Gil Miguel Puyat vs Ron Zabarte

Facts:
Gil Miguel Puyat, a foreigner, lost a collection suit filed against him by Ron Zabarte in a court
in California, USA. The California court ordered Puyat to pay the amount of $241k. Puyat was only
able to pay $5k.

In January 1994, Zabarte filed an action to enforce the California judgment here in the
Philippines against Puyat. Puyat filed an Answer where he alleged, among others, that the California
court had no jurisdiction over the case, hence, the foreign judgment is void. He likewise averred that
the trial court had no jurisdiction because the issue involved are partnership matters which are under
the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Zabarte then filed a motion for summary judgment as he argued that Puyat’s Answer
tendered no issue. The trial court granted the motion and eventually gave a favorable judgment for
Zabarte. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.

On appeal, Puyat now avers that the trial court should have never taken cognizance of the
case because it had no jurisdiction over the case pursuant to the forum non conveniens rule. He
averred that under this principle, since all the transaction involved in this case occurred in California,
he being a foreigner, and the California law was not properly determined, the trial court had no
jurisdiction. He also assailed the validity of the trial court’s act in granting the motion for summary
judgment filed by Zabarte.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Puyat is correct.

HELD:
No. The allowance of summary judgment is proper. In this case, Puyat’s Answer did not really tender
an issue. Summary judgment is resorted to in order to avoid long drawn out litigations and useless
delays. When affidavits, depositions and admissions on file show that there are no genuine issues of
fact to be tried, the Rules allow a party to pierce the allegations in the pleadings and to obtain
immediate relief by way of summary judgment. In short, since the facts are not in dispute, the court
is allowed to decide the case summarily by applying the law to the material facts. In this case, Puyat’s
Answer merely alleged that the California court, a civil court, had no jurisdiction because the case
involved was a partnership issue. He however admitted that the issue involved is the payment of
money upon promissory notes with damages. Puyat also did not attach a copy of the complaint filed
by Zabarte with the California court. As such, the trial court properly presumed, applying the principle
of processual presumption, that the California law is the same as Philippine law – that cases involving
collection of money is cognizable by civil courts. And by applying the principle of processual
presumption, there’s no longer a need to try the facts in this case, hence, a summary judgment was in
order.

Anent the issue of forum non conveniens, such does not exist in this case. Under the principle of
forum non conveniens, even if the exercise of jurisdiction is authorized by law, courts may
nonetheless refuse to entertain a case for any of the following practical reasons:
1. The belief that the matter can be better tried and decided elsewhere, either because the main
aspects of the case transpired in a foreign jurisdiction or the material witnesses have their residence
there;
2. The belief that the non-resident plaintiff sought the forum[,] a practice known as forum
shopping[,] merely to secure procedural advantages or to convey or harass the defendant;
3. The unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to non-residents or aliens when the docket
may already be overcrowded;
4. The inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for effectuating the right sought to be
maintained; and The difficulty of ascertaining foreign law.”

None of the above existed in this case, hence, the trial court properly took cognizance of the case.
The Manila Hotel Corp. And Manila Hotel Intl. Ltd. Vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R.
No. 120077 October 13, 2000

FACTS:
During his employment with the Mazoon Printing Press in Oman, Santos received a letter
from Shmidt (General Manager, Palace Hotel, Beijing, China) offering Santos the same position as
printer, but with a higher monthly salary and increased benefits. Santos wrote to Mr. Shmidt sent to
the Palace Hotel and signified his acceptance of the offer. Santos left for Beijing, China. He started to
work at the Palace Hotel. The Palace Hotel informed Santos his employment would be terminated due
to business reverses brought about by the political upheaval in China. Santos was repatriated to the
Philippines. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC in Manila.

ISSUE:
Whether or not NLRC is the proper forum

RULING:
No. 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 (CIP): (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. In this case, (1) all the incidents of the case occurred outside the
Philippines and the defendants and main witnesses are not nationals or residents of the Philippines;
(2) the employment contract was not perfected in the Philippines; (3) NLRC cannot intelligently decide
on the basis of pertinent law and facts because all acts complained of took place in China and even
assuming that a proper decision could be reached by the NLRC, such would not have any binding
effect against Palace Hotel because it is a corporation incorporated under the laws of China and was
not even served with summons.

Bernardo S. Zamora, Vs. Emmanuel Z. Quinan, et. al., November 29, 2017, G.R. No. 216139

FACTS:
Zamora filed an action for reconveyance with the RTC against Quinan and others. Pending
the resolution of Zamora’s complaint, he commenced another action before the CA for the
Annulment of Judgment of the RTC to annul the previous RTC judgment granting the petition filed by
Quinan and others for the issuance of new duplicate certificate of title.

ISSUE:
Whether or not filing a petition for annulment of judgment before the CA while an action for
reconveyance is pending before the RTC constitutes forum shopping

RULING:
Yes. The test for determining forum shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases pending,
there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought. Here, there is identity of
causes of action, parties and reliefs sought in the action Zamora filed for the reconveyance of
properties before the RTC and the petition for annulment of judgment filed before the CA. Forum-
shopping originated as a concept in private international law where non-resident litigants are given
the option to choose the forum or place wherein to bring their suit for various reasons or excuses,
including to secure procedural advantages, to annoy and harass the defendant, to avoid overcrowded
dockets, or to select a more friendly venue. To combat these less than honorable excuses, the
principle of forum non conveniens was developed whereby 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. In this light, Black's Law Dictionary 13
says that forum shopping "occurs when a party attempts to have his action tried in a particular court
or jurisdiction where he feels he will receive the most favorable judgment or verdict." Hence,
according to Words and Phrases14 , "a litigant is open to the charge of "forum shopping" whenever
he chooses a forum with slight connection to factual circumstances surrounding his suit, and litigants
should be encouraged to attempt to settle their differences without imposing undue expenses and
vexatious situations on the courts".

Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio et al. Case Digest

GR 198587, January 14, 2015

FACTS:

Respondents, who were regular flight attendants were illegally terminated by petitioner Saudi
Arabian Airlines due to their pregnancy which was alleged as a ground for termination under their
employment contract. Faced with the dilemma of resigning or totally losing their benefits,
respondents executed handwritten resignation letters. A year later, respondents filed a complaint
against Saudia for illegal dismissal; the case was assigned to Labor Arbiter Suelo. Saudia assailed the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter claiming that the complaint be dismissed on the ground of forum non
conveniens and that the respondents had no cause of action as they resigned voluntarily. Hence, this
appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether the case should be dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens.

RULING:

No. On the matter of pleading forum non conveniens, we state the rule, thus: forum non conveniens
may not only be clearly pleaded as a ground for dismissal; it must be pleaded as such at the earliest
possible opportunity. Otherwise, it shall be deemed waived. Furthermore, forum non conveniens
finds no application and does not operate to divest Philippine tribunals of jurisdiction and to require
the application of foreign law. Saudia invokes forum non conveniens to supposedly effectuate the
stipulations of the Cabin Attendant contracts that require the application of the laws of Saudi Arabia.

In addition, there is no basis for concluding that the case can be more conveniently tried elsewhere
because Saudia is doing business in the Philippines and all four respondents are Filipino citizens, thus
Saudia may be tried under the jurisdiction of Philippine tribunals.