Bank of America NT&SA v CA (2003) Litonjuas filed a complaint before PASIG RTC against defendant banks (Bank of America

NT&SA and Bank of America International, Ltd.) for accounting of revenues and damages for breach of trust o Litonjuas were depositors of defendant banks o Defendant banks induced Litonjuas to buy additional vessels through a loan granted by them o Litonjuas alleged that due to the breach of their fiduciary trust and/or negligence of defendant banks, the six additional vessels including the two originally owned by them were foreclosed and sold at public auction Defendant banks filed a MTD on grounds for forum non conveniens TC denied MTD CA dismissed petition and MTD WON CA ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING CASE ON THE GROUND OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS. HELD: NO PETITIONER o While the application of the principle of forum non conveniens is discretionary on the part of the Court, said discretion is limited by the guidelines pertaining to the private as well as public interest factors in determining whether plaintiffs choice of forum should be disturbed o Local court is not the proper forum evidence and witnesses are not readily available in the Philippines Loan transactions were obtained outside the Philippines Monies were advanced outside the Philippines Mortgaged vessels were part of an offshore fleet, not based in the Philippines Loans involved were granted to Private Respondents foreign corporations Restructuring agreements were all governed by laws of England Subsequent sales of mortgaged vessels and the application of the sales proceeds occurred and transpired outside the Philippines Revenues of the vessels and proceeds of the sales of the vessels were all deposited to the accounts of the foreign corporations abroad Bank of America is not licensed to do business in the Philippines o Loan agreements, security documentation, restructuring agreements uniformly, unconditionally and expressly provided that they will be governed by the laws of England Philippine Courts would have to apply English law; Inconvenient and difficult to apply English law Would impose significant and unnecessary expense and burden not only to the parties but to the local court o Litonjuas have already waived their causes of action for their refusal to contest the foreign civil cases earlier filed by defendant banks in HK and England. Also, barred by litis pendentia RESPONDENTS o Part of the security of the foreign loans were mortgages on real estate located in the Philippines o Corporate borrowers are wholly-owned by Litonjuas who are Filipinos and therefore under Philippine Laws A court, in conflicts of law 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 Whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of said doctrine depends largely upon the facts of the particular case and is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court Communication Materials and Design, Inc. v CA: Philippine Court may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so; provided, that the following requisites are met o That the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to o That the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts o That the Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision Philsec. Investment Co. v CA the doctrine of forum non conveniens should not be used as a ground for a MTD because Section 1, Rule 16 of the ROC does not include said doctrine as a ground While it is within the discretion of the TC 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 and the propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle of forum non conveniens requires a factual determination, hence it is more properly considered as a matter of defense.

Raytheon International, Inc. v Rouzie, Jr. (2008) Brand Marine Services (BMSI) (incorporated in Connecticut, USA) entered into a contract with ROUZIE (American) whereby BMSI hired respondent as its representative to negotiate sale of services in government projects in the Philippines.

ROUZIE secured a service contract with the Republic on behalf of BMSI for the dredging of rivers affected by Mt. Pinatubo ROUZIE filed a suit for alleged non-payment of commissions, illegal termination and breach of employment contract before the NLRC against BMSI and RUST NLRC decided in favor of ROUZIE On appeal, NLRC reversed decision and dismissed complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction ROUZIE filed an action before La Union RTC for damages PETITIONER o It was a foreign corporation duly licensed to do business in the Philippines o Denied entering into any arrangement with ROUZIE or paying him any sum of money o Denied combining with BMSI and RUST for the purpose of assuming alleged obligation of said companies o Special Sales Representative Agreement disclosed that the rights and obligations of the parties shall be governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut o Dismiss complaint on grounds of failure to state cause of action and forum non conveniens TC denied motion to dismiss CA deferred to the discretion of the TC when the latter decided not to desist from assuming jurisdiction on the ground of the inapplicability of the principle of forum non conveniens WON THE CA ERRED IN REFUSING TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS. HELD: NO Hasegawa v Kitamura Three consecutive phases involved in judicial resolution of conflicts of law problems o Jurisdiction o Choice of law o Recognition and enforcement of judgments In the instances where the Court held that the local judicial machinery was adequate to resolve controversies with a foreign element, the following requisites had to be proved o That the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort o That the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to law and the facts o 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 law 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 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 o Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state o 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 TC. The propriety of dismissing the 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 jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so only after vital facts are established, to determine whether special circumstances require the courts desistance. LWV Construction v Dupo (2009)

Dupo entered into 6 overseas employment contract with LWV acting as an agent of MMG, a corporation in Saudi Arabia Before entering into the 7th employment contract, Dupo informed MMG that he needed to extend his vacation because his son was hospitalized. MMG refused to extend Dupos vacation. Dupo wrote a letter of resignation to MMG with a claim for a long service award pursuant to Saudi Law. MMG did not respond to the claim so Dupo filed a complaint for payment of service award against LWV with the NLRC. Petitioner, among other things, argued that under Article 13 of the Saudi Labor Law, the action to enforce payment of the service award must be filed within one year from the termination of a labor contract for a specific period.

The one-year prescriptive period had lapsed because respondent filed his complaint on December 11, 2000 or one year and seven months after his sixth contract ended.

WON THE ACTION TO ENFORCE PAYMENT OF SERVICE AWARD HAS PRESCRIBED. HELD: NO What applies is Article 291 of our Labor Code which reads: o ART. 291. Money claims. All money claims arising from employer-employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise they shall be forever barred. o Cadalin v. POEAs Administrator Article 291 covers all money claims from ER-EE relationship and is broader in scope than claims arising from a specific law. It is not limited to money claims recoverable under the Labor Code, but applies also to claims of overseas contract workers. As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be applied in the forum. Procedural matters, such as service of process, joinder of actions, period and requisites for appeal, and so forth, are governed by the laws of the forum. This is true even if the action is based upon a foreign substantive law A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict of Laws in the sense that it may be viewed either as procedural or substantive, depending on the characterization given such a law. However, the characterization of a statute into a procedural or substantive law becomes irrelevant when the country of the forum has a "borrowing statute." Said statute has the practical effect of treating the foreign statute of limitation as one of substance. A "borrowing statute" directs the state of the forum to apply the foreign statute of limitations to the pending claims based on a foreign law. Section 48 of our Code of Civil Procedure provides: o If by the laws of the state or country where the cause of action arose, the action is barred, it is also barred in the Philippine Islands. In the light of the 1987 Constitution, however, Section 48 [of the Code of Civil Procedure] cannot be enforced ex proprio vigore insofar as it ordains the application in this jurisdiction of [Article] 156 of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976. The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to the forums public policy. To enforce the one-year prescriptive period of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 as regards the claims in question would contravene the public policy on the protection to labor. Respondents complaint was filed well within the 3 year prescriptive period under Article 291 of our Labor Code.