Hasegawa and Nippon Eng. Consultants v.

Kitamura Digest
Hasegawa and Nippon Eng. v. Kitamura
G.R. No. 149177 November 23, 2007
Ponente: Justice Nachura

Facts:
1. The petitioner Nippon Engineering Consultants Co. is a Japanese consultancy firm which provides
technical and management support in the infrastructure project of foreign governments. It entered into a
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.

2. Subsequently Kitamura was assigned as project manager of STAR project in 1999. In 2000, he was
informed by the petitioner that it will no longer renew the ICA and that he will be retained until its
expiration. Kitamura filed a civil casefor specific performance before the RTC of Lipa and damages.

3. 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 has jurisdiction over the case

HELD: YES

1. The only issue is the jurisdiction, hence, choice-of-law rules as raised by the petitioner is inapplicable
and not yet called for (reference to lex loci, lex contractus, or state of most significant rule). The petitioner
prematurelyinvoked the said rules before pointing out any conflict between the laws of Japan and the
Philippines.

2. The doctrine on forum non conveniens cannot be invoked to deprive the RTC of its jurisdiction.
Dismissing the case on this ground requires a factual determination hence the principle is considered to be
more a matter of defense.
538 SCRA 261 Conflict of Laws Private International Law Jurisdiction Lex Loci Celebrationis
Lex Loci Solutionis State of the Most Significant Relationship Forum Non Conveniens
In March 1999, Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd, a Japanese firm, was contracted by the
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) to supervise the construction of the Southern Tagalog
Access Road. In April 1999, Nippon entered into an independent contractor agreement (ICA) with Minoru
Kitamura for the latter to head the said project. The ICA was entered into in Japan and is effective for a
period of 1 year (so until April 2000). In January 2000, DPWH awarded the Bongabon-Baler Road project
to Nippon. Nippon subsequently assigned Kitamura to head the road project. But in February 2000,
Kazuhiro Hasegawa, the general manager of Nippon informed Kitamura that they are pre-terminating his
contract. Kitamura sought Nippon to reconsider but Nippon refused to negotiate. Kitamura then filed a
complaint for specific performance and damages against Nippon in the RTC of Lipa.
 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 trial court denied the motion. Eventually, Nippon filed a petition for certiorari with the
Supreme Court.
Hasegawa, on appeal significantly changed its theory, this time invoking forum non conveniens; that the
RTC is an inconvenient forum because the parties are Japanese nationals who entered into a contract in
Japan. Kitamura on the other hand invokes the trial courts ruling which states that matters connected with
the performance of contracts are regulated by the law prevailing at the place of performance, so since the
obligations in the ICA are executed in the Philippines, courts here have jurisdiction.
ISSUE: Whether or not the complaint against Nippon should be dismissed.
HELD: No. The trial court did the proper thing in taking cognizance of it.
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.
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.
The Supreme Court also emphasized that the contention that Japanese laws should apply is premature. In
conflicts cases, there are three phases and each next phase commences when one is settled, to wit:

1. Jurisdiction Where should litigation be initiated? Court must have jurisdiction over the subject
matter, the parties, the issues, the property, the res. Also 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.

2. Choice of Law Which law will the court apply? Once a local court takes cognizance, it does not
mean that the local laws must automatically apply. The court must determine which substantive law when
applied to the merits will be fair to both parties.

3. Recognition and Enforcement of Judgment Where can the resulting judgment be enforced?

This case is not yet in the second phase because upon the RTCs taking cognizance of the case, Hasegawa
immediately filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied. He filed a motion for reconsideration, which was
also denied. Then he bypassed the proper procedure by immediately filing a petition for certiorari. The
question of which law should be applied should have been settled in the trial court had Hasegawa not
improperly appealed the interlocutory order denying his MFR.

