Definition of Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction – the authority of a tribunal to hear and decide a case. Complete jurisdiction not only
includes the power to hear and determine a cause, but also the power to enforce any judgment
it may render thereon.
 It is the court of the forum which decides whether or not jurisdiction is present.
Alternatives Given to the Court

 When court w/o jurisdiction – dismiss the case

 When court w/ jurisdiction – it may either:
a) Refuse to assume jurisdiction on the ground of forum non conveniens
 Doctrine of forum non conveniens – a court may decline to try the case on the
ground that the controversy may be more suitably tried elsewhere.
b) Assume jurisdiction, in which it may either:
(i) Apply the internal law of the forum (lex fori)
(ii) Apply the proper foreign law (lex causae)
c) Renvoi – a jural matter presented is referred by the conflict of laws rules of the forum
to a foreign state, the conflict of laws of which in turn, refers the matter to the law of
the forum or a third state.
4 Major Questions in Analyzing Conflicts of Law Problem
1. Is there a jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or his property?
2. Is there jurisdiction over the subject matter?
3. What is the proper venue in case foreign elements is involved?
4. What is the statute or doctrine to be applied by the court?

Basis of Exercise of Jurisdiction

1. Jurisdiction over the person
2. Jurisdiction over the res – acquired from seizure of the property
3. Jurisdiction over the subject matter – conferred by law; not enough court has power to
try and decide a case, it is necessary that said power be properly invoked by filing a
petition.

Jurisdiction over the Person

Jurisdiction over the person – the power of a court to render a judgment that will be binding on
the parties involved.
Plaintiff – juris is acquired when plaintiff files an action
Defendant – juris is acquired through:
a) Voluntary appearance
 Through voluntary appearance in court or by appearance by motion, by
answer or by simple manifestation of appearance or through an attorney.
 Exception: If the purpose of the appearance is to question the jurisdiction of
the court over his person.
b) Personal or substituted service of summons
 Personal service - summons served by handling a copy thereof to the defendant
in person and informing the defendant that he or she is being served, or if he
refuses to receive and sign for it, by leaving the summons with the view and in
the presence of the defendant.
 Substituted service
If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served personally after at least
three (3) attempts on two (2) different dates, service may be effected:

(a) By leaving copies of the summons at the defendants residence to a person at

least eighteen (18) years of age and of sufficient discretion residing therein;

(b) By leaving copies of the summons at [the] defendants office or regular place
of business with some competent person in charge thereof. A competent person
 includes, but is not limited to, one who customarily receives correspondences for
the defendant;

(c) By leaving copies of the summons, if refused entry upon making his or her
authority and purpose known, with any of the officers of the
homeownersassociation or condominium corporation. or its chief security officer
in charge of the community or the building where the defendant may be found:
and

(d) By sending an electronic mail to the defendants electronic mail address. if

allowed by the court.

 Service of summons upon a juridical person

Section 12. Service upon domestic private juridical entity. - When the defendant is a
corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of the Philippines with a
juridical personality, service may be made on the president, managing partner, general
manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or inhouse counsel of the corporation wherever they
may be found. or in their absence or unavailability. on their secretaries.

If such service cannot be made upon any of the foregoing persons. it shall be made upon the
person who customarily receives the correspondence for the defendant at its principal office.

In case the domestic juridical entity is under receivership or liquidation. service of summons
shall be made on the receiver or liquidator. as the case may be.

Should there be a refusal on the part of the persons above-mentioned to receive summons
despite at least three (3) attempts on two (2) different dates. service may be made
electronically. if allowed by the court. as provided under Section 6 of this Rule. (11a)

Section 14. Service upon foreign private juridical entit[ies]. - When the defendant is a foreign
private juridical entity which has transacted or is doing business in the Philippines, as defined by
law, service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that
purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government official designated by law to that
effect, or on any of its officers, agents, directors or trustees within the Philippines.

If the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the Philippines, or has no resident agent
but has transacted or is doing business in it. as defined by law, such service may, with leave of
court. be effected outside of the Philