Gulf Oil Corp. v.

Gilbert
330 U.S. 501 10 March 1947 Justice Jac so! "acts# Respondent Gilbert resides in Virginia where he operates a public warehouse. Petitioner Gulf Oil Corp. is a gas company organized under the laws of Pennsylvania and qualified to do business in both Virginia and ew !or" where it has agents to receive processes. Respondent filed an action in ew !or" against Petitioner for the latter#s negligence in the delivery of gasoline to the former#s warehouse tan"s and pumps that resulted to a fire destroying the building and all its contents. Gulf Oil invo"ed the doctrine of forum non$ conveniens and claimed that Virginia is the appropriate venue for the trial because it is where Gilbert resides% the corporation does business% factual events too" place% witness resides and both state and federal courts are available to Respondent and have &urisdiction over Petitioner. On the other hand% Gilbert &ustified his ew !or" suit based on diversity of citizenship and the venue statutes of the 'nited (tates authorizing the same. )t further contended that the local &ury is unaccustomed to damages amounting to '(* +,,%,,,.,, and it prevents local influences and preconceived notions. -he *istrict Court of ew !or" rendered a decision in favour of Gulf Oil which the Circuit Court of .ppeals later on reversed. /ence% the petition for certiorari. $ssue%s# 0hether the *istrict Court abused its power to dismiss the case pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens. &uli!'# o. -he principle of forum non conveniens enables a court to resist &urisdiction even when &urisdiction is authorized by law. -he application of the doctrine lies in the discretion of the court which shall be based on the standpoint of litigants% relative ease of access to sources of proof% availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses% cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses% possibility of view of the premises% enforceability of a &udgment% and all other practical problems that ma"e trial of a case easy% e1peditious% and ine1pensive. )n view of public interest% the doctrine aims to prevent clogging court doc"ets and burdening a community of &ury duty which has no relation to the litigation. -here can also be local interest over controversies decided at home% and some cases are better decided in a forum that is at home with the state law% avoiding unnecessary problems in conflict of laws. )n the case at bar% there is no interest for any party to have the litigation in ew !or"% and the facts under consideration even weigh against it. -he plaintiff cannot choose an inconvenient forum to harass the petitioner.

(.(. Shell Se i)u Osa a *atsubaisho a!+ "u *i!' Oil Co., -./., vs. Court of 0ppeals
G.&. 1os. 90302307 Jul) 30, 1990 Justice Cortes "acts# On 2anuary 3%4563% 7umagai 7aiun 7aisha% 8td. 9hereinafter referred to as 7umagai:% a corporation formed and e1isting under the laws of 2apan% filed a complaint for the collection of a sum of money with preliminary attachment against .tlantic Venus Co.% (... 9hereinafter referred to as ;.tlantic;:% a corporation registered in Panama% the vessel <V =stella and Crestamonte (hipping Corporation 9hereinafter referred to as ;Crestamonte;:% a Philippine corporation. .tlantic is the owner of the <V =stella. -he complaint% doc"eted as Civil Case o. 63>65>, of the Regional -rial Court% ?ranch @)V% <anila alleged that Crestamonte% as bareboat charterer and operator of the <V =stella% appointed .(. (hipping Corporation 9hereinafter referred to as ; ((;:% a 2apanese corporation% as its general agent in 2apan. -he appointment was formalized in an .gency .greement. (( in turn appointed 7umagai as its local agent in Osa"a% 2apan. 7umagai supplied the <V =stella with supplies and services but despite repeated demands Crestamonte failed to pay the amounts due. (( and 7eihin in$intervention. arasa"i Corporation 9hereinafter referred to a 7eihin filed complaints$

