engineering Consultants Co. Ltd. RTC:

(Nippon) – a Japanese consultancy firm providing
technical and management support in the This court denied the motion to dismiss by the
infrastructure projects of foreign governments. petitioner by stating that the matters connected
with the performance of contracts are regulated by
Respondent: the law prevailing at the place of performance
(lex loci solutionis). It also subsequently denied
Minoru Kitamura – Japanese national the petitioner’s MR.
permanently residing in the Philippines.
Thus, because of the denial of the RTC, the
FACTS petitioner filed the first Petition for Certiorari
under rule 65 with the CA which was then
Petitioner Nippon entered into an Independent dismissed due to procedural grounds – lack of
Contractor Agreement (ICA) with respondent statement of material dates and insufficient
Kitamura. The agreement was that the respondent verification and certification against forum
will provide professional services to Nippon for a shopping. A second Petition for Certiorari was
year and was then subsequently assigned to work then filed with the complete requirements.
as a project manager of the Southern Tagalog
Access Road (STAR) Project in the Philippines. CA:

Later, the DPWH engaged the consultancy services This court found no GAD in the RTC’s denial of the
of Nippon for the detailed engineering and motion to dismiss. It ruled by stating that the
construction supervision of the Bongabon-Baler principle of lex loci celebrationis was not
Road Improvement (BBRI) Project wherein the applicable to the case, because nowhere in the
respondent was named project manager in the pleadings was the validity of the written
contract. agreement put in issue. Petitioner’s MR was also
subsequently denied by the CA.
However, petitioner Hasegawa informed the
respondent that the company had no more Thus, petitioner instituted the instant Petition for
intention of automatically renewing his ICA. His Review on Certiorari with the SC.
contract will be done only up to the substantial
completion of STAR which is just in time for the ISSUE
ICA’s expiry.
Whether the subject matter jurisdiction of the
Due to the impending unemployment, the Philippine Courts in civil cases for specific
respondent negotiated with the petitioner and performance and damages involving contracts
requested that he be assigned to the BBRI project executed outside the country by foreign nationals
but the latter rejected the former’s request. may be assailed by the principles of lex loci
celebrationis, lex contractus, the “state of the
This prompted respondent Kitamura to file a civil most significant relationship rule”, or non forum
case for specific performance and damages with conveniens.
the RTC of Lipa City.
RULING:
Petitioners then moved for the dismissal of the
complaint for lack of jurisdiction. They asserted NO.
that:

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

Read the Full Text
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401

It was discussed by the SC that in the judicial civil case for specific performance & damages is
resolution of conflicts problems, 3 consecutive one not capable of pecuniary estimation & is
phases are involved: properly cognizable by the RTC of Lipa City.

 jurisdiction What they rather raise as grounds to question

 choice of law subject matter jurisdiction are the principles of lex
 recognition and enforcement of judgments loci celebrationis and lex contractus, and the “state
of the most significant relationship rule.”
Jurisdiction & choice of law are 2 distinct
concepts. Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair The Court finds the invocation of these grounds
to cause a defendant to travel to this state; choice of unsound.
law asks the further question whether the
application of a substantive law w/c will determine Lex loci celebrationis relates to the “law of the
the merits of the case is fair to both parties. place of the ceremony” or the law of the place
where a contract is made. The doctrine of lex
The power to exercise jurisdiction does not contractus or lex loci contractus means the “law
automatically give a state constitutional authority of the place where a contract is executed or to be
to apply forum law. While jurisdiction and the performed.” It controls the nature, construction,
choice of the lex fori will often coincide, the and validity of the contract and it may pertain to
“minimum contacts” for one do not always provide the law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties or
the necessary “significant contacts” for the other. the law intended by them either expressly or
The question of whether the law of a state can be implicitly. Under the “state of the most significant
applied to a transaction is different from the relationship rule,” to ascertain what state law to
question of whether the courts of that state have apply to a dispute, the court should determine
jurisdiction to enter a judgment. which state has the most substantial connection to
the occurrence and the parties.
In this case, only the 1st phase is at issue—
jurisdiction. Jurisdiction, however, has various In a case involving a contract, the court should
aspects. For a court to validly exercise its power to consider where the contract was made, was
adjudicate a controversy, it must have jurisdiction negotiated, was to be performed, and the domicile,
over the plaintiff/petitioner, over the place of business, or place of incorporation of the
defendant/respondent, over the subject matter, parties. This rule takes into account several
over the issues of the case and, in cases involving contacts and evaluates them according to their
property, over the res or the thing w/c is the subject relative importance with respect to the particular
of the litigation. In assailing the trial court's issue to be resolved.
jurisdiction herein, Nippon is actually referring
to subject matter jurisdiction. Since these 3 principles in conflict of laws make
reference to the law applicable to a dispute,
Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a judicial they are rules proper for the 2nd phase, the
proceeding is conferred by the sovereign authority choice of law. They determine which state's law is
w/c establishes and organizes the court. It is given to be applied in resolving the substantive issues of
only by law and in the manner prescribed by law. It a conflicts problem. Necessarily, as the only issue
is further determined by the allegations of the in this case is that of jurisdiction, choice-of-law
complaint irrespective of whether the plaintiff is rules are not only inapplicable but also not yet
entitled to all or some of the claims asserted called for.
therein. To succeed in its motion for the dismissal
of an action for lack of jurisdiction over the subject Further, Nippon’s premature invocation of choice-
matter of the claim, the movant must show that the of-law rules is exposed by the fact that they have
court or tribunal cannot act on the matter not yet pointed out any conflict between the laws
submitted to it because no law grants it the power of Japan and ours. Before determining which law
to adjudicate the claims. should apply, 1st there should exist a conflict of
laws situation requiring the application of the
In the instant case, Nippon, in its MTD, does not conflict of laws rules. Also, when the law of a
claim that the RTC is not properly vested by law w/ foreign country is invoked to provide the proper
jurisdiction to hear the subject controversy for a

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

Read the Full Text
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401

rules for the solution of a case, the existence of such procedural or substantive, depending on the
law must be pleaded and proved. characterization.

It should be noted that when a conflicts case, one The characterization becomes irrelevant when the
involving a foreign element, is brought before a country of the forum has a “borrowing statute”.
court or administrative agency, there are 3 This statute directs the state of the forum to apply
alternatives open to the latter in disposing of it: (1) the foreign statute of limitations to the pending
dismiss the case, either because of lack of claims based on a foreign law.
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 Facts:
jurisdiction over the case and take into account or
apply the law of some other State or States. Cadalin and 1,767 (originally 728) other overseas
contract workers instituted a class suit with the
The court’s power to hear cases and controversies Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
is derived from the Constitution and the laws. (POEA) for money claims from their recruitment by
While it may choose to recognize laws of foreign AIBC and employment by BRII. (AIBC and BRII
nations, the court is not limited by foreign respondents)
sovereign law short of treaties or other formal
agreements, even in matters regarding rights BRII is a foreign corporation based in Houston,
provided by foreign sovereigns. Texas engaged in the business of construction;
while AIBC is a domestic corporation licensed as a
Neither can the other ground raised, forum non service contractor to recruit, mobilize, and deploy
conveniens, be used to deprive the RTC of its Filipino workers for overseas employment on
jurisdiction. behalf of its foreign principals.

First, it is not a proper basis for a motion to dismiss The complaint sought for the payment of the:
because Sec. 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court does
not include it as a ground. Second, whether a suit  Unexpired portion of the employment
should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of contracts, which was prematurely
the said doctrine depends largely upon the facts of terminated;
the particular case and is addressed to the sound
discretion of the RTC. In this case, the RTC decided  Payment of interest of the earnings of the
to assume jurisdiction. Third, the propriety of Travel and Reserved Fund;
dismissing a case based on this principle requires a
factual determination; hence, this conflicts  interest on all unpaid benefits such as area
principle is more properly considered a matter of wage and salary differential pay;
defense.
 Fringe benefits;
Cadalin vs. POEA,
G.R. No. 104776, December 5, 1994  Refund of SSS premiums;

(taas pa kesa sa ako height ang kaso, so, issues and  Refund of withholding tax; and
facts relevant to conflict ra ang gibutang, mostly
procedural ang facts [civ pro] so advice nako basaha  Penalties for committing prohibited
nalang full text, daghan man mog time, so if mag ask practices.
si torney og sikot2 ma slay gyapon ninyo, make this
as your guide nala, okay?!) TL;DR facts
Principle: *This case actually involves, claim of workers
working in different parts of the world. But the main
As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not focus in the case are those workers working in
be applied in the forum. This is true even if the Bahrain covered under the Amiri Decree. 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 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

