1.

Saudi Arabian Airlines v CA

Facts: Milagros Morada was working as a stewardess for Saudia Arabian

Airlines. In 1990, while she and some co-workers were in a lay-over in Indonesia, a co-
worker tried to rape her in a hotel room. Fortunately, a room boy heard her cry for help
and her co-workers were arrested and detained in Indonesia. Later, Saudia Airlines re-
assigned her to work in their Manila office but in 1992, during one of her trips to Jeddah,
she was brought to the police where they took her passport and would return it only if
she dropped the case against the two men. Again, in 1993, she was brough to a Saudi
Court where she was made to sign a document written in Arabic. To her shock, she was
sentence to imprisonment and 286 lashes for adultery and socializing with the male
crew. The Prince admitted that she was wrongfully convicted and absolved her. Saudi
Arabian Airlines however, terminated her. Morada filed a complaint in the RTC of
Quezon City for damages based on Article 19 and 21 of the Philippine Civil Code
against Saudi Arabian Airlines, which questioned the jurisdiction of the Philippine courts
since the proper law applicable is the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia inasmuch as
this case involves what is known in private international law as a 'conflicts problem'.

ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC of Quezon City has jurisdiction to try the case.

HELD: Yes, the RTC of Quezon City has jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the suit as its authority is provided under RA No 7691.
Weighing the claims of the parties, refusing to take cognizance of the case would
be forcing the plaintiff (respondent now) to seek remedial action in Saudi Arabia where
she no longer maintains substantial connections which would cause unfairness to her.
Moreover, no unnecessary inconvenience have been shown by either of the parties.
Similarly, both parties submitted to the jurisdiction of the court upon filing of the
complaint by the private respondent, and by Saudi Arabian Airlines when they prayed
for reliefs. Lastly, applying the torts principle that the situs of a tort is the place where
the alleged tort took place, the violations of Art 19 and 21 are actionable and judicially
enforceable in the municipal forum. This is because the petitioner allegedly deceived
the respondent in the Philippines in sending her back to Saudi on a false pretense.
 2. Hasegawa v Kitamura
Facts:

The petitioner Nippon Engineering Consultants Co. is a Japanese consultancy firm

which was contracted by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) to
supervise the construction of the Southern Tagalog Access Road. Nippon entered into
an Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA) with respondent Kitamura, a Japanese
national permanently residing in the Philippines. Under the ICA, the respondent will
extend professional services to the petitioner for a year.

Subsequently Kitamura was assigned as project manager in 1999. However, he was

informed by the petitioner that it pre-terminate his contract. Kitamura filed a civil case for
specific performance before the RTC of Lipa and damages. Hasegawa filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that the contract was entered in Japan hence, applying the
principle of lex loci celebracionis, cases arising from the contract should be cognizable
only by Japanese courts.

The lower court ruled that it has jurisdiction over the dispute and denied the petitioner's
motion to dismiss since accordingly, it is vested by law with the power to entertain and
hear the civil case filed by Kitamura. The Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's
decision.

Issue:

Whether or not the RTC of Lipa has jurisdiction over the case

HELD:

YES. In the first place, the case filed by Kitamura is a complaint for specific
performance and damages. Such case is incapable of pecuniary estimation; such cases
are within the jurisdiction of the regional trial court.

Secondly, the only issue is the jurisdiction, hence, choice-of-law rules as raised by the
petitioner is inapplicable and not yet called for. The petitioner prematurely invoked the
said rules before pointing out any conflict between the laws of Japan and the
Philippines.

Lastly, Hasegawa filed his motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens.
However, such ground is not one of those provided for by the Rules as a ground for
dismissing a civil case.
 3. Raytheon Int’l. vs. Rouzie

Facts: Brand Marine Services, Inc. (BMSI), a corporation duly organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Connecticut, USA, and respondent. Rouzie, an American
citizen, entered into a contract whereby BMSI hired respondent as its representative to
negotiate the sale of services in several government projects in the Philippines

In 1994, respondent filed before the NLRC a suit against BMSI and Rust International,
Inc., for alleged non-payment of commissions, illegal termination and breach of
employment contract.

