Professional Documents
Culture Documents
What Is The Independence Principle?: Terms That Cannot Be Included in The Warehouse Receipt
What Is The Independence Principle?: Terms That Cannot Be Included in The Warehouse Receipt
The relationship of the buyer and the bank is separate and distinct from the relationship
of the buyer and seller in the main contract; the bank is not required to investigate if the
contract underlying the LC has been fulfilled or not because in transactions involving
LC, banks deal only with documents and not goods (BPI v. De Reny Fabric Industries,
Inc., L-‐2481, Oct. 16, 1970). In effect, the buyer has no course of action against the
issuing bank.
What is the doctrine of strict compliance?
The documents tendered by the seller/beneficiary must strictly conform to the terms of the letter of
credit. The tender of documents must include all documents required by the letter. Thus, a
correspondent bank which departs from what has been stipulated under the LC acts on its own risk and
may not thereafter be able to recover from the buyer or the issuing bank, as the case may be, the
money thus paid to the beneficiary. (Feati Bank and Trust Company v. CA, G.R. No. 940209, Apr. 30,
1991)
> A warehouseman shall be held liable for damages for failure to do so to anyone
who purchased the subsequent receipt for value supposing it to be original, even
though the purchaser be after the delivery of the goods by the warehouseman to
the holder of the original receipt
OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS OF WAREHOUSEMAN UPON THEIR RECEIPTS
2. To deliver them to the holder of the receipt or the depositor provided the
following conditions are fulfilled—there is demand by the depositor accompanied by
either
a. An offer to satisfy the warehouseman’s lien
b. An offer to surrender the receipt, if negotiable with such indorsements as would
be necessary for the negotiation of the receipts
c. A readiness and willingness to sign, when the goods are delivered, an
acknowledgement that
they have been delivered, if such signature is requested by the warehouseman
o Been requested, by or on behalf of the person lawfully entitled to a right
of property or
possession in the goods, not to make such delivery
o Had information that the delivery about to be made was to one not lawfully
entitled to the
possession of the goods
WHAT IS CONVERSION?
> Unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods
belonging to another through the alteration of their condition or the exclusion of the
owner’s right
2. Alteration material—if the alteration is material, but authorized, the
warehouseman is liable according to the terms of the receipt as altered
Sec. 23. Forged signature; effect of. - When a signature is forged or made without the authority of
the person whose signature it purports to be, it is wholly inoperative, and no right to retain the
instrument, or to give a discharge therefor, or to enforce payment thereof against any party
thereto, can be acquired through or under such signature, unless the party against whom it is
sought to enforce such right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority.
FORGERY, DEFINED AND EXPLAINED
Counterfeit making or fraudulent alteration of any writing, and may consist in the signing of
another’s name, or the alteration of an instrument, in the name, amount, description of the
person and the like, with the intent to defraud
Section 23 only applies to forged signatures or signatures made without the authority of the
person whose signature purports it to be
FRAUDULENT IMPERSONATION
• Suppose X represents himself as Juan Cruz when he is not to Y. Due to such misrepresentation, he
obtained from Y a note payable to the order of Juan Cruz. If Y intends that the proceeds of the note will
go to the real Juan Cruz and not X, but to whom Y issued the note on the belief that X was Juan Cruz,
would be a forgery.
1. He intends to make the instrument payable to the person before him or to the person writing at
the other end of the line, in case the negotiation is by correspondence
2. He intends to make the instrument payable to the person whom he believes the stranger to
be
• The first one is the controlling intent except where the name of the payee was already
known to the maker or drawer or was particularly identified in some manner
• As between two innocent persons, the one whose act was the cause of the loss should bear the
consequences
• It was the drawer’s duty to use diligence to ascertain the identity of the party with whom he
has dealt. Failing to make this discovery, he became the victim of the fraud. The impostor having
succeeded in this first and essential step in the practice of the fraud, the next was comparatively
an easy one.