On <ay 45%4563% petitioner Au /ing Oil Co.% 8td. 9hereinafter referred to as Au /ing;:% a corporation organized in /ong 7ong and not doing business in the Philippines% filed a motion for leave to intervene with an attached complaint$in$intervention% alleging that Au /ing supplied marine diesel oilBfuel to the <V =stella and incurred barge e1penses for the total sum of One /undred Aifty$two -housand Aour /undred -welve *ollars and Aifty$(i1 Cents 9'(C4DE%+4E.DF: but such has remained unpaid despite demand and that the claim constitutes a maritime lien. -he issuance of a writ of attachment was also prayed for. On 2uly 4F% 4563% petitioner 7.7. (hell (e"iyu Osa"a /atsubaisho 9hereinafter referred to as 7.7. (hell;:% a corporation organized in 2apan and not doing business in the Philippines% li"ewise filed a motion to intervene with an attached complaint$in$intervention% alleging that upon request of ((% CrestamonteGs general agent in 2apan% 7.7. (hell provided and supplied marine diesel oilBfuel to the 0 =stella at the ports of -o"yo and <utsure in 2apan and that despite previous demands Crestamonte has failed to pay the amounts of (i1teen -housand ine /undred inety$(i1 *ollars and inety$ (i1 Cents 9'(C4F%55F.5F: and One <illion !en 9!4%,,,%,,,.,,: and that 7.7. (hellGs claim constitutes a maritime lien on the <V =stella. -he complaint$in$intervention sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment. $ssue# 0hether the court has acquired &urisdictionH

&uli!'# Private respondents have anticipated the possibility that the courts will not find that 7.7. (hell is e1pressly bound by the .gency .greement% and thus they fall bac" on the argument that even if this were so% the doctrine of forum non conveniens would be a valid ground to cause the dismissal of 7.7. (hellGs complaint$in$intervention. 7.7. (hell counters this argument by invo"ing its right as maritime lienholder. )t cites Presidential *ecree o. 4DE4% the (hip <ortgage *ecree of 4536% which providesI (=C. E4. <aritime 8ien for ecessariesJ person entitled to such lien$.ny person furnishing repairs% supplies% to wage% use of dry doc" or marine railway% or other necessaries% to any vessel% whether foreign or domestic% upon the order of the owner of such vessel% or of a person authorized by the owner% shall have a maritime lien on the vessel% which may be enforced by suit in rem% and it shall be necessary to allege or prove that credit was given to the vessel. Private respondents on the other hand argue that even if P.*. o. 4DE4 is applicable% 7.7. (hell cannot rely on the maritime lien because the fuel was provided not e1clusively for the benefit of the <V =stella% but for the benefit of Crestamonte in general. 'nder the law it must be established that the credit was e1tended to the vessel itself. ow% this is a defense that calls precisely for a factual determination by the trial court of who benefitted from the delivery of the fuel. /ence% again% the necessity for the reception of evidence before the trial court. )n other words% considering the dearth of evidence due to the fact that the private respondents have yet to file their answer in the proceedings below and trial on the merits is still to be conducted% whether or not petitioners are indeed maritime lienholders and as such may enforce the lien against the <V =stella are matters that still have to be established. either are we ready to rule on the private respondentsG invocation of the doctrine of forum non conveniens% as the e1act nature of the relationship of the parties is still to be established. 0e leave this matter to the sound discretion of the trial court &udge who is in the best position% after some vital facts are established% to determine whether special circumstances require that his court desist from assuming &urisdiction over the suit.