Read the Full Text
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401

respondents, urged that the claims had already The NLRC disagreed with the POEA that the 3 year
prescribed. prescriptive period applies only to money claims
recoverable under the Labor Code as the law gives
POEA Ruling no such indication. The cause of action cannot be
said that it was a violation of the employment
POEA Administrator rendered a decision in favor of contract. The 1 year prescriptive period cannot
only 324 claimants. POEA opined that Article 291 apply because it is a procedural statute. The
of the Labor Code applies when the claims arise procedural law of the forum shall apply.
from the employer’s violation of the employee’s
right provided in the said code. What was violated The NLRC dismissed 94 claims for having
was the Amiri Decree, which amended the workers' prescribed and ordered respondents to pay the 149
contracts. Respondents failed to follow the said complainants for their claims. 19 were set aside as
decree. Hence the 10 year prescriptive period of they were not working in Bahrain, and all other
the Civil Code will apply. claims were dismissed for lack of substantial
evidence.
Claimants filed in the NLRC a Manifestational
Motion praying that all the 1,767 claimants be Arguments of Each Party by Petition:
awarded with their money claims for failure of
private respondents to file their answers. G.R. No. 104776 and 104911-14

NLRC Ruling: Claimants contended that NLRC gravely abused its

discretion in applying the 3 year prescriptive
The NLRC rendered a decision on these following period under the Labor Code, and not the 10 year
issues (relevant lang): prescriptive period under the Civil Code. (no
justification was given).
Whether or not complainants are entitled to the
benefits of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of Bahrain. Respondents countered that the Labor Code as a
special law prevails over the Civil Code, a general
Yes it should form part of the overseas employment law, so the 3 year period applies.
contract of the complainants since it is more
favorable to them. However the decree only applies G.R. No. 105029-32
to workers stationed in Bahrain.
Respondents contended that the employment
Whether or not the claims under the Amiri Decree contracts will be enforced not the Amiri Decree.
No. 23 of Bahrain have prescribed. However, assuming the Amiri Decree applies, the
one year period to claim had already lapsed. To
The NLRC ruled that the prescriptive period for filing bolster this argument, there is in force in the
the claim was 3 years under Article 291 of the Labor Philippines a “borrowing statute”.
Code, and not 10 years under Article 1144 of the Civil
Code nor 1 year under the Amiri Decree. Issue:

Whether or not the case qualifies as a class suit. Whether or not the law on prescription of Bahrain
law based on the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 will
The NLRC ruled that it does not qualify as a class suit apply.
as not all the complainants worked in Bahrain and
therefore, not a subject matter of the action; it is not Ruling:
of common or general interest to all the
complainants. The law of Bahrain will not apply as it contravenes
public policy
It also ruled that BRII and AIBC are solidarily liable
for the claims as BRII was the actual employer and No. As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will
AIBC as the labor contractor. Moreover, not be applied in the forum. This is true even if the
jurisdiction over BRII was acquired by the POEA action is based upon a foreign substantive law.
through the summons served on AIBC’s local agent. Prescription laws are sui generis that it may be

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

Read the Full Text
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401

procedural or substantive, depending on the party making the ambiguity shall not be favored;
characterization. and besides contracts of adhesion are construed
against the one making it. So the Supreme COurt
The characterization becomes irrelevant when the interpreted it against respondents so the workers
country of the forum has a “borrowing statute”. benefited from the law with the higher benefits.
This statute directs the state of the forum to apply
the foreign statute of limitations to the pending The ambiguous stipulation:
claims based on a foreign law.
“....total remuneration and benefits do not fall below
One form provides that an action barred by the that of the host country regulation or custom, it
laws of the place where it accrued, will not be being understood that should applicable laws
enforced in the forum even though the local statute establish that fringe benefits, or other such benefits
has not run against it. If by the laws of the state or additional to the compensation herein agreed
country where the cause of action arose, the action cannot be waived, Employee agrees that such
is barred, it is also barred in the Philippines. compensation will be adjusted downward so that the
total compensation hereunder, plus the non-
However, the courts of the forum will not enforce waivable benefits shall be equivalent to the
any foreign claim if it contravenes public policy. To compensation herein agreed"
enforce the 1 year claim would contravene the
public policy on the protection of labor. No class suit