RULE IS QUALIFIED WHERE IMPOSTOR REPRESENTS HIMSELF AS AGENT OF PAYEE
• There is a distinction between cases where the paper is delivered to the impostor as payee, in
the belief that he is the person to whom the instrument it would be paid, and cases where the paper is
delivered to the impostor upon his representation, in the belief that he is agent of the person named as
payee
• The loss falls on the drawee or purchaser, as the case may be, rather than on the drawer where the
impostor upon whose indorsement the paper was purchased or paid, represented himself to be the
agent of
the payee and not the payee himself
• When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument such as a negotiable instrument,
copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading, the genuineness and due execution of the
instrument shall be deemed admitted unless specifically denied under oath by the adverse party
• Consequently, the genuineness and due execution of the written instrument or document
copied in or attached to the opponent’s pleading as the basis of his claim or defense, should be
denied specifically under oath, otherwise they are deemed admitted.
1. That he signed it or that it was signed by another for him and with his authority
2. That at the time it was signed, it was in words and figures exactly as set out in the pleading of the
party relying upon it,
3. That any formal requisites required by law, such as swearing and acknowledgment, or
revenue stamp which it requires, are waived by him
2. That it was unauthorized, as in the case of an agent signing for his principal, or one signing
on behalf of a partnership or corporation or that in case of the latter, that the corporation was
not authorized under its charter to sign the instrument
3. That the party charged signed the instrument in some other capacity than that alleged in the
pleading setting it out
FAILURE TO IDENTIFY PROMISSORY NOTE WILL NOT NECESSARILY DEFEAT CLAIM
1. Only the signature forged or made without authority is stated by the law to be inoperative but
neither the instrument itself is, nor the genuine signatures are, rendered inoperative
2. The instrument can be enforced by holders to whose title over the instrument the forged
signature is not necessary, such as, the indorsement of an instrument which on its face is payable to
bearer
3. The instrument can be enforced against those who are precluded from setting up the defense of
forgery, even against those whose signatures have been forged
1. Those who warrant or admit to the genuineness of the signature in question—indorsers,
persons negotiating by delivery, and acceptors
2. Those who, by their acts, silence or negligence, are estopped from setting up the defense of
forgery
INDORSERS AS WARRANTORS
• Persons negotiating by mere delivery also warrant that the instrument negotiated by them is
genuine and in all respects what it purports to be
• They are consequently precluded from setting up the defense of forgery
ACCEPTORS AS WARRANTORS
• A drawee, by accepting the bill, admits the genuineness off the signature of the drawer
PRECLUDED
• Includes those cases where they are estoppels against the party desiring to set up the forgery
UNREASONABLE DELAY
• Unreasonable delay, after his discovery of the forgery, on the part of one having the opportunity
and duty to speak, in disclosing the forgery upon commercial paper to the one who ought to be apprised
thereof, estops the former from thereafter asserting the forgery as against the latter where the latter is
prejudiced by such delay or failure
• Requisites:
o That the delay be unreasonable
o That the one who ought to be apprised of the forgery has been prejudiced
• Depends upon the circumstances of the case, and the situation of the parties with reference to
the remedies against any party is a proper element to enter into the estimate of the reasonableness
of the notice
• A bank is prejudiced—at the time one discovered that his attorney forged his indorsement
to a draft in his favor, it had assets of the attorney in its possession to protect itself but at the
time it was notified of the forgery, it has parted with such assets
• It is not prejudiced by the delay where at no time after the discovery of the forgery did the
cashier have any property with which to indemnify the bank
• A drawer may be precluded from defense of forgery of the payee’s indorsement if delivery by
him to the payee is negligent
1. Forgery of promissory notes which may be further subdivided into—forgery of indorsement in
the note; forgery of the maker’s signature
2. Forgery of bills of exchange which may be further classified into—forgery of an indorsement
on the bill; forgery of the drawer’s signature, either with acceptance by the drawee, or without
such acceptance but the bill is paid by the drawee
• May be held liable by a holder in due course but not by the one who is not a holder in due course
• Provided that the note was mechanically complete before the forgery