Petitioner sought the dismissal of the complaint on grounds of failure to state a cause of
action and forum non conveniens and prayed for damages by way of compulsory
counterclaim. Petitioner asserts that the written contract between respondent and BMSI
included a valid choice of law clause, that is, that the contract shall be governed by the
laws of the State of Connecticut. It also mentions the presence of foreign elements in
the dispute – namely, the parties and witnesses involved are American corporations and
citizens and the evidence to be presented is located outside the Philippines – that
renders our local courts inconvenient forums.

Issue: Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the case.

Ruling: Yes.

On the matter of jurisdiction over a conflicts-of-laws problem where the case is filed in a
Philippine court and where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the parties
and the res, it may proceed to try the case even if the rules of conflict of-laws or the
convenience of the parties point to a foreign forum. This is an exercise of sovereign
prerogative of the country where the case is filed. In the instant case is an action for
damages arising from an alleged breach of contract. Undoubtedly, the nature of the
action and the amount of damages prayed are within the jurisdiction of the RTC.

As regards jurisdiction over the parties, the trial court acquired jurisdiction over herein
respondent upon the filing of the complaint. On the other hand, jurisdiction over the
person of petitioner was acquired by its voluntary appearance in court.

That the subject contract included a stipulation that the same shall be governed by the
laws of the State of Connecticut does not suggest that the Philippine courts, or any
other foreign tribunal for that matter, are precluded from hearing the civil action.
Moreover, the propriety of dismissing a case based on the principle of forum non
conveniens requires a factual determination; hence, it is more properly considered as a
matter of defense. While it is within the discretion of the trial court to abstain from
assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so only after vital facts are
established, to determine whether special circumstances require the court's desistance.

4. Manila Hotel Corp v NLRC

Facts: In May 1988, Marcelo Santos was an overseas worker in Oman. In June 1988, he
was recruited by Palace Hotel in Beijing, China. Due to higher pay and benefits, Santos
agreed to the hotel’s job offer and so he started working there in November 1988. The
employment contract between him and Palace Hotel was however without the intervention
of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). In August 1989, Palace
Hotel notified Santos that he will be laid off due to business reverses. In September 1989,
he was officially terminated. In February 1990, Santos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
against Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC) and Manila Hotel International, Ltd. (MHIL). The
Palace Hotel was impleaded but no summons were served upon it. MHC is a government
owned and controlled corporation. It owns 50% of MHIL, a foreign corporation (Hong Kong).
MHIL manages the affair of the Palace Hotel. The labor arbiter who handled the case ruled
in favor of Santos. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the labor
arbiter.

ISSUE: Whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction over the case.

HELD: No. The NLRC is a very inconvenient forum for the following reasons:

1. The only link that the Philippines has in this case is the fact that Santos is a Filipino;
2. However, the Palace Hotel and MHIL are foreign corporations – MHC cannot be held
liable because it merely owns 50% of MHIL, it has no direct business in the affairs of
the Palace Hotel. The veil of corporate fiction can’t be pierced because it was not
shown that MHC is directly managing the affairs of MHIL. Hence, they are separate
entities.
3. Santos’ contract with the Palace Hotel was not entered into in the Philippines;
4. Santos’ contract was entered into without the intervention of the POEA (had POEA
intervened, NLRC still does not have jurisdiction because it will be the POEA which
will hear the case);
5. MHIL and the Palace Hotel are not doing business in the Philippines; their
agents/officers are not residents of the Philippines;

Due to the foregoing, the NLRC cannot possibly determine all the relevant facts pertaining
to the case. It is not competent to determine the facts because the acts complained of
happened outside our jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court emphasized that under the rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine
court or agency may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so provided:

(1) that the Philippine court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to;

(2) that the Philippine court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the
law and the facts; and

(3) that the Philippine court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision.

None of the above conditions are apparent in the case at bar.

5. Ingenohl vs. Olsen and Company, Inc

Facts: In 1919, the acting Alien Property Custodian of the United States, by virtue of the
Trading with the Enemy Act as amended, required and caused to be conveyed to him
the property and business then belonging to the company known as Syndicat Oriente,
formed under the laws of Belgium, of which the plaintiff was the “gestor,” and an enemy
as defined in said Act.

