Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
103493
PHILSEC
INVESTMENT
CORPORATION,
BPI-INTERNATIONAL
FINANCE LIMITED, and ATHONA HOLDINGS, N.V., petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, 1488, INC., DRAGO DAIC,
VENTURA O. DUCAT, PRECIOSO R. PERLAS, and WILLIAM H.
CRAIG, respondents.
FACTS:
Private respondent Ventura O. Ducat obtained separate loans from
petitioners Ayala International Finance Limited and Philsec Investment
Corporation in the sum of US$2,500,000.00, secured by shares of stock
owned by Ducat with a market value of P14,088,995.00.
In order to facilitate the payment of the loans, private respondent 1488,
Inc., through its president, private respondent Drago Daic, assumed
Ducat's obligation under an Agreement whereby 1488, Inc. executed a
Warranty Deed with Vendor's Lien by which it sold to petitioner Athona
Holdings, N.V. a parcel of land in Harris County, Texas, U.S.A., for
US$2,807,209.02, while PHILSEC and AYALA extended a loan to ATHONA
in the amount of US$2,500,000.00 as initial payment of the purchase
price. The balance of US$307,209.02 was to be paid by means of a
promissory note executed by ATHONA in favor of 1488, Inc. Subsequently,
upon their receipt of the US$2,500,000.00 from 1488, Inc., PHILSEC and
AYALA released Ducat from his indebtedness and delivered to 1488, Inc.
all the shares of stock in their possession belonging to Ducat.
damages and excess payment allegedly made to 1488, Inc. and, in the
alternative, the rescission of sale of the property.
PHILSEC and AYALA filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over their person, but, as their motion was denied, they later
filed a joint answer with counterclaim against private respondents and
Edgardo V. Guevarra, PHILSEC's own former president, for the rescission
of the sale on the ground that the property had been overvalued.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed
the counterclaim against Edgardo V. Guevarra on the ground that it was
"frivolous and [was] brought against him simply to humiliate and
embarrass him." For this reason, the U.S. court imposed so-called Rule 11
sanctions on PHILSEC and AYALA and ordered them to pay damages to
Guevarra.
While Civil Case No. H-86-440 was pending in the United States,
petitioners filed a complaint "For Sum of Money with Damages and Writ of
Preliminary Attachment" against private respondents in the Regional Trial
Court of Makati.
The complaint reiterated the allegation of petitioners in their respective
counterclaims in Civil Action No. H-86-440 of the United States District
Court of Southern Texas that private respondents committed fraud by
selling the property at a price 400 percent more than its true value of
US$800,000.00. Petitioners claimed that, as a result of private
respondents' fraudulent misrepresentations, ATHONA, PHILSEC, and AYALA
were induced to enter into the Agreement and to purchase the Houston
property. Petitioners prayed that private respondents be ordered to return
to ATHONA the excess payment of US$1,700,000.00 and to pay damages.
RTC of Makati: issued a writ of preliminary attachment against the real
and personal properties of private respondents.
Private respondent Ducat moved to dismiss the Civil Case on the grounds
of (1) litis pendentia, (2) forum non conveniens, and (3) failure of
petitioners PHILSEC and BPI-IFL to state a cause of action.
Ducat contended that the alleged overpricing of the property prejudiced
only petitioner ATHONA, as buyer, but not PHILSEC and BPI-IFL.
Private respondents 1488, Inc. and its president Daic filed a joint "Special
Appearance and Qualified Motion to Dismiss," contending that the action
being in personam, extraterritorial service of summons by publication was
ineffectual and did not vest the court with jurisdiction over 1488, Inc.,
which is a non-resident foreign corporation, and Daic, who is a nonresident alien.
RTC of Makati:
granted Ducat's motion to dismiss, stating that "the evidentiary
requirements of the controversy may be more suitably tried before the
forum of the litis pendentia in the U.S., under the principle in private
international law of forum non conveniens," even as it noted that Ducat
was not a party in the U.S. case.
A separate hearing was held with regard to 1488, Inc. and Daic's motion to
dismiss.
RTC:
granted the motion to dismiss filed by 1488, Inc. and Daic on the ground
of litis pendentia considering that the "main factual element" of the cause
of action in this case which is the validity of the sale of real property in the
United States between defendant 1488 and plaintiff ATHONA is the subject
matter of the pending case in the United States District Court which, under
the doctrine of forum non conveniens, is the better (if not exclusive) forum
to litigate matters needed to determine the assessment and/or fluctuations
of the fair market value of real estate situated in Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
from the date of the transaction in 1983 up to the present and verily.
The trial court also held itself without jurisdiction over 1488, Inc. and Daic
because they were non-residents and the action was not an action in rem
or quasi in rem, so that extraterritorial service of summons was
ineffective. The trial court subsequently lifted the writ of attachment it had
earlier issued against the shares of stocks of 1488, Inc. and Daic.
CA:
Affirmed the dismissal of Civil Case No. 16563 against Ducat, 1488, Inc.,
and Daic on the ground of litis pendentia.
While the present case was pending in the Court of Appeals, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas rendered judgment
5 in the case before it. The judgment, which was in favor of private
respondents, was affirmed on appeal by the Circuit Court of Appeals.
The U.S. case and the case at bar arose from only one main transaction,
and involve foreign elements, to wit: 1) the property subject matter of the
sale is situated in Texas, U.S.A.; 2) the seller, 1488 Inc. is a non-resident
foreign corporation; 3) although the buyer, Athona Holdings, a foreign
corporation which does not claim to be doing business in the Philippines, is
wholly owned by Philsec, a domestic corporation, Athona Holdings is also
owned by BPI-IFL, also a foreign corporation; 4) the Warranty Deed was
executed in Texas, U.S.A.
court were exactly the issues raised in this case such that the judgment
that might be rendered would constitute res judicata.
[A] foreign judgment may not be enforced if it is not recognized in the
jurisdiction where affirmative relief is being sought. Hence, in the interest
of justice, the complaint should be considered as a petition for the
recognition of the Hongkong judgment under Section 50 (b), Rule 39 of
the Rules of Court in order that the defendant, private respondent herein,
may present evidence of lack of jurisdiction, notice, collusion, fraud or
clear mistake of fact and law, if applicable.
Second.
Nor is the trial court's refusal to take cognizance of the
case justifiable under the principle of forum non conveniens. First, a
motion to dismiss is limited to the grounds under Rule 16, 1, which does
not include forum non conveniens.
The propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle requires a factual
determination, hence, it is more properly considered a matter of defense.
Second, 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.
the trial court abstained from taking jurisdiction solely on the basis of the
pleadings filed by private respondents in connection with the motion to
dismiss. It failed to consider that one of the plaintiffs (PHILSEC) is a
domestic corporation and one of the defendants (Ventura Ducat) is a
Filipino, and that it was the extinguishment of the latter's debt which was
the object of the transaction under litigation. The trial court arbitrarily
dismissed the case even after finding that Ducat was not a party in the
U.S. case.
Third. It was error we think for the Court of Appeals and the trial court to
hold that jurisdiction over 1488, Inc. and Daic could not be obtained
because this is an action in personam and summons were served by
extraterritorial service. Rule 14, 17 on extraterritorial service provides
that service of summons on a non-resident defendant may be effected out
of the Philippines by leave of Court where, among others, "the property of
the defendant has been attached within the Philippines." 18 It is not
disputed that the properties, real and personal, of the private respondents
had been attached prior to service of summons under the Order of the trial
court dated April 20, 1987.
Fourth. As for the temporary restraining order issued by the Court on June
29, 1994, to suspend the proceedings in Civil Case No. 92-1445 filed by
Edgardo V. Guevarra to enforce so-called Rule 11 sanctions imposed on the
petitioners by the U.S. court, the Court finds that the judgment sought to
be enforced is severable from the main judgment under consideration in
Civil Case No. 16563. The separability of Guevara's claim is not only
license required by Republic Act No. 426, nor did they carry a permit from
the Commissioner of Customs to engage in importation into any port in the
Sulu sea. Their course announced loudly their intention not merely to skirt
along the territorial boundary of the Philippines but to come within our
limits and land somewhere in Tawi-tawi towards which their prows were
pointed. As a matter of fact, they were about to cross our aquatic
boundary but for the intervention of a customs patrol which, from all
appearances, was more than eager to accomplish its mission."