• Forged instrument is not necessary to the title of a holder since instruments payable by
bearer can be negotiated by mere delivery
• Where the maker’s signature is forged, he cannot be held liable by any holder, whether the holder
is in due course or not
• Purported maker is not a party to the instrument as his forged signature is inoperative and
no right to retain, enforce, or discharge the note, may be acquired against him
• In an action by the drawee against the drawer for the amount charged by the drawee against the
account of the drawer where the drawee paid a check on a forged indorsement, the drawee
has no defense against the drawer and the drawer may recover from the drawee for an instrument
paid on a forged indorsement
• Depository owes to the depositor an absolute and contractual duty to pay the check only to the
person to whom it is made payable or upon his genuine indorsement
• Drawer has no right to recover the amount paid from the collecting bank as the duty of the
collecting to exercise care in collection is due only to the payee, and as the drawer suffers no loss
since it can recover the amount paid from the drawee bank which has no right to charge the drawer’s
account
• The drawee may recover from the recipient of payment, such as the collecting bank, under a
forged indorsement
• Rule allowing the payee to recover from the recipient of the payment under a forged indorsement
• According to the general rule, a bank or other corporation or an individual, who has
obtained possession of a check, upon an unauthorized or forged indorsement of the payee’s
signature and who collects the amount of the check from the drawee, is liable for the proceeds
thereof to the payee or other owner, notwithstanding that they have been paid to the person
whom the check was obtained
• The possession of the check on the forged indorsement is wrongful and when the money had been
collected on the check, the bank or other person or corporation, can be held as far as moneys had and
received and the proceeds are held for the rightful owners of the payment and may be recovered by
them
COLLECTING BANK BOUND TO SCRUTINIZE CHECKS DEPOSITED WITH IT TO DETERMINE GENUINENESS
AND REGULARITY
CONVERSION
• An unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods or personal
chattels belonging to another, to the alteration of their condition or exclusion of the owner’s right
• The checks didn’t reach the hands of the payee. The bearing of such absence of delivery is
considered in some cases and held not to be material
• Where there is no delivery to the payee and no title vests upon him, he ought not to be allowed
to recover on the ground that he lost nothing because he never became owner of the check and still
retained his claim against the drawer
• An action cannot be maintained by a payee of a check against the bank on which it is
drawn unless the check has been certified or accepted by the bank on which it is drawn,
without acceptance or certification, as provided by the statute, there is no privity of contract between
the drawee bank and the payee, or holder of the check
RIGHTS OF PARTIES IN FORGERY OF DRAWER’S SIGNATURE WHERE DRAWEE HASN’T ACCEPTED
BILL BUT PAID IT
• In the case of the payment of a forged check even without former acceptance, the drawee
cannot recover from a holder in due course not chargeable with any act or negligence or disregard
of duty
• As between equally innocent parties, the drawee who pays money on a check the signature to
which is forged, cannot recover the money from the one who received it
• The payment of a forged check doesn’t include or imply its acceptance in the sense that this word is
used in Section 62 of NIL
• Basis of the general rule is not that the drawee is precluded from setting up forgery because,
by paying the check, it has accepted the check and therefore admitted the genuineness of the
drawer’s signature
• By paying the check the drawer is presumed negligent or deemed constructively negligent
• It presupposes that the drawer himself wasn’t negligent or guilty of such conduct as would
estop him from asserting the forged character of the indorsement as against the depository and
that if he was negligent or guilty of such conduct, the loss must fall on him
WHERE A DEPOSITOR IS USING ITS OWN PERSONALIZED CHECKS, ITS FAILURE TO PROVIDE
ADEQUATE SECURITY MEASURES TO PREVENT FORGERIES OF ITS CHECKS CONSTITUTES GROSS
NEGLIGENCE AND BARS IT FROM SETTING UP THE DEFENSE OF FORGERY
BUT FAILURE OF DEPOSITOR TO MAKE PROMPT RECONCILIATION OF THE MONTHLY BANK
STATEMENTS FURNISHED BY THE BANK CONSTITUTES NEGLIGENCE FOR WHICH THE BANK
CANNOT BE BLAMED IN CASE DEPOSITOR’S CASE ARE FORGED
BUT DRAWER NOT GENERALLY NEGLIGENT WHERE HIS CHECK IS STOLEN
• The payee in a check may be supposed to have knowledge of the circumstances under
which it is drawn and generally, of the person drawing it, and is in a better position to judge the
genuineness of the paper than are indorsees.