Co44u!icatio! Materials a!+ /esi'! vs. Court of 0ppeals

G.&. 1o. 105553 0u'ust 55, 1992 Justice .orres, Jr. "acts# CO<<' )C.-)O <.-=R).8( . * *=()G % ) C.% 9C<*)% for brevity: and .(P.C <'8-)$-R.*= ) C.% 9.(P.C% for brevity: are both domestic corporations% while petitioner Arancisco (. .guirre is their President and ma&ority stoc"holder. Private Respondents )-=C% ) C. andBor )-=C% ) -=R .-)O .8% ) C. 9)-=C% for brevity: are corporations duly organized and e1isting under the laws of the (tate of .labama% 'nited (tates of .merica. -here is no dispute that )-=C is a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines. On .ugust 4+% 4563% )-=C entered into a contract with petitioner .(P.C referred to as ;Representative .greement;. Pursuant to the contract% )-=C engaged .(P.C as its ;e1clusive representative; in the Philippines for the sale of )-=CGs products% in consideration of which% .(P.C was paid a stipulated commission. -he agreement was signed by G... Clar" and Arancisco (. .guirre% presidents of )-=C and .(P.C respectively% for and in behalf of their companies. E -he said agreement was initially for a term of twenty$four months. .fter the lapse of the agreed period% the agreement was renewed for another twenty$four months. -hrough a ;8icense .greement; entered into by the same parties on ovember 4,% 4566% .(P.C was able to incorporate and use the name ;)-=C; in its own name. -hus % .(P.C <ulti$-rade% )nc. became legally and publicly "nown as .(P.C$)-=C 9Philippines:. ?y virtue of said contracts% .(P.C sold electronic products% e1ported by )-=C% to their sole customer% the Philippine 8ong *istance -elephone Company% 9P8*-% for brevity:. -o facilitate their transactions% .(P.C% dealing under its new appellation% and P8*e1ecuted a document entitled ;P8*-$.(P.CB)-=C PRO-OCO8; which defined the pro&ect details for the supply of )-=CGs )nterface =quipment in connection with the Aifth =1pansion Program of P8*-. One year into the second term of the partiesG Representative .greement% )-=C decided to terminate the same% because petitioner .(P.C allegedly violated its contractual commitment as stipulated in their agreements. )-=C charges the petitioners and another Philippine Corporation% *)G)-.8 ?.(= CO<<' )C.-)O (% ) C. 9*)G)-.8% for brevity:% the President of which is li"ewise petitioner .guirre% of using "nowledge and information of )-=CGs products specifications to develop their own line of equipment and product support% which are similar% if not identical to )-=CGs own% and offering them to )-=CGs former customer. $ssue# 0hether the court acquired &urisdictionH

&uli!'# PetitionerGs insistence on the dismissal of this action due to the application% or non application% of the private international law rule of forum non conveniens defies well$settled rules of fair play. .ccording to petitioner% the Philippine Court has no venue to apply its discretion whether to give cognizance or not to the present action% because it has not acquired &urisdiction over the person of the plaintiff in the case% the latter allegedly having no personality to sue before Philippine Courts. -his argument is misplaced because the court has already acquired &urisdiction over the plaintiff in the suit% by virtue of his filing the original complaint. .nd as we have already observed% petitioner is not at liberty to question plaintiffGs standing to sue% having already acceded to the same by virtue of its entry into the Representative .greement referred to earlier. -hus% having acquired &urisdiction% it is now for the Philippine Court% based on the facts of the case% whether to give due course to the suit or dismiss it% on the principle of forum non convenience. /ence% the Philippine Court may refuse to assume &urisdiction in spite of its having acquired &urisdiction. Conversely% the court may assume &urisdiction over the case if it chooses to do soJ provided% that the following requisites are metI 4: -hat the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort toJ E: -hat the Philippine Court is in a position to ma"e an intelligent decision as to the law and the factsJ and% >: -hat the Philippine Court has or is li"ely to have power to enforce its decision. -he aforesaid requirements having been met% and in view of the courtGs disposition to give due course to the questioned action% the matter of the present forum not being the ;most convenient; as a ground for the suitGs dismissal% deserves scant consideration.

6ellis vs. 6ellis

G.R. o. 8$E>F36. 2une F% 45F3

"acts# .mos ?ellis was a citizen and a resident of -e1as when he died. ?efore his death% he e1ecuted a will in the Philippines wherein he directed that his net estate would be distributed in the following mannerI 9a: CE+,%,,,.,, to his first wife% <ary =. <allenJ 9b: P4E,%,,,.,, to his three illegitimate children and the 9c: the remainder shall go to his seven surviving children by his first and second wives. .mong those surviving children are <aria Cristina ?ellis and <iriam Palma ?ellis% the oppositors. -he PeopleGs ?an" and -rust Company acted as e1ecutor of the will. Prior to the submission of final account% <aria Cristina ?ellis and <iriam Palma ?ellis filed their respective oppositions to the pro&ect of partition on the ground that they were deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children and compulsory heirs of the deceased. -hey contend that although .rticle 4F and .rticle 4,>5 of the Civil Code provide that it is the national law of the decedent which governs the followingI 9a: the order of successionJ 9b: the amount of successional rightsJ 9c: the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the willJ and 9d: the capacity to succeed % .rticle 43 par. > of the Civil Code% stating that K ;Prohibitive laws concerning persons% their acts or property% and those which have for their ob&ect public order% public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws% or &udgments promulgated% or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.; prevails as the e1ception. Aurthermore% they argue that the decedent% in e1ecuting two wills% intended one to govern his -e1as estate and the other his Philippine estate.

$ssue# 0hether or not .rt. 43 of the Civil Code prevails as an e1ception to .rt. 4F and .rt. 4,>5

&uli!'# 94: o% .rt. 4F par. E of the Civil Code which states that intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein

said property may be found" is a specific provision in itself which is applied in testate and intestate successions. .s further indication of this legislative intent% Congress added a new provision% under .rt. 4,>5% which decrees that capacity to succeed is to be governed by the national law of the decedent. .ccordingly% since the parties admit that the decedent% .mos G. ?ellis% was a citizen of the (tate of -e1as% '.(...% and that under the laws of -e1as% there are no forced heirs or legitimates% the Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of .mos G. ?ellis.

9E: <oreover% even assuming that in e1ecuting a separate Philippine will% the decedent intended that Philippine law govern his Philippine estate% such intention is illegal and void for his national law cannot be ignored in regard to those matters that .rticle 4F of the Civil Code states should be governed by the national of the decedent.

"irst 7hilippi!e $!ter!atio!al 6a! v. Court of 0ppeals

G.&. 1o. 115849 Ja!uar) 54, 1992 Justice 7a!'a!iba! "acts Producers ?an" 9now called Airst Philippine )nternational ?an":% which has been under conservatorship since 456+% is the owner of F parcels of land. -he ?an" had an agreement with *emetrio *emetria and 2ose 2anolo for the two to purchase the parcels of land for a purchase price of PD.D million pesos. -he said agreement was made by *emetria and 2anolo with the ?an"#s manager% <ercurio Rivera. 8ater however% the ?an"% through its conservator% 8eonida =ncarnacion% sought the repudiation of the agreement as it alleged that Rivera was not authorized to enter into such an agreement% hence there was no valid contract of sale. (ubsequently% *emetria and 2anolo sued Producers ?an". -he regional trial court ruled in favor of *emetria et al. -he ?an" filed an appeal with the Court of .ppeals. <eanwhile% /enry Co% who holds 6,L shares of stoc"s with the said ?an"% filed a motion for intervention with the trial court. -he trial court denied the motion since the trial has been concluded already and the case is now pending appeal. (ubsequently% Co% assisted by .CCR. law office% filed a separate civil case against Carlos =&ercito as successor$in$interest 9assignee: of *emetria and 2anolo see"ing to have the purported contract of sale be declared unenforceable against the ?an". =&ercito et al argued that the second case constitutes forum shopping. $ssue 0as there forum$shopping on the part of petitioner ?an"H &uli!' !es. 0e rule for private respondent. -o begin with% forum$shopping originated as a concept in private international law% where non$resident litigants are given the option to choose the forum or place wherein to bring their suit for various reasons or e1cuses% including to secure procedural advantages% to annoy and harass the defendant% to avoid overcrowded doc"ets% or to select a more friendly venue. -o combat these less than honorable e1cuses% the principle of forum non convenienswas developed whereby a court% in conflicts of law cases% may refuse