It is quite irrational for Filipino sailors manning five Philippine vessels to
sneak out of the Philippines and go to British North Borneo, and come a
long way back laden with highly taxable goods only to turn about upon
reaching the brink of our territorial waters and head for another foreign
port.
From the apprehension and seizure of the vessels in question on the high
seas beyond the territorial waters of the Philippines, the absence of
jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs is predicated. Such contention of
petitioners-appellants is without merit.
It is unquestioned that all vessels seized are of Philippine registry. The
Revised Penal Code leaves no doubt as to its applicability and
enforceability not only within the Philippines, its interior waters and
maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction against those committing
offense while on a Philippine ship ...8 The principle of law that sustains the
validity of such a provision equally supplies a firm foundation for the
seizure of the five sailing vessels found thereafter to have violated the
applicable provisions of the Revised Administrative Code.
It is a well settled doctrine of International Law that a state has the right
to protect itself and its revenues, a right not limited to its own territory but
extending to the high seas.
"The authority of a nation within its own territory is absolute and
exclusive. The seizure of a vessel within the range of its cannon by a
foreign force is an invasion of that territory, and is a hostile act which it is
its duty to repel. But its power to secure itself from injury may certainly be
exercised beyond the limits of its territory."
The fact that the alleged offense imputed to petitioners-appellants is a
violation of Section 1363(a) and not Section 1363(f). The title of Section
1363 is clear, "Property subject to forfeiture under customs laws." The first
subsection thereof, (a) cover any vessel including cargo unlawfully
engaged in the importation of merchandise except a port of entry.
Subsection (f) speaks of any merchandise of any prohibited importation,
the importation of which is effected or attempted contrary to law and all
other merchandise which in the opinion of the Collector of Customs have
been used are or were intended to be used as instrument in the
importation or exportation of the former.
The liability of the vessels and merchandise under the above terms of the
statute would appear to be undeniable. The action taken then by the
Commissioner of Customs was in accordance with law.
There was nothing arbitrary about the manner in which such seizure and
forfeiture were effected. The right to a hearing of petitioners-appellants
was respected. They could not have been unaware of what they were
doing. It would be an affront to reason if under the above circumstances
they could be allowed to raise in all seriousness a due process question.
Such a constitutional guaranty, basic and fundamental, certainly should
not be allowed to lend itself as an instrument for escaping a liability arising
from one's own nefarious acts.
Petitioners-appellants would further assail the validity of the action taken
by the respondent Commissioner of Customs by the plea that the repeal of
Republic Act No. 426 abated whatever liability could have been incurred
thereunder.
The expiration of the Import Control Law "did not produce the effect of
declaring legal the importation of goods which were illegally imported and
the seizure and forfeiture thereof as ordered by the Collector of Customs
illegal or null and void."
The expiration of Republic Act No. 650 could not have produced the effect
(1) of declaring legal the importation of the cotton counterpanes which
were illegally imported, and (2) of declaring the seizure and forfeiture
ordered by the Collector of Customs illegal or null and void; in other words
it could not have the effect of annulling or setting aside the decision of the
Collector of Customs which was rendered while the law was in force and
which should stand until it is revoked by the appellate tribunal."
Such expiration of the period of effectivity of Republic Act No. 650 "did not
have the effect of depriving the Commissioner of Customs of the
jurisdiction, acquired by him prior thereto, to act on cases of forfeiture
pending before him, which are in the nature of proceeding in rem.
It is thus most evident that the Court of Tax Appeals had not in any wise
refused to adhere faithfully to controlling legal principles when it sustained
the action taken by respondent Commissioner of Customs. It would be a
reproach and a reflection on the law if on the facts as they had been
shown to exist, the seizure and forfeiture of the vessels and cargo in
question were to be characterized as outside the legal competence of our
government and violative of the constitutional rights of petitionersappellants. Fortunately, as had been made clear above, that would be an
undeserved reflection and an unwarranted reproach. The vigor of the war
against smuggling must not be hampered by a misreading of international
law concepts and a misplaced reliance on a constitutional guaranty that
has not in any wise been infringed.