• And there is a tendency to place greater responsibility upon him and he is much more likely to
be required to return the proceeds of the paper than are the indorsees
INDORSER’S NEGLIGENCE
• After a draft or check has once been negotiated so that it is in circulation, there is little
opportunity for negligence on the part of those through whose hands it passes; but as to them, in
most cases, the rule will apply that, as between innocent parties, the loss must fall on the drawee
• The fact that the paper wasn’t cashed and indorsed with unrestricted indorsement but was taken
for collection and forwarded for that purpose under an indrosement giving notice of that fact, may
place a greater burden upon the drawee than it would otherwise bear
FORGERY OF SIGNATURE IN INSTRUMENT IS FALSIFACTION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT
• One who signs in the name of another without the latter’s authority, as drawer in a check, and
thereby makes it appear falsely that the alleged drawer of the check was a real party thereto, when
as a matter of fact he didn’t participate in the transaction, is guilty of falsification
COMMERCIAL DOCUMENTS
• Documents or instruments which are used by businessmen or merchants to promote or
facilitate trade or credit transactions
(f) Or which adds a place of payment where no place of payment is
specified, or any other change or addition which alters the effect of the
instrument in any respect, is a material alteration.
AS TO ACCELERATED INSTRUMENTS
• When the instrument contains an acceleration clause, knowledge of the
holder at the time of acquisition thereof that one installment or interest, or both,
as the case may be, is unpaid, is notice that the instrument is overdue
AS TO INTEREST
• One who purchases in good faith an instrument upon which the interest is
overdue is a holder in due course
• But where by the terms of the instrument, the principal was to become due upon
default of the payment of instrument, then one who takes the instrument upon
which the interest is overdue is not a holder in due course
• Taking in good faith means that he doesn't have any knowledge of fact which
would render it dishonest for him to take a particular piece of negotiable paper
DEFECTS OF TITLE
• All those situations which at common law were known as equitable defenses
and also to cover those equities of ownership where there was breach of faith in
negotiation
• Examples?
o Acquisition of the instrument by fraud
o Acquisition of the instrument by force, duress or fear
o Acquisition of the instrument by unlawful means
o Acquisition of the instrument by for an illegal consideration
o Negotiation of the instrument in breach of faith
o Negotiation of the instrument under circumstances which amount to fraud
DEFENSES
• Include those common law defenses outside those covered in Section 55
• These include mistake, absence and failure of consideration covered in Section 28,
minority and other forms of incapacity, lack of authority of an agent
INFIRMITIES
• Things that are wrong with the instrument itself
• What are these?
o Wrong date inserted where the instrument is expressed to be payable at a fixed
period after sight is undated
o Filling up a blank instrument not strictly in accordance with the authority given
or not within authority given or not within the reasonable time, where it was
delivered wanting in a material alteration
o Filling up without authority an incomplete and undelivered instrument
o Lack of valid and intentional delivery
o Forgery
o Material alteration
ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE
• Actual knowledge is required and not mere suspicion, surmise or fear
AS TO ACCELERATED INSTRUMENTS
• When the instrument contains an acceleration clause, knowledge of the
holder at the time of acquisition thereof that one installment or interest, or both,
as the case may be, is unpaid, is notice that the instrument is overdue
AS TO INTEREST
• One who purchases in good faith an instrument upon which the interest is
overdue is a holder in due course
• But where by the terms of the instrument, the principal was to become due upon
default of the payment of instrument, then one who takes the instrument upon
which the interest is overdue is not a holder in due course
• Taking in good faith means that he doesn't have any knowledge of fact which
would render it dishonest for him to take a particular piece of negotiable paper
DEFECTS OF TITLE
• All those situations which at common law were known as equitable defenses
and also to cover those equities of ownership where there was breach of faith in
negotiation
• Examples?
o Acquisition of the instrument by fraud
o Acquisition of the instrument by force, duress or fear
o Acquisition of the instrument by unlawful means
o Acquisition of the instrument by for an illegal consideration
o Negotiation of the instrument in breach of faith
o Negotiation of the instrument under circumstances which amount to fraud
DEFENSES
• Include those common law defenses outside those covered in Section 55
• These include mistake, absence and failure of consideration covered in Section 28,
minority and other forms of incapacity, lack of authority of an agent
INFIRMITIES
• Things that are wrong with the instrument itself
• What are these?
o Wrong date inserted where the instrument is expressed to be payable at a fixed
period after sight is undated
o Filling up a blank instrument not strictly in accordance with the authority given
or not within authority given or not within the reasonable time, where it was
delivered wanting in a material alteration
o Filling up without authority an incomplete and undelivered instrument
o Lack of valid and intentional delivery
o Forgery
o Material alteration
ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE
• Actual knowledge is required and not mere suspicion, surmise or fear
1. Any contingent or unknown event whether past or future which may cause
damage to a person having an insurable interest; or
2. Any contingent or unknown event, whether past or future, which may create
liability against the person insured.