impositions on its &urisdiction where it is not the most MconvenientN or available forum and the parties are not precluded from see"ing remedies elsewhere. -here is forum shopping because there is identity of interest and parties between the first case and the second case. -here is identity of interest because both cases sought to have the agreement% which involves the same property% be declared unenforceable as against the ?an". -here is identity of parties even though the first case is in the name of the ban" as defendant% and the second case is in the name of /enry Co as plaintiff. -here is still forum shopping here because /enry Co essentially represents the ban". ?oth cases aim to have the ban" escape liability from the agreement it entered into with *emetria et al.

Ma!ila *otel Corp vs 1-&C

G.&. 1500077 13 October 5000 70&/O, J "acts )n <ay% 4566% private respondent <arcelo (antos 9hereinafter referred to as M(antosN: was an overseas wor"er employed as a printer at the <azoon Printing Press% (ultanate of Oman. (ubsequently% in 2une 4566% he was directly hired by the Palace /otel% ?ei&ing% People#s Republic of China. </)C8 is a corporation duly organized and e1isting under the laws of /ong 7ong. </C is an MincorporatorN of </)C8% owning D,L of its capital stoc". ?y virtue of a Mmanagement agreementN with the Palace /otel 90ang Au Company 8imited:% </)C8 trained the personnel and staff of the Palace /otel at ?ei&ing% China. On .ugust 4,% 4565% the Palace /otel informed respondent that his employment at the Palace /otel print shop would be terminated due to business reverses brought about by the political upheaval in China. On Aebruary E,% 455,% respondent (antos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the .rbitration ?ranch% ational Capital Region% ational 8abor Relations Commission 9 8RC:. /e prayed for an award of nineteen thousand nine hundred and twenty three dollars 9'(C45%5E>.,,: as actual damages% forty thousand pesos 9P+,%,,,.,,: as e1emplary damages and attorney#s fees equivalent to E,L of the damages prayed for. -he complaint named </C% </)C8% the Palace /otel and <r. (hmidt 9General <anager of Palace /otel: as respondents. -he Palace /otel and <r. (hmidt were not served with summons and neither participated in the proceedings before the 8abor .rbiter.Petitioners appeal to the 8RC% arguing that the PO=.% not the 8RC had &urisdiction over the case. $ssue )s the 8RC the proper forum

*el+ -he 8RC was a seriously inconvenient forum. -he main aspects of the case transpired in two foreign &urisdictions and the case involves purely foreign elements. -he only lin" that the Philippines has with the case is that respondent (antos is a Ailipino citizen. -he Palace /otel and </)C8 are foreign corporations. ot all cases involving our citizens can be tried here. (antos was hired directly by the Palace /otel% a foreign employer% through correspondence sent to the (ultanate of Oman% where respondent (antos was then employed. /e was hired without the intervention of the PO=. or any authorized recruitment agency of the government. 'nder the rule of forum non conveniens% a Philippine court or agency may assume &urisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so providedI 94: that the Philippine court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort toJ 9E: that the Philippine court is in a position to ma"e an intelligent decision as to the law and the factsJ and 9>: that the Philippine court has or is li"ely to have power to enforce its decision.