On motion by the defense, the court ruled that this answer might be
stricken out "because it refers to a sale." But, with respect to this answer,
the chief of the department of customs had already given this testimony,
to wit:
FISCAL. Who asked you to search the vessel?
WITNESS. The internal-revenue agent came to my office and said that a
party brought him a sample of opium and that the same party knew that
there was more opium on board the steamer, and the agent asked that the
vessel be searched.
According to the testimony of the internal-revenue agent, the defendant
stated to him, in the presence of the provincial fiscal, of a Chinese
interpreter the warden of the jail, and four guards, that the opium seized
in the vessel had been bought by him in Hongkong, at three pesos for
each round can and five pesos for each one of the others, for the purpose
of selling it, as contraband, in Mexico and Puerto de Vera Cruz; that on the
15th the vessel arrived at Cebu, and on the same day he sold opium; that
he had tried to sell opium for P16 a can; that he had a contract to sell an
amount of the value of about P500; that the opium found in the room of
the other two Chinamen prosecuted in another cause, was his, and that he
had left it in their stateroom to avoid its being found in his room, which
had already been searched many times; and that, according to the
defendant, the contents of the large sack was 80 cans of opium, and of the
small one, 49, and the total number, 129.
It was established that the steamship Erroll was of English nationality, that
it came from Hongkong, and that it was bound for Mexico, via the call
ports of Manila and Cebu.
CFI of Cebu:
Sentenced the defendant to five years' imprisonment, to pay a fine of
P10,000, with additional subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
though not to exceed one third of the principal penalty, and to the
payment of the costs. It further ordered the confiscation, in favor of the
Insular Government, of the exhibits presented in the case.
Hence the current petition
ISSUE:
WON the court acquired jurisdiction
HELD:
Affirmative
The Litonjuas prayed for the accounting of the revenues derived in the
operation of the six vessels and of the proceeds of the sale thereof at the
foreclosure proceedings instituted by petitioners; damages for breach of
trust; exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
G.R. No. 120135
Denied
The doctrine of forum non conveniens should not be used as a ground for
a motion to dismiss because Sec. 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court does not
include said doctrine as a ground. This Court further ruled that 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;
and that the propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle of forum
non conveniens requires a factual determination, hence it is more properly
considered a matter of defense.
Negative
Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present
and where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the
other.49 Parenthetically, for litis pendentia to be a ground for the dismissal
of an action there must be:
(a) identity of the parties or at least such as to represent the same
interest in both actions;
(b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded
on the same acts; and
(c) the identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment which
may be rendered in one would, regardless of which party is successful,
amount to res judicata in the other.
In case at bar, not all the requirements for litis pendentia are present.
While there may be identity of parties, notwithstanding the presence of
other respondents,51 as well as the reversal in positions of plaintiffs and
defendants52, still the other requirements necessary for litis pendentia
were not shown by petitioner. It merely mentioned that civil cases were
filed in Hongkong and England without however showing the identity of
rights asserted and the reliefs sought for as well as the presence of the
elements of res judicata should one of the cases be adjudged.
Consequently, both courts correctly denied the dismissal of herein subject
complaint.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
On May 30, 1988, respondent Santos resigned from the Mazoon Printing
Press, effective June 30, 1988, under the pretext that he was needed at
home to help with the family's piggery and poultry business.
On October 24, 1989, respondent Santos, through his lawyer, Atty. Ednave
wrote Mr. Shmidt, demanding full compensation pursuant to the
employment agreement.
His service with the Palace Hotel, Beijing was not abruptly terminated but
we followed the one-month notice clause and Mr. Santos received all
benefits due him.
ISSUE:
WON forum non-conveniens is applicable
MR: Denied
HELD:
Affirmative
The NLRC was a seriously inconvenient forum.
We note that the main aspects of the case transpired in two foreign
jurisdictions and the case involves purely foreign elements. The only link
that the Philippines has with the case is that respondent Santos is a
Filipino citizen. The Palace Hotel and MHICL are foreign corporations. Not
all cases involving our citizens can be tried here.
The employment contract. Respondent Santos was hired directly by the
Palace Hotel, a foreign employer, through correspondence sent to the
Sultanate of Oman, where respondent Santos was then employed. He was
hired without the intervention of the POEA or any authorized recruitment
agency of the government.36
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.37 The conditions are unavailing in the case at bar.
Not Convenient. We fail to see how the NLRC is a convenient forum
given that all the incidents of the case from the time of recruitment, to
employment to dismissal occurred outside the Philippines. The
inconvenience is compounded by the fact that the proper defendants, the
Palace Hotel and MHICL are not nationals of the Philippines. Neither .are
they "doing business in the Philippines." Likewise, the main witnesses, Mr.
Shmidt and Mr. Henk are non-residents of the Philippines.
No power to determine applicable law. Neither can an intelligent
decision be made as to the law governing the employment contract as
such was perfected in foreign soil. This calls to fore the application of the
principle of lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract was
made).38
"5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including
questions involving legality of strikes and lockouts; and
"6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare
and maternity benefits, all other claims, arising from employer-employee
relations, including those of persons in domestic or household service,
involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless
of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement."
In all these cases, an employer-employee relationship is an indispensable
jurisdictional requirement.
The jurisdiction of labor arbiters and the NLRC under Article 217 of the
Labor Code is limited to disputes arising from an employer-employee
relationship which can be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, or
other labor statutes, or their collective bargaining agreements.54
"To determine which body has jurisdiction over the present controversy, we
rely on the sound judicial principle that jurisdiction over the subject matter
is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations of the complaint
irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims
asserted therein."55
Even assuming that the NLRC was the proper forum, even on the merits,
the NLRC's decision cannot be sustained.
The lack of jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter was obvious from the
allegations of the complaint. His failure to dismiss the case amounts to
grave abuse of discretion.56
V. The Fallo
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby GRANTS the petition for certiorari and
ANNULS the orders and resolutions of the National Labor Relations
Commission.
Labor Arbiters have exclusive and original jurisdiction only over the
following:53
"1. Unfair labor practice cases;
"2. Termination disputes;
"3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that
workers may file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other
terms and conditions of employment;
"4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages
arising from employer-employee relations;
dismiss
the
complaints-in-
In the meantime, Atlantic and the AWU Estella filed a petition in the Court
of Appeals against the trial court judge, Kumagai, NSS and Keihin. Denied
the motion to reconsider the order allowing Fu Hing's intervention and
granted K.K. Shell's motion to intervene.
FACTS:
CA: annulled the orders of the trial court and directed it to cease and
desist from proceeding with the case.
Kumagai Kaiun Kaisha, Ltd. a corporation formed and existing under the
laws of Japan, filed a complaint for the collection of a sum of money with
preliminary attachment against Atlantic Venus Co., S.A a corporation
registered in Panama, the vessel MV Estella and Crestamonte Shipping
Corporation a Philippine corporation. Atlantic is the owner of the MV
Estella. The complaint, docketed as a Civil Case on RTC of Manila alleged
that Crestamonte, as bareboat charterer and operator of the MV Estella,
appointed N.S. Shipping Corporation a Japanese corporation, as its general
agent in Japan. The appointment was formalized in an Agency Agreement.
NSS in turn appointed Kumagai as its local agent in Osaka, Japan.
Kumagai supplied the MV Estella with supplies and services but despite
repeated demands Crestamonte failed to pay the amounts due.
NSS and Keihin Narasaki Corporation filed complaints-in-intervention.
Petitioner Fu Hing Oil Co., Ltd. a corporation organized in Hong Kong and
not doing business in the Philippines, filed a motion for leave to intervene
with an attached complaint-in-intervention, alleging that Fu Hing supplied
marine diesel oil/fuel to the MV Estella and incurred barge expenses for
the total sum of One Hundred Fifty-two Thousand Four Hundred Twelve
Dollars and Fifty-Six Cents (US$152,412.56) but such has remained
unpaid despite demand and that the claim constitutes a maritime lien. The
issuance of a writ of attachment was also prayed for.
Petitioner K.K. Shell Sekiyu Osaka Hatsubaisho a corporation organized in
Japan and not doing business in the Philippines, likewise filed a motion to
Fu Hing and K.K. Shell were not suppliers but sub-agents of NSS, hence
they were bound by the Agency Agreement between Crestamonte and
NSS, particularly, the choice of forum clause, which provides:
12.0-That this Agreement shall be governed by the Laws of Japan. Any
matters, disputes, and/or differences arising between the parties hereto
concerned regarding this Agreement shall be subject exclusively to the
jurisdiction of the District Courts of Japan.
Thus, concluded the Court of Appeals, the trial court should have
disallowed their motions to intervene.
MR:
Denied
that the credit was extended to the vessel itself. Now, this is a defense
that calls precisely for a factual determination by the trial court of who
benefitted from the delivery of the fuel. Hence, again, the necessity for the
reception of evidence before the trial court.
In 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 MV Estella are matters that still have to be established.
Neither are we ready to rule on the private respondents' invocation of the
doctrine of forum non conveniens, as the exact nature of the relationship
of the parties is still to be established. We leave this matter to the sound
discretion of the trial court judge who is in the best position, after some
vital facts are established, to determine whether special circumstances
require that his court desist from assuming jurisdiction over the suit.
It was clearly reversible error on the. part of the Court of Appeals to annul
the trial court's orders, insofar as K.K. Shell is concerned, and order the
trial court to cease and desist from proceeding with Civil Case No. 8738930. There are still numerous material facts to be established in order to
arrive at a conclusion as to the true nature of the relationship between
Crestamonte and K.K. Shell and between NSS and K.K. Shell. The best
recourse would have been to allow the trial court to proceed with Civil
Caseand consider whatever defenses may be raised by private respondents
after they have filed their answer and evidence to support their conflicting
claims has been presented. The Court of Appeals, however, substituted its
judgment for that of the trial court and decided the merits of the case,
even in the absence of evidence, on the pretext of reviewing an
interlocutory order.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the decision of the Court of
Appeals is REVERSED
One year into the second term of the parties' Representative Agreement,
ITEC decided to terminate the same, because petitioner ASPAC allegedly
violated its contractual commitment as stipulated in their agreements.
ITEC charges the petitioners and another Philippine Corporation, DIGITAL
BASE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (DIGITAL, for brevity), the President of
which is likewise petitioner Aguirre, of using knowledge and information of
ITEC's products specifications to develop their own line of equipment and
product support, which are similar, if not identical to ITEC's own, and
offering them to ITEC's former customer.
G.R. No. 102223
COMMUNICATION MATERIALS AND DESIGN, INC., ASPAC MULTITRADE, INC., (formerly ASPAC-ITEC PHILIPPINES, INC.) and
FRANCISCO S. AGUIRRE, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, ITEC INTERNATIONAL, INC., and ITEC,
INC., respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioners COMMUNICATION MATERIALS AND DESIGN, INC., and ASPAC
MULTI-TRADE INC., are both domestic corporations, while petitioner
Francisco S. Aguirre is their President and majority stockholder. Private
Respondents ITEC, INC. and/or ITEC, INTERNATIONAL, INC. (ITEC, for
brevity) are corporations duly organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Alabama, United States of America. ITEC is a foreign corporation
not licensed to do business in the Philippines.
ITEC entered into a contract with petitioner ASPAC referred to as
"Representative Agreement". 1 Pursuant to the contract, ITEC engaged
ASPAC as its "exclusive representative" in the Philippines for the sale of
ITEC's products, in consideration of which, ASPAC was paid a stipulated
commission. The agreement was signed by G.A. Clark and Francisco S.