The 3 years prescriptive period under the Labor Code A class suit is proper where the subject matter of
applies the controversy is one of common or general
interest to many and the parties are so numerous
The claim is the cases at bench all arose from the that it is impracticable to bring them all before the
employer-employee relations, which is broader in court.
scope than claims arising from a specific law or
from the collective bargaining agreement. (If CBA - In the present case there were workers who were
Civil Code; EE - Labor Code) not working in Bahrain, only those who were
working in Bahrain are entitled to file their claims
Side Discussion: in a class suit. However, It appears that each
claimant is only interested in collecting his own
NLRC correctly applied the greater benefits of the claims. A
Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976. (There was an claimants has no concern in protecting the
argument by the respondents that benefits under the interests of the other claimants as shown by the
employment contract should be enforced) fact that hundreds of them have abandoned their
co-claimants and have entered into separate
The overseas-employment contracts, which were compromise settlements of their respective claims.
prepared by AIBC and BRII themselves, provided
that the laws of the host country became applicable A principle basic to the concept of "class suit" is that
to said contracts if they offer terms and conditions plaintiffs brought on the record must fairly
more favorable that those stipulated therein. The represent and protect the interests of the others.
overseas-employment contracts in question as
adopting the provisions of the Amiri Decree No. 23 Bank of America, NT and SA vs. American
of 1976 as part and parcel thereof. Realty Corp. & CA
G.R. No. 133876, Dec. 29, 1999
By such reference to the provisions of the foreign
law, the contract does not become a foreign PRINCIPLE:
contract to be governed by the foreign law. The said
law does not operate as a statute but as a set of When the foreign law, judgment, or contract, even if
contractual terms deemed written in the contract. applicable pursuant to the COL rules, is contrary to a
sound and established public policy of the forum, the
*This happened because there was an ambiguous said foreign law, judgment or order shall not be
stipulation in the contract, and the said contract was applied.
a contract of adhesion. Basic in contracts that the

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

Read the Full Text
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401

FACTS:
The rule provides that a single cause of action may
Bank of America NT & SA (BANTSA) is an allow a party to resort to two or more remedies but
international banking and financing institution because there is only one cause of action, the resort
duly licensed to do business in the Philippines, to these remedies should be on an alternative basis
organized and existing under and by virtue of the and not cumulative. If the party avails of one
laws of the State of California, while respondent remedy arising from one single cause of action, he
American Realty Corporation (ARC) is a is deemed to have abandoned the other remedies.
domestic corporation.
The bank argued that in all the loan contracts
Bank of America International Limited (BAIL), between the bank and the borrowers, it is
on the other hand, is a limited liability company stipulated that any dispute that may arise out of the
organized and existing under the laws of England. transaction should be governed by the laws of
England. Under English law, splitting a single
BANTSA and BAIL on several occasions granted cause of action is not prohibited and thus the
three major multi-million US Dollar loans to three creditor may resort to both remedies: to file an
corporate borrowers, all of which are existing action for collection and, at the same time, enforce
under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the security.
Panama and are foreign affiliates of private
respondent. Additionally, petitioner submits that a waiver of
the remedy of foreclosure requires the
Due to the default in the payment of the loan concurrence of two requisites: an ordinary civil
amortizations, BANTSA and the corporate action for collection should be filed and
borrowers signed and entered into restructuring subsequently a final judgment be correspondingly
agreements. As additional security for the rendered therein.
restructured loans, private respondent ARC as
third party mortgagor executed two real estate After trial, the lower court rendered a decision
mortgages over its parcels of land including declaring that the filing in foreign courts by the
improvements in Bulacan. bank of collection suits against the principal
debtors operated as a waiver of the security of the
Even with the restructuring agreement, the 3 mortgages.
corporate borrowers still failed to pay which
prompted petitioner BANTSA to file civil actions for The CA affirmed the assailed decision of the lower
the collection of the principal loan before foreign court.
courts in England and Hong Kong. ARC, being a
third party mortgagor, was not impleaded as party- ISSUE:
defendant.
WON the requisites of filing the action for collection
Petitioner BANTSA also filed before the Office of and rendition of final judgment should concur?
the Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan an application for
extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage WON the foreign law (English Law ITCAB) should
despite the pendency of the collection suit. The be applied. (related to the topic)
mortgaged real properties were then sold at public
auction in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale with RULING:
Integrated Credit and Corporation Services. Co
(ICCS) as the highest bidder. 1. No. In our jurisdiction, the remedies available to
the mortgage creditor are deemed alternative and
Because of the action of the petitioner, ARC not cumulative. An election of one remedy operates
instituted an action for damages, alleging that it as a waiver of the other.
was illegal for the Bank of America to still foreclose
the mortgage when it already decided to collect Accordingly, petitioner, by the expediency of filing
the unpaid loan by filing a collection suit before four civil suits before foreign courts, necessarily
the courts in England and Hongkong, invoking the abandoned the remedy to foreclose the real estate
rule enforced in the Philippines which prohibits mortgages constituted over the properties of third-
the splitting of a single cause of action.