7acific Co!sulta!ts $!ter!atio!al 0sia, $!c. a!+ Je!s *e!richse! v. (laus (. Scho!fel+
G.&. 1o. 122950 "ebruar) 19, 5007 Calle9o, Sr., J. "acts# PP) is a Philippine corporation and a subsidiary of Pacific Consultants )nternational of 2apan a"a PC)2. /enrichsen was the president of PP) and also the director of PC)2. (chonfeld is a Canadian citizen and resident% and wor"ed as a consultant employed by PC)2. )n October 4553% PC)2 assigned (chonfeld as PP) sector manager in the Philippines. /is salary was to be paid partly by PP) and PC)2. On 2anuary 3% 4556% /enrichsen sent an employment letter to (chonfeld in Canada% as"ing him to accept employment and affi1 his conformity thereto. (chonfeld signed and sent a copy of the contract bac" to /enrichsen. (ection E4 of the General Conditions of =mployment which was appended to the letter of employment stated that Any question arising between the Employee and the Company which is in consequence of or connected with his employment with the Company and which can not be settled amicably, is to be finally settled, binding to both parties through written submissions, by the Court of Arbitration in London. (chonfeld assumed his post as PP) (ector <anager here in the Phils. and had the status of a resident alien. Pursuant to the 8abor Code#s )RR#s% PP) applied for an .lien =mployment Permit for (chonfeld with *O8=. -he employment contract was appended to the application. *O8= granted the application and issued the said Permit to (chonfeld. )t was stated in the Permit that (chonfeld#s employer was PP)% PP) also paid (chonfeld#s salaries and (chonfeld received instruction from /enrichsen. )n <ay 4555% /enrichsen informed (chonfeld via letter that his employment had been terminated starting .ugust +% 4555 because PC)2 and PP) failed in business here. ?ut on 2uly E+% 4555% /enrichsen% by email as"ed (chonfeld to stay put in his &ob after .ugust D% 4555% until such time that he would be able to report on certain pro&ects. (o he continued his wor" with PP) until October 4% 4555. (chonfeld then sued PP) for several money claims% including unpaid salary% leave pay% etc. PP) partially settled some of his claims but refused to pay the rest. (ubsequently% (chonfeld filed a Complaint for )llegal *ismissal against PP) and /enrichsen with the 8abor .rbiter% alleging that PP) had not informed him and the *O8= of its decision to close one of its departments% resulting in his dismissal% and that he wasn#t informed that his employment was terminated after .ugust +% 4555.

PP) and /endrichsen filed a <otion to *ismiss the complaint on the following groundsI 94: the 8abor .rbiter had no &urisdiction over the sub&ect matterJ and 9E: venue was improperly laid. PP) had the following contentionsI a.: that (chonfeld was a Canadian citizen% a transient e1patriate who had left the Philippines. /e was employed and dismissed by PC)2% a 2apanese corporation with principal office in -o"yo. (ince respondent#s cause of action was based on his employment letter e1ecuted in -o"yo% 2apan dated 2anuary 3% 4556% under the principle of le1 loci contractus% the complaint should have been filed in -o"yo% 2apan. b.: that (chonfeld and PC)2 had agreed that any employment$related dispute should be brought before the 8ondon Court of .rbitration. (ince even the (upreme Court had already ruled that such an agreement on venue is valid% Philippine courts have no &urisdiction. -he 8abor .rbiter granted the <otion to *ismiss. /e found the contract controlling% the Philippines was only the ;duty station; where (chonfeld was required to wor" under the General Conditions of =mployment. PC)2 remained respondent#s employer despite his having been sent to the Philippines. (ince the parties had agreed that any differences regarding employer$ employee relationship should be submitted to the &urisdiction of the court of arbitration in 8ondon% this agreement is controlling. -he 8RC affirmed the 8abor .rbiter#s decision. -he C. reversed and ruled in favor of (chonfeld. .pplying the four$fold test of determining an employer$employee relationship% the C. declared that respondent was an employee of PP). On the issue of venue% the C. ruled that the parties were not precluded from bringing a case in other venuesJ the venue is not e1clusive% since there is no stipulation that the complaint cannot be filed in any other forum other than in the Philippines. $ssues# 4. 0B there was an employer$employee relationship between (chonfeld and PP) therefore Philippine courts have &urisdiction over the sub&ect matterH E. 0B the venue for settling the matter can be here in <anila% contrary to the principle of forum non$conveniensH &uli!'# !es to both issues. -he instant petition is denied for lac" of merit. C.#s decision is affirmed and the case is remanded to the 8abor .rbiter for disposition of the case on the merits. 4. Petitioners are estopped from alleging that the PC)2% not PP)% had been the employer of (chonfeld. PP) applied for the issuance of an .lien =mployment Permit to (chonfeld before the *O8=. .nd PP) had averred in said application that (chonfeld is its employee. -o show that this