Aguirre, presidents of ITEC and ASPAC respectively, for and in behalf of
their companies. 2 The said agreement was initially for a term of twentyfour months. After the lapse of the agreed period, the agreement was
renewed for another twenty-four months.
Through a "License Agreement" 3 entered into by the same parties on
November 10, 1988, ASPAC was able to incorporate and use the name
"ITEC" in its own name. Thus , ASPAC Multi-Trade, Inc. became legally and
publicly known as ASPAC-ITEC (Philippines).
By virtue of said contracts, ASPAC sold electronic products, exported by
ITEC, to their sole customer, the Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company, (PLDT, for brevity).
Denied
What is more, TESSI was obliged to provide ITEC with a monthly report
detailing the failure and repair of ITEC products, and to requisition monthly
the materials and components needed to replace stock consumed in the
warranty repairs of the prior month.
When ITEC entered into the disputed contracts with ASPAC and TESSI,
they were carrying out the purposes for which it was created. The terms
and conditions of the contracts as well as ITEC's conduct indicate that they
established within our country a continuous business, and not merely one
of a temporary character.
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. 48
The aforesaid requirements having been met, and in view of the court's
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 suit's
dismissal, deserves scant consideration.
SC:
Dismissed, The Resolution became final and executory
Respondent, then a resident of La Union, instituted an action for damages
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang, La Union.
In its Answer,8 petitioner alleged that contrary to respondents claim, it
was a foreign corporation duly licensed to do business in the Philippines
and denied entering into any arrangement with respondent or paying the
latter any sum of money. Petitioner also denied combining with BMSI and
RUST for the purpose of assuming the alleged obligation of the said
companies.
G.R. No. 162894
one to which the parties may conveniently resort; (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 the power to
enforce its decision.
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 or can 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.
Jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of an action is conferred by
the Constitution and the law30 and by the material allegations in the
complaint, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover
all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein.
As regards jurisdiction over the parties, the trial court acquired jurisdiction
over herein respondent (as party plaintiff) upon the filing of the complaint.
On the other hand, jurisdiction over the person of petitioner (as party
defendant) 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. Jurisdiction and choice of law are
two distinct concepts. Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair to cause a
defendant to travel to this state; choice of law asks the further question
whether the application of a substantive law which will determine the
merits of the case is fair to both parties.33 The choice of law stipulation
will become relevant only when the substantive issues of the instant case
develop, that is, after hearing on the merits proceeds before the trial
court.
Negative
Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court, in conflicts-of-laws
cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most
"convenient" or available forum and the parties are not precluded from
seeking remedies elsewhere.34 Petitioners averments of the foreign
elements in the instant case are not sufficient to oust the trial court of its
jurisdiction over Civil Case and the parties involved.
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 courts desistance.35
Most of the defendant companies respectively filed their Motions for Bill of
Particulars.15 During the pendency of the motions NAVIDA, et al., filed an
Amended Joint Complaint,16 excluding Dead Sea Bromine Co., Ltd.,
Ameribrom, Inc., Bromine Compounds, Ltd. and Amvac Chemical Corp. as
party defendants.
DOW filed an Answer with Counterclaim.18
RTC of General Santos City:
Dismissed the complaint stating that they did not acquire jurisdiction to
hear the case, the tort alleged by Navida, et al., in their complaint is a tort
category that is not recognized in Philippine laws, that Navida, et al., were
coerced into submitting their case to the Philippine courts, that the act of
NAVIDA, et al., of filing the case in the Philippine courts violated the rules
on forum shopping and litis pendencia.
Likewise issued an Order,25 dismissing DOWs Answer with Counterclaim
MR:
RTC of General Santos City declared that it had already lost its jurisdiction
over the case as it took into consideration the Manifestation of the counsel
of NAVIDA
NAVIDA, et al., filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari in order to assail
the RTC Order which was docketed as G.R. No. 125078.
DOW and OCCIDENTAL filed their Petition for Review on Certiorari,32
challenging the orders of the RTC of General Santos City Their petition was
docketed as G.R. No. 125598.
This Court resolved to consolidate G.R. No. 125598 with G.R. No. 125078.