Yes. A married woman may take out an insurance on her life or that of her children
even without the consent of her husband. She may likewise take out an insurance on
the life of her husband, her paraphernal property, or on property given to her by her
husband.
Third par of Sec. 3 is no longer applicable, since the age of majority is now 18 years old
(RA 8809, Dec. 13, 1989).
Any contingent or unknown event, whether past or future, which may damnify a person
having an insurable interest, or create a liability against him, may be insured against,
subject to the provisions of this chapter.
The consent of the husband is not necessary for the validity of an insurance policy
taken out by the married woman on her life or that of her children.
Any minor of the age of eighteen years or more, may notwithstanding such minority,
contract for life, health and accident insurance, with any insurance company duly
authorized to do business in the Philippines, provided the insurance is taken on his own
life and the beneficiary appointed is the minor’s estate or the minor’s father, mother,
husband, wife, child, brother or sister.
The married woman or the minor herein allowed to take out an insurance policy may
exercise all the rights and privileges of an owner under a policy.
All rights, title and interest in the policy of insurance taken out by an original owner on
the life or health of a minor shall automatically vest in the minor upon the death of the
original owner, unless otherwise provided in the policy.
Related Provisions:
Art. 1174 (NCC). Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise
declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of
risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which, could not be foreseen, or
which, though foreseen, were inevitable.
Art. 110 (FC). The spouses retain the ownership, possession, administration and
enjoyment of their exclusive properties.
Either spouse may during the marriage, transfer the administration of his or her
exclusive property to the other by means of a public instrument, which shall be recorded
in the registry of property of the place where the property is located.
(2) Insane or demented persons, and deaf-mutes who do not know how to write.
Art. 1390 (NCC). The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even though there
may have been no damage to the contracting parties:
(1) Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to a contract;
(2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue
influence or fraud.
These contracts are binding, unless they are annulled by a proper action in court. They
are susceptible of ratification.
Problem:
A, wanted to open a medicinal herb shop. He placed a long distance phone call to
Taiwan and talked to an exporter who willingly agreed to consign several tons of
ginsengs with him on the condition that he will come and pick the goods up. A then
sent 5 of his cargo vessels to Taiwan. The ships left on August 9. On August 14, A
insured the 5 vessels against perils of the South China Sea “Lost or Not Lost” with B
Insurance Co. Without the knowledge of both parties, the ships had already sunk on
Aug. 14. Is B Insurance Co. liable for the ships?
Yes. This is an example of a past unknown event because the sinking of the ship is a
past event at the time that the policy took effect. The contract is valid and B Insurance
Co. is liable because he agreed to pay even though the ship be already lost. An
insurance against an unknown past event is peculiar only to marine insurance.
However, Atty. Quimson said in class that nowadays, most if not all insurance
companies no longer insure a past event since technology has progressed in such a
manner that a ship’s current status can easily be known while the application is being
processed.
INSURABLE INTEREST
Section 10. Every person has an insurable interest in the life and health:
(b) Of any person on whom he depends wholly in part for education or support, or in
whom he has a pecuniary interest;
(c) Of any person under a legal obligation to him for the payment of money, or
respecting property or services, Of which death or illness might delay or prevent the
performance; and
(d) Of any person upon whose life any estate or interest vested in him depends.
What is insurable interest?
Insurable interest is one the most basic of all requirements in insurance. In general, a
person is deemed to have insurable interest in the subject matter insured where he ha a
relation or connection with or concern in it that he will derive pecuniary benefit or
advantage from its preservation and will suffer pecuniary loss or damage from its
destruction, termination or injury by the happening of the event insured against.
