Civil Procedure Prof Eleazar

Case: Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation vs Jack Robert Sherman and Dedato Reloj
and the Intermediate Appellate Court

Facts of the Case:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Intermediate Appelate Court (Now Court of
Appeal dated Aug 22,1985 which reversed the order of the Regional Trial Court dated Feb 25,1985
denying the Motion to Dismiss filed by the private respondent Jack Robert Sherman and Dedato Reloj

A complaint for collection of a sum of money (pp 49-52 Rolio) was filed by petitioner Hongkong Shanghai
Banking Corporation (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) against private respondent Jack Robert
Sherman and Dedato Reloj docketed as Civil Case No. 42850 before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City Branch 84.

Sometime in 1981, Eastern Book Supply Service PTE, Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Company)A
company incorporated in Singapore and was granted by the Singapore bank of petitioner and overdraft
facility of 200,000Singaporean Dollars with 3% interest and subsequent increase to 275,000 in Oct
7,1982, both private respondents and a certain Robin de Clive Lowe, all whom were directors of the
Company at such time, executed a Joint and Several Guarantee to pay jointly and severally,on demand
all sums owed by the Company to petitioner bank under the aforestated overdraft facility.

The company failed to pay its obligation and bank demanded payment.

The respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the following grounds:

1.That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter;

2.That the court has no jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents

But Court finds no merit in the motion on the first ground . The court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter. The court finds and otherwise because jurisdiction of courts is fixed by law. It cannot be
conferred by the will submission of the parties.

On the second ground jurisdiction over persons of the defendants. It is acquired by service of summons
and copy of the complain on them.

Therefore motion to dismiss is hereby denied.

Private respondent then filed before Court of Appeal petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction
which the court have granted.

Issue:Whether or not the Philippine Courts have jurisdiction over the suit.

Ruling:

Despite the fact that the company is registered in Singapore and the loaning bank is also from the same
branch aside from the fact that the agreement was made in Singapore still private respondent is a
Philippine respondent which can not be disputed.

Jurisdiction is often defined as the light of State to exercise authority over persons and things within the
boundaries subject to certain exceptions. A state is competent to take hold of any judicial matter it sees fit
by making its courts and agencies assume jurisdiction over all kind of cases brought before them.

As to the issue of improper venue,petitioner bank avers that the objection to improper venue has been
waived. Whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of the principle of forum non
conveniens depends upon largely upon the facts of the particular case and is addressed to the sound
discretion of the trial court (J.Salonga,Private International law)

Based on the given facts, the decision of the respondent Court is hereby reversed and the
decision of the Regional Trial Court is Reinstated, with costs against private respondent.The
decision is immediately executory.

JGVilleno