During the public sale, defendant corporation was the highest bidder. The defendant
paid in good faith, and took over the property and assets of the company, including its
trade-marks and trade names and its business as a going concern

After obtaining the proceeds from the sale, the plaintiff in violation of the conveyance,
wrongfully instituted an action in the Supreme Court of Hong Kong against the
defendant in which the plaintiff claimed to be the sole owner of the trade-marks for the
exports of the business. The Supreme Court of Hong Kong ruled in favor of the plaintiff,
allegedly through misrepresentation, ordering defendant to pay the former for costs and
AF. The Court ruled that the deed of conveyance limited the sale of the business to the
trademarks within the Philippines, implying that the plaintiff is still entitled to the sell the
cigars under the same trademarks through exporting, which accounts to 95% of the total
sales of the company.

The CFI rendered judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount of his claim, with interest,
from which the defendant appeals. Defendant company alleges that when he purchased
the property and business, all trademarks are included; that the subject of the sale is not
only those trademarks for sales within the Philippines.

Issue: Should the judgment rendered by the Hong Kong court be enforced by Philippine
courts?
Ruling: No; we do not hesitate to say that the judgment rendered in the Hongkong court
was a clear mistake of both law and fact, and that it ought not to be enforced in the
Philippine Islands. The Supreme Court ruled that a judgment against a person may be
repelled by evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud,
clear mistake of law or fact, and that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Hong Kong
showed such a clear mistake. The mistake consisted in denying effect in Hong Kong the
sale to Olsen and Co of the business and trademarks seized by the Alien Property
Custodian from Ingenohl. The SC ruled that it was plain error by the SC of HK to hold
that this sale did not carry the exclusive right to use the trademarks in HK.

6. Government v Frank

Facts: Plaintiff Govt of the Philippines, through a representative, entered into a contract
for a period of 2 years with the defendant Frank, by which the latter was to receive a
salary of $1,200 per year as a stenographer in the service of the former. He was to be
paid in advance the travel expenses and ½ of his salary during his travel. The contract
also provided that in case Frank violated it, he would be liable to the plaintiff for the
travel expenses and his ½ salary paid. Before the expiration of the contract, defendant
left the service and refused to further comply with the contract. The plaintiff commenced
and action in the CFI of Manila to recover from the defendant the amount which the
plaintiff claimed had been paid to the defendant. The defendant claimed that he was a
minor at the time and thus not liable under the law.

Issue: Whether or not defendant Frank can be held liable.

Ruling: Yes.

The defendant's claim that he was an adult when he left Chicago but was a minor when
he arrived at Manila; that he was an adult at the time he made the contract but was a
minor at the time the plaintiff attempted to enforce the contract, more than a year later,
is not tenable.

The SC applied the law of the place of the contract or lex loci contractus and concluded
that Frank was capacitated at the time he entered into the contract. The same result
would have been achieved had Frank’s national law were applied.
 7. Hilton v Guyot

Facts: Plaintiff Hilton and Libbey, New York citizens trading in Paris, were sued in
France by Defendant Guyot, the administrator of a French firm, for sums allegedly owed
to that firm. The Plaintiffs appeared and litigated the merits in the French proceeding.
The French court rendered a judgment against them that was affirmed by a higher court
and became final. Defendant then sought to enforce that judgment in federal district
court in New York. That court held the judgment enforceable without retrial on the
merits. The Plaintiffs then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not laws have any effect, of their own force, beyond the limits of the
sovereignty from which its authority is derived

Ruling: No. No sovereign is bound, unless by special compact, to execute within his
dominions a judgment rendered by the tribunals of another state, and if execution be
sought by suit upon the judgment or otherwise, the tribunal in which the suit is brought,
or from which execution is sought, is, on principle, at liberty to examine into the merits of
such judgment, and to give effect to it or not, as may be found just and equitable.
However, the general comity, utility and convenience of nations have established a
usage among most civilized states, by which the final judgments of foreign courts of
competent jurisdiction are reciprocally carried into execution, under certain regulations
and restrictions, which differ in different countries. Additionally, judgments rendered in
any foreign country, are not conclusive but are prima facie evidence only of the justice
of the plaintiffs’ claim.