was the case% PP) attached a copy of (chonfelds employment contract% in compliance with the )RR#s of the 8abor Code. -hus% as claimed by (chonfeld% he had an employment contract with PP)J otherwise% PP) would not have filed an application for a Permit with the *O8=. E. .n employer$employee relationship between PP) and (chonfeld was established using the four$fold McontrolN test. )t is settled that whenever the e1istence of an employment relationship is in dispute% four elements ma"e up the standard for the said relationship 9a: the selection and engagement of the employeeJ 9b: the payment of wagesJ 9c: the power of dismissalJ and 9d: the employer#s power to control the employee#s conduct. -he most important inde1 of the e1istence of the employer$employee relationship is% whether the employer controls or has reserved the right to control the employee not only as to the result of the wor" to be done but also as to the means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished. -his test was proven and passed through (chonfeld#s submission of substantial evidence. -he power to control and supervise (chonfeld wor" performance devolved upon PP). .lso% the power to terminate the employment relationship was e1ercised by the President of PP)% /endrichsen. )t is not the letterhead used by PC)2 in the termination letter which controls% but the person who e1ercised the power to terminate the employee. .n employer$employee relationship may indeed e1ist even in the absence of a written contract% so long as the four elements abovementioned are all present. >. .s regards venue% the Rules of Court and &urisprudence provide that if the parties intend to restrict venue% there must be accompanying language clearly and categorically e1pressing their purpose and design that actions between them be litigated only at the place named by them. )n the case at bar% no restrictive words li"e ;only%; ;solely%; ;nowhere else butBe1cept K%; or words of equal import were stated in the contract. -herefore% it cant be said that the 8ondon arbitration court is the e1clusive venue. -he principle of forum non conveniens must be re&ected and cannot be applied in the case at bar. -he bare fact that respondent is a Canadian citizen and was a repatriate does not warrant the application of the principle because forum non conveniens is not a ground for the dismissal of the complaint under Philippine 8abor laws% and the (C has held thatI 1 1 1 OaP Philippine Court may assume &urisdiction over the case if it chooses to do soJ provided% that the following requisites are metI 94: that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort toJ 9E: that the Philippine Court is in a position to ma"e an intelligent decision as to the law and the factsJ and% 9>: that the Philippine Court has or is li"ely to have power to enforce its decision. 1 1 1

$! the 4atter of the testate estate of :+;ar+ :. Christe!se!, +ecease+. 0+olfo C. 0<!ar, e=ecutor a!+ -uc) Christe!se!, heir of the +ecease+, e=ecutor a!+ heir3appellees, vs. *ele! Christe!se! Garcia, oppositor3appella!t.
G.&. 1o. -312749 31 Ja!uar) 1923 Justice -abra+or "acts# =dward was born in ew !or" but later on resided in California for nine years. )n 454>% he went to the Philippines where he became a domiciliary until his death. )n his will% he left a legacy of P/P >F,,.,, in favor of his alleged illegitimate child /elen and the rest of his estate to his legitimate daughter% 8ucy. -he estate was distributed by .znar in accordance with the decision of the Court of Airst )nstance of *avao. /elen opposed the approval of the pro&ect of partition claiming that California Civil Code should govern% particularly (ec. 5+F which applies the law of domicile in the absence of any law to the contrary. -herefore% following the renvoi doctrine% the question pertaining to the provisions of the will should refer bac" to the law of =dwardGs domicile% that is the Philippines. -he lower court ruled that =dward is a citizen of the 'nited (tates and California Probate Code applies% allowing the testator the right to dispose of his property in the way he desires. /elen moved for reconsideration but was denied. /ence% the appeal. $ssue%s# 0hether =dward is an .merican citizen% whether the California Civil Code applies and whether the clause ;if there is no law to the contrary in the place where the property is situated; in (ec. 5+F of the said Code refers to the national law of the deceased under .rt. 4F of the Civil Code of the Philippines. &uli!'# =dward#s .merican citizenship was never lost by his stay in the Philippines because the latter was a territory of the 'nited (tates until 45+F. <oreover% the deceased appears to have considered himself as a citizen of California by the fact that when he e1ecuted his will in 45D4% he declared that he was a citizen of that (tate. /owever% at the time of his death% he was domiciled in the Philippines.