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

Read the Full Text
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401

party mortgagor and herein private respondent By filing the four civil actions and by eventually
ARC. foreclosing extra-judicially the mortgages,
petitioner in effect transgressed the rules against
Incidentally, BANTSA alleges that under English splitting a cause of action well enshrined in
Law, which according to petitioner is the governing jurisprudence and our statute books. Clearly then,
law with regard to the principal agreements, the English Law is not applicable.
mortgagee does not lose its security interest by
simply filing civil actions for sums of money.
DEL SOCORRO VS. VAN WILSEM
2. NO. The Philippine law shall be applied GR. NO. 193707, DECEMBER 10, 2014
notwithstanding the evidence presented by
petitioner to prove the English law on the matter. Principles:

A foreign law must be properly pleaded and proved 1. Family rights and duties are governed by the
as a fact. Thus, if the foreign law involved is not national law of the person.
properly pleaded and proved, our courts will 2. GR: Foreign laws in order to be applicable,
presume that the foreign law is the same as our should be properly pleaded and proven in our
local or domestic or internal law. This is what we courts.
refer to as the doctrine of processual Exc: Even if properly pleaded and proven, if foreign
presumption. laws are contrary to public policy of the forum, the
same should not be applied.
Assuming arguendo that the English Law on the 3. Doctrine of Processual Presumption
matter were properly pleaded and proved in
accordance with Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules Facts:
of Court and the jurisprudence, said foreign law
would still not find applicability for being Petitioner (woman) and respondent (ex-husband)
contrary to a sound and established public were married in Holland on September 25, 1990.
policy of the forum. Petitioner gave birth to their son who was a minor
upon filing of the case against respondent.
Additionally, prohibitive laws concerning persons, Eventually, their marriage bond ended on July 19,
their acts or property, and those which have for 1995 by virtue of a Divorce Decree issued by the
their object public order, public policy and good appropriate Court of Holland. Petitioner together
customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws with her son returned to Cebu City. According to
or judgments promulgated, or by determinations the petitioner, respondent made a promise to
or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. provide support to their son in the amount of
17,500 pesos monthly. However, respondent failed
The public policy sought to be protected in the to keep his promise. Upon finding out that
instant case is the principle imbedded in our respondent got married in Cebu City, petitioner
jurisdiction proscribing the splitting up of a single filed a case against respondent under the
cause of action. Section 4, Rule 2 of the 1997 provisions of RA 9262 (VAWC) for the latter’s
Rules of Civil Procedure provides: "If two or more unjust refusal to provide support in favor of their
suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of son. Petitioner contends that under Article 195 of
action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the the Family Code, respondent is obliged to support
merits in any one is available as a ground for the his son.
dismissal of the others." (splitting of a single cause
of action) Decision of Trial Court:

Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when The trial court then dismissed the case on the
its application would work undeniable injustice to ground that the information filed against did not
the citizens or residents of the forum. To give constitute an offense on the ground that he is an
justice is the most important function of law; hence, alien.
a law, or judgment or contract that is obviously
unjust negates the fundamental principles of Trial Court on denying the MR:
Conflict of Laws.