CHIQUITA filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari the petition was
docketed as G.R. No. 126018, the Court dismissed the aforesaid petition
for failure of CHIQUITA to show that the RTC committed grave abuse of
Granted, among others, the motion to withdraw petition for review filed by
DOW and OCCIDENTAL.
DAVAO:
Another joint complaint for damages against SHELL, DOW, OCCIDENTAL,
DOLE, DEL MONTE, and CHIQUITA was filed before Branch 16 of the RTC
of Davao City by 155 plaintiffs from Davao City
ISSUE:
It is clear that the claim for damages is the main cause of action and that
the total amount sought in the complaints is approximately P2.7 million for
each of the plaintiff claimants. The RTCs unmistakably have jurisdiction
over the cases filed in General Santos City and Davao City, as both claims
by NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., fall within the purview of the
definition of the jurisdiction of the RTC under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there
being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such
fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between
the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of
this Chapter.
As specifically enumerated in the amended complaints, NAVIDA, et al., and
ABELLA, et al., point to the acts and/or omissions of the defendant
companies in manufacturing, producing, selling, using, and/or otherwise
putting into the stream of commerce, nematocides which contain DBCP,
"without informing the users of its hazardous effects on health and/or
without instructions on its proper use and application."
Clearly then, the acts and/or omissions attributed to the defendant
companies constitute a quasi-delict which is the basis for the claim for
damages filed by NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., with individual claims
of approximately P2.7 million for each plaintiff claimant, which obviously
falls within the purview of the civil action jurisdiction of the RTCs.
Moreover, the injuries and illnesses, which NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et
al., allegedly suffered resulted from their exposure to DBCP while they
were employed in the banana plantations located in the Philippines or
while they were residing within the agricultural areas also located in the
Philippines. The factual allegations in the Amended Joint-Complaints all
point to their cause of action, which undeniably occurred in the Philippines.
The RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao City obviously have
reasonable basis to assume jurisdiction over the cases.
In a very real sense, most of the evidence required to prove the claims of
NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., are available only in the Philippines.
First, plaintiff claimants are all residents of the Philippines, either in
General Santos City or in Davao City. Second, the specific areas where
they were allegedly exposed to the chemical DBCP are within the territorial
jurisdiction of the courts a quo wherein NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al.,
initially filed their claims for damages. Third, the testimonial and
documentary evidence from important witnesses, such as doctors, coworkers, family members and other members of the community, would be
easier to gather in the Philippines. Considering the great number of
plaintiff claimants involved in this case, it is not far-fetched to assume that
voluminous records are involved in the presentation of evidence to support
the claim of plaintiff claimants. Thus, these additional factors, coupled with
the fact that the alleged cause of action of NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et
Plaintiffs purported bad faith in filing the subject civil cases in Philippine
courts
Anent the insinuation by DOLE that the plaintiff claimants filed their cases
in bad faith merely to procure a dismissal of the same and to allow them
to return to the forum of their choice, this Court finds such argument
much too speculative to deserve any merit.
It must be remembered that this Court does not rule on allegations that
are unsupported by evidence on record. This Court does not rule on
allegations which are manifestly conjectural, as these may not exist at all.
This Court deals with facts, not fancies; on realities, not appearances.
When this Court acts on appearances instead of realities, justice and law
will be short-lived.71 This is especially true with respect to allegations of
bad faith, in line with the basic rule that good faith is always presumed
and bad faith must be proved.72
He who made the payment may claim from his co-debtors only the share
which corresponds to each, with the interest for the payment already
made. If the payment is made before the debt is due, no interest for the
intervening period may be demanded.
In sum, considering the fact that the RTC of General Santos City and the
RTC of Davao City have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
amended complaints filed by NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., and that
the courts a quo have also acquired jurisdiction over the persons of all the
defendant companies, it therefore, behooves this Court to order the
remand of Civil Case Nos. 5617 and 24,251-96 to the RTC of General
Santos City and the RTC of Davao City, respectively.
appropriate proceedings in line with the ruling herein that said courts have
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the amended complaints in Civil
Case Nos. 5617 and 24,251-96.