.rticle 4F of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that the national law of the deceased shall govern his testamentary provisions. )n the case at bar% there is no general .merican law on the matterJ thus the national law refers to private law enforced within his state% that is California. -here are two laws that govern the testamentary provisions of a will made by a deceased citizen of California Q the California Probate Code and the California Civil Code. -he former is the internal law which applies to Californians domiciled in California while the latter is the conflict rule for Californians domiciled in another &urisdiction. <oreover% (ec. 5+F of the California Civil Code precisely refers bac" the case to the law of his domicile and not the other way around. -hus% the court of domicile should not refer the case bac" to CaliforniaJ otherwise% it becomes a game of football wherein the case is tossed bac" and forth between two states% leaving the issue incapable of determination. -he court of domicile must apply its own succession laws% specifically .rts. 6639+: and 65+ of the Civil Code of the Philippines which ma"e natural children legally ac"nowledged forced heirs of the parent recognizing them. )n the case at bar% =dward was a domiciliary in the PhilippinesJ thus% Philippine laws must be followed.

Cal+i! vs. 7O:00+4i!istrator

G.&. 1o. -3104772 /ece4ber 5, 1994 >U$0SO1, J.# "acts# Cadalin et al. are Ailipino wor"ers recruited by .sia )nt#l ?uilders Co. 9.)?C:% a domestic recruitment corporation% for employment in ?ahrain to wor" for ?rown R Root )nt#l )nc. 9?R)): which is a foreign corporation with headquarters in -e1as. Plaintiff instituted a class suit with the PO=. for money claims arising from the une1pired portion of their employment contract which was prematurely terminated. -hey wor"ed in ?ahrain for ?R)) and they filed the suit after one year from the termination of their employment contract. .s provided by .rt. 4DF of the .miri *ecree a"a as the 8abor 8aw of the Private (ector of ?ahrainI Ma claim arising out of a contract of employment shall not be actionable after the lapse of 4 year from the date of the e1piry of the contract%N it appears that their suit has prescribed. Plaintiff contends that the prescription period should be ten years as provided by .rt. 44++ of the Civil Code as their claim arise from a violation of a contract. -he PO=. .dministrator holds that the ten year period of prescription should be applied but the 8RC provides a different view asserting that .rt E54 of the 8abor Code of the Phils with a three years prescription period should be applied. -he (olicitor General e1pressed his personal point of view that the one year period provided by the .miri *ecree should be applied. $ssue# 0hether procedural law of foreign country will be applicable to the PhilippinesH &uli!'# -he (upreme Court held that as a general rule a foreign procedural law will not be applied in our country as we must adopt our own procedural laws.

Philippines may adopt foreign procedural law under the ?orrowing (tatute such as (ec. +6 of the Civil Procedure Rule stating Mif by the laws of the (tate or country where the cause of action arose the action is barred% it is also barred in the Philippines.N -hus% ?ahrain law must be applied. /owever% the court contends that ?ahrain#s law on prescription cannot be applied because the court will not enforce any foreign claim that is obno1ious to the forum#s public policy and the one year rule on prescription is against public policy on labor as enshrined in the Philippine Constitution. -he court ruled that the prescription period applicable to the case should be .rt E54 of the 8abor Code of the Philippines with a three years prescription period since the claim arose from labor employment.