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

Read the Full Text
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401

Reiterates its ruling that since the accused is a same as our local or domestic or internal law. As
foreign national he is not subject to our national such, it is now presumed that the laws of the
law (The Family Code) in regard to a parent's duty foreign country are the same as that of our laws and
and obligation to give support to his child. therefore respondent is obliged to provide support
to his minor son.
*CA not involved because issue involves pure
question of law. Further, even if respondent successfully pleaded
and proved foreign laws which do not obliged him
Respondent’s Arguments: to provide support to his son, such should not be
applied. According to our laws, when the foreign
no sufficient and clear basis presented by law, judgment or contract is contrary to a sound
petitioner that she, as well as her minor son, are and established public policy of the forum, the said
entitled to financial support. He added that by foreign law, judgment or order shall not be applied.
reason of the Divorce Decree, he is not obligated to Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when
petitioner for any financial support its application would work undeniable injustice to
the citizens or residents of the forum. To give
Issue: justice is the most important function of law; hence,
a law, or judgment or contract that is obviously
WON an alien is obliged to support his minor child? unjust negates the fundamental principles of
Conflict of Laws.
Ruling:
Additional notes:
Yes. Respondent is obliged to support his minor
child under Philippine Law. -Respondent can be held liable under RA 9262
applying territoriality principle of criminal law
Petitioner however is mistaken in relying Article which applies to all persons living and sojourning
195 of the Family Code in demanding support from in the Philippines.
respondent since Article 15 of the Civil Code -Prescription does not apply since in the case at bar
stresses the principle of Nationality. The obligation failure to provide support is a continuing crime.
to provide support is a part of Family rights and -Respondent is liable only for support of the child,
duties. As such, with respect to the provisions of not his ex-wife.
the Family Code, it only applies to Filipino Citizens.
With respect to the respondent, the law that EDI-STAFFBUILDERS vs NLRC
applies to him would be the laws of his country GR. NO. 136804, FEBRUARY 19, 2013
with respect to family rights and duties. This does
not conclude however that respondent is not FACTS:
obliged to support his son.
Petitioner EDI, a recruitment and placement
In international law, the party who wants to have a agency, upon request of Omar Ahmed Ali Bin Bechr
foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the (OAB), a company in Saudi Arabia, sent to the latter
burden of proving the foreign law. As such, CVs from which OAB can choose a computer
respondent has the burden in proving that the laws specialist. Eleazar Gran was selected.
of his country do not oblige him to support his son.
In this case, respondent only pleaded the laws of Gran signed an employment contract that granted
his country (Holland) but failed to prove the same. him a monthly salary of USD 850.00 for a period of
Further, the courts do not take judicial notices of two years. He was then deployed to Riyadh. But 5
the laws of a foreign country. The alien alleging the months into his service, Gran received a
same has the burden of proving it. termination letter with the grounds mentioned
therefor:
Since respondent failed to prove the laws of his 1. Non-compliance to contract requirements by the
country which do not oblige him to provide recruitment agency primarily on your salary and
support. The doctrine of processual presumption contract duration.
shall be applied. Under this doctrine, if the foreign 2. Non-compliance to pre-qualification
law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, requirements by the recruitment agency
our courts will presume that the foreign law is the

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

Read the Full Text
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401

3. Insubordination or disobedience to Top intended by the parties (lex loci intentiones) to

Management Order and/or instructions (non- apply to the contract, Saudi Labor Laws should
submittal of daily activity reports despite several govern all matters relating to the termination of the
instructions). employment of Gran.
Gran filed a complaint for underpayment of
wages/salaries and illegal dismissal. In international law, the party who wants to
have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case
LA: Dismissed complaint. Gran (1) did not submit has the burden of proving the foreign law. The
a single activity report of his daily activity as foreign law is treated as a question of fact to be
dictated by company policy; (2) not qualified for properly pleaded and proved as the judge or
the job as computer specialist due to his labor arbiter cannot take judicial notice of a
insufficient knowledge in programming and lack of foreign law. He is presumed to know only
knowledge in ACAD system; (3) refused to follow domestic or forum law.
management's instruction for him to gain more
knowledge of the job to prove his worth as Unfortunately for petitioner, it did not prove the
computer specialist. pertinent Saudi laws on the matter; thus, the
International Law doctrine of presumed-identity
NLRC: approach or processual presumption comes into
play. Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if
reversed the decision of LA. Gran was not afforded pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that
the required notice and investigation of his foreign law is the same as ours. Thus, we apply
offenses. Philippine labor laws in determining the issues
presented before us.
CA:
MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST CO. v
EDI failed to prove that private respondent was RAFAEL MA. GUERRERO
terminated for a valid cause and in accordance with G.R. 136804, February 19, 2003
due process; x x x no evidence was presented to
show how and why Gran was considered to be FACTS:
incompetent. The court held that since the law Respondent Guerrero filed a complaint for
requires the recruitment agencies to subject OFWs damages against petitioner Manufacturers
to trade tests before deployment, Gran must have Hanover Trust Co. and/or Chemical Bank (The
been competent and qualified; otherwise, he would Bank) with the RTC. Guerrero sought payment of
not have been hired and deployed abroad. damages allegedly for:

ISSUE:  Illegally withheld taxes charged against

interests on his checking account with The
W/N Gran's dismissal is justifiable by reason of Bank;
incompetence, insubordination, and disobedience
 Returned check due to signature
HELD: verification problems; and

NO, SC applied PH labor laws. In cases involving  Unauthorized conversion of his account.
OFWs, the rights and obligations among and
between the OFW, the local recruiter/agent, and The Bank in its answer alleged that by stipulation,
the foreign employer/principal are governed by Guerrero’s account is governed by New York law
the employment contract. A contract freely entered and this law does not permit any of Guerrero’s
into is considered law between the parties; and claim except of actual damages. Thus, a Motion for
hence, should be respected. x x x Partial Summary Judgment was filed seeking the
dismissal of Guerrero’s claims and that trial should
In the present case, the employment contract be limited to the issue of actual damages. The
signed by Gran specifically states that Saudi Labor affidavit of Alyssa Walden, a New York attorney
Laws will govern matters not provided for in the supported the the Bank’s motion. The Walden
contract (e.g. specific causes for termination, Affidavit stated that Guerrero’s New York bank
termination procedures, etc.). Being the law account stipulated that the governing law is New

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

Read the Full Text
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401

York Law and that this law bars all of his claims do not prove themselves in our courts. Foreign
except actual damages. Guerrero opposed said laws are not a matter of judicial notice. Like any
motion. other fact, they must be alleged and proven.
Certainly, the conflicting allegations as to whether
The RTC denied the Motion for Partial Summary New York law or Philippine law applies to
Judgment. Guerrero's claims present a clear dispute on
material allegations which can be resolved only by
The CA sustained the RTC orders denying the a trial on the merits.|||
motion. The Walden Affidavit does not serve as proof
of the New York law and Jurisprudence. It is Certain exceptions to Rule 24 of Rule 132 were
considered as a public document under Section 19, recognized in Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals.
Rule 132 of Rules of Evidence and thus, procedure The Bank, however, cannot rely thereon to support
outlined in section 24, Rule 132 should be followed its cause. These cases involved attorneys testifying
in proving foreign law. in open court during the trial in the Philippines and
quoting the particular foreign laws sought to be
ISSUE/S: established. On the other hand, the Walden
affidavit was taken abroad ex parte and the affiant
WON the Walden Affidavit was sufficient proof of never testified in open court. The Walden affidavit
the New York law and jurisprudence for the Motion cannot be considered as proof of New York law on
for Partial Summary Judgment be granted. damages not only because it is self-serving but also
because it does not state the specific New York law
WON Guerrero admitted the averments in the on damages.|||
Bank's motion for partial summary judgment and
the Walden affidavit for failure to submit an The Walden affidavit states conclusions from the
opposing affidavit. affiant's personal interpretation and opinion of the
facts of the case vis a vis the alleged laws and
RULING: jurisprudence without citing any law in particular.
The citations in the Walden affidavit of various U.S.
No. The Walden Affidavit failed to prove New York court decisions do not constitute proof of the
law and jurisprudence. ||| official records or decisions of the U.S. courts. While
the Bank attached copies of some of the U.S. court
In a motion for summary judgment, the crucial decisions cited in the Walden affidavit, these copies
question is: are the issues raised in the do not comply with Section 24 of Rule 132 on proof
pleadings genuine, sham or fictitious, as shown of official records or decisions of foreign courts.|||
by affidavits, depositions or admissions
accompanying the motion?|| The Bank makes much of Guerrero's failure to
submit an opposing affidavit to the Walden
Petitioner's motion for summary judgment is not affidavit. However, the pertinent provision of
proper as it does not demonstrate that Section 3, Rule 35 of the old Rules of Court did not
respondent's claims are sham, fictitious, or make the submission of an opposing affidavit
contrived. There can be no summary judgment mandatory.
where material allegations of the pleadings are in
dispute and can be resolved only by trial on the Guerrero cannot be said to have admitted the
merits. On the alleged foreign law applicable, the averments in the Bank's motion for partial
Walden affidavit and attached US court decisions summary judgment and the Walden affidavit just
therein are not proper substantiation thereof for because he failed to file an opposing affidavit.
failure to comply with Sec. 24, Rule 132 on proof of Guerrero opposed the motion for partial summary
foreign laws, records, and decisions.||| judgment, although he did not present an opposing
affidavit. Guerrero did not admit, expressly or
There can be no summary judgment where impliedly, the veracity of the statements in the
questions of fact are in issue or where material Walden affidavit. The Bank still had the burden of
allegations of the pleadings are in dispute. The proving New York law and jurisprudence even if
resolution of whether a foreign law allows only the Guerrero did not present an opposing affidavit. As
recovery of actual damages is a question of fact as the party moving for summary judgment, the Bank
far as the trial court is concerned since foreign laws has the burden of clearly demonstrating the