It is essential for validity and enforceability of the contract or policy. A policy issued to a
person without interest in the subject matter is a mere wager policy or contract.
In life insurance, Insurable interest exists where there is reasonable ground founded on
the relations of the parties whether pecuniary, contractual or by blood or affinity, and to
expect some benefit or advantage from the continuance of the life of the insured.
Problem:
A takes an insurance policy on his life and names his friend X as beneficiary, and
another insurance on the life of Y in consideration of “love and affection” with A as a
beneficiary. Which of the two insurances, if any, is valid and which, if any, is void?
The Insurance taken on A on his life is VALID, because the beneficiary need not have
an insurable interest in the life of the insured. It must be the one insuring who has an
insurable interest in the life of the person he is insuring, and of course, it goes without
saying that one has an insurable interest in his own life and health.
ON the other hand, the insurance taken by A on the life of Y is VOID because “love and
affection for the insured” n the part of the person insuring is NOT sufficient ground to
quali fy as insurable interest.
When the assent or consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the
acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. Mere
offer or proposal is not contemplated. (De Lim v. Sun Life Assurance Co., G.R. No. L-
15774, Nov. 29, 1920)
Section 48. Whenever a right to rescind a contract of insurance is given to the insurer
by any provision of this chapter, such right must be exercised previous to the
commencement of an action on the contract.
After a policy of life insurance made payable on the death of the insured shall have
been in force during the lifetime of the insured for a period of two years from the date of
its issue or of its last reinstatement, the insurer cannot prove that the policy is void ab
initio or is rescindable by reason of the fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation of
the insured or his agent.
In a life insurance policy, the insurer may rescind the contract of insurance during the
first two years when the policy was in force during the lifetime of the insured from the
date of its issue or of its last reinstatement.
What are the requisites in order that the insurer may rescind a life insurance
policy?
1) There must be a basis for the rescission (breach of warranty, concealment,
misrepresentation, etc.)
2) The rescission must be coupled with a check for the amount of premiums already
paid. (without this, the rescission is not effective)
3) The rescission must be exercised within the two years that the insurance is in
force during the lifetime of the insured.
Common Carriers
Common Carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the
business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land water air, for
compensation, offering their service to the public.
- One is a common carrier even if he has no fixed and publicly known route, maintains
no terminals and issues no ticket.
- The true test of whether the character of the use is whether the public may enjoy it by
right or by permission. Note that the contract of transportation is a consensual contract.
Hence, a common carrier engages in a continuous offer. If you flag a common carrier
down, the contract becomes perfected and is consistent with the idea that entering with
a contract with the common carrier is a matter of right and not permission. You would
know when the carrier you are going to flag down is a common carrier because it
should hold itself out principally as such.
- Recovery from a contract of private carriage, requires a contract, that there was
negligence, and that the goods are lost. On the other hand, recovery from a contract
with a common carrier, only requires the contract and that the goods were lost. This is
so because of the presumption of negligence.
- Regardless of whether the object are goods or passengers,a common carrier mus
observe extra-ordinary diligence.
- If loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods occurs or death or physical injuries is
suffered by a passenger, there is a presumption of negligence that arises. The
presumption may only be overcome by a showing that the required degree of diligence
has been observed or that Article 1735 applies in the case of goods. In case of
passengers, only the former.
a. that the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of its or his
employees
b. that the common carrier's liability for acts committed by thieves, or of robbers who do
not act with grave or irresistible threat, violence or force, is dispensed with or
diminished.
c. that the common carrier is not responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of
goods on account of the defective condition of the car, vehicle, ship, airplane or other
equipment used in the contract of carriage.
Scope of Data Privacy Act The Act applies to the processing of personal data, in and outside of the
Philippines when the data subject is a citizen or resident of the Philippines, or when the processing of
personal data is being done in the Philippines.66 When the processing is done outside the Philippines,
and personal data relates to a citizen and resident of another country, Philippine laws would apply when
the processing is being done by a person or entity with links to the Philippines, such as when the natural
or juridical person involved in the processing of personal data is found or established in the
Philippines.67 For these kinds of cases, whether Philippine law would apply would depend on the
particular circumstances of the case, taking into account international law and comity.