RAYTHEON V. ROUZIE (2008)

[ G.R. No. 162894, February 26, 2008 ]

FACTS:
Sometime in 1990, Brand Marine Services, Inc., a corporation duly organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Connecticut, United States of America, and respondent Stockton W. Rouzie, Jr., 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 for an agreed remuneration of 10% of
the gross receipts. On 11 March 1992, respondent secured a service contract with the Republic of the
Philippines on behalf of BMSI for the dredging of rivers affected by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and
mudflows.

On 16 July 1994, respondent filed before the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations
Commission, a suit against BMSI and Rust International, Inc., Rodney C. Gilbert and Walter G. Browning
for alleged nonpayment of commissions, illegal termination and breach of employment contract.
On 8 January 1999, respondent, then a resident of La Union, instituted an action for damages before
the Regional Trial Court of Bauang, La Union. The Complaint named as defendants herein petitioner
Raytheon International, Inc. as well as BMSI and RUST, the two corporations impleaded in the earlier
labor case.
Petitioner also referred to the NLRC decision which disclosed that per the written agreement
between respondent and BMSI and RUST, denominated as Special Sales Representative Agreement, the
rights and obligations of the parties shall be governed by the lawsof the State of Connecticut. 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 COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND OF FORUM NON
CONVENIENS?
RULING:
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 theres, 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.

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 thelaws 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.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.

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. Petitioners averments of the foreign elements in the
instant case are not sufficient to oust the trial court of its jurisdiction over Civil Case No. No. 1192-BG 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.
Saudi Arabian Airlines vs Court of Appeals

297 SCRA 469 Conflict of Laws Private International Law Situs Locus Actus

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 Jakarta, Indonesia, an Arab co-worker tried to rape her in a hotel room.
Fortunately, a roomboy heard her cry for help and two of her Arab co-workers were arrested and detained
in Indonesia. Later, Saudia Airlines re-assigned her to work in their Manila office. While working in
Manila, Saudia Airlines advised her to meet with a Saudia Airlines officer in Saudi. She did but to her
surprise, she was brought to a Saudi court where she was interrogated and eventually sentenced to 5
months imprisonment and 289 lashes; she allegedly violated Muslim customs by partying with males. The
Prince of Makkah got wind of her conviction and the Prince determined that she was wrongfully convicted
hence the Prince absolved her and sent her back to the Philippines. Saudia Airlines later on dismissed
Morada. Morada then sued Saudia Airlines for damages under Article 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. Saudia
Airlines filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case because the
applicable law should be the law of Saudi Arabia. Saudia Airlines also prayed for other reliefs under the
premises.

ISSUE: Whether or not Saudia Airlines contention is correct.

HELD: No. Firstly, the RTC has acquired jurisdiction over Saudia Airlines when the latter filed a motion to
dismiss with petition for other reliefs. The asking for other reliefs effectively asked the court to make a
determination of Saudia Airliness rights hence a submission to the courts jurisdiction.

Secondly, the RTC has acquired jurisdiction over the case because as alleged in the complaint of Morada,
she is bringing the suit for damages under the provisions of our Civil Law and not of the Arabian Law.
Morada then has the right to file it in the QC RTC because under the Rules of Court, a plaintiff may elect
whether to file an action in personam (case at bar) in the place where she resides or where the defendant
resides. Obviously, it is well within her right to file the case here because if shell file it in Saudi Arabia, it
will be very disadvantageous for her (and of course, again, Philippine Civil Law is the law invoked).

Thirdly, one important test factor to determine where to file a case, if there is a foreign element involved, is
the so called locus actus or where an act has been done. In the case at bar, Morada was already working
in Manila when she was summoned by her superior to go to Saudi Arabia to meet with a Saudia Airlines
officer. She was not informed that she was going to appear in a court trial. Clearly, she was defrauded into
appearing before a court trial which led to her wrongful conviction. The act of defrauding, which is
tortuous, was committed in Manila and this led to her humiliation, misery, and suffering. And applying the
torts principle in a conflicts case, the SC finds that the Philippines could be said as a situs of the tort (the
place where the alleged tortious conduct took place).