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

Read the Full Text
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401

absence of any genuine issue of fact and that any The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court
doubt as to the existence of such issue is resolved that matters of remedy and procedure such as
against the movant. ||| those relating to service of summons upon the
defendant are governed by the lex fori, which was,
ASIAVEST LIMITED vs. THE COURT OF in this case, the law of Hong Kong.
APPEALS
G.R. No. 128803, September 25, 1998 It then stressed that where the action is in
personam and the defendant is in the Philippines,
FACTS: the summons should be personally served on the
defendant. Heras was physically present in Hong
Plaintiff Asiavest Limited filed a complaint against Kong for nearly 14 years. There was not even an
the defendant Antonio Heras praying that he be attempt to serve summons on HERAS therein, thus,
ordered to pay to the plaintiff the amounts the Hong Kong Supreme Court did not acquire
awarded by the Hong Kong Court Judgment. The jurisdiction over his person.
action filed in Hong Kong against Heras was in
personam, since it was based on his personal ISSUE:
guarantee of the obligation of the principal debtor.
At the pre-trial conference, the parties agreed on WON Hong Kong acquired jurisdiction over the
the following stipulations of facts: person of Heras.

1. The defendant admits the existence of the WON the Hong Kong Court Judgment is enforceable
judgment dated December 28, 1984 as well as its in the Philippines.
amendment dated April 13, 1987, but not
necessarily the authenticity or validity thereof; RULING:

2. The plaintiff is not doing business and is not No.

licensed to do business in the Philippines;
During the trial, Mr. Lousich was presented as an
3. The residence of defendant, Antonio Heras, is expert on the laws of Hong Kong, and as a
New Manila, Quezon City. representative of the law office of the defendant's
counsel who made a verification of the record of
The trial court held that since the Hong Kong court the case filed by the plaintiff in Hong Kong against
judgment had been duly proved, it is a presumptive the defendant as well as the procedure in serving
evidence of a right as between the parties. Hence, Court processes in Hong Kong. He testified that the
the party impugning it had the burden to prove Hong Kong court authorized service of summons
want of jurisdiction over his person. HERAS failed on HERAS outside of its jurisdiction, particularly in
to discharge that burden. He did not testify to state the Philippines. He also declared that such service
categorically and under oath that he never received of summons would be valid under Hong Kong laws
summons. The Hong Kong court judgment should provided that it was in accordance with Philippine
be recognized and given effect in this jurisdiction laws.
for failure of HERAS to overcome the legal
presumption in favor of the foreign judgment. Jurisprudence provides that testimony of an expert
witness may be allowed to prove a foreign law.
Heras appealed the decision to the CA. However, nothing in the testimony of Mr. Lousich
touched on the specific law of Hong Kong in respect
The CA rendered its decision reversing the decision of service of summons either in actions in rem or in
of the trial court and dismissing ASIAVEST's personam, and where the defendant is either a
complaint without prejudice. It underscored the resident or nonresident of Hong Kong. In view of
fact that a foreign judgment does not of itself have the absence of proof of the Hong Kong law on this
any extraterritorial application. For it to be given particular issue, the presumption of identity or
effect, the foreign tribunal should have acquired similarity or the so-called processual presumption
jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter. shall come into play. It will thus be presumed that
If such tribunal has not acquired jurisdiction, its the Hong Kong law on the matter is similar to the
judgment is void. Philippine law.

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

Read the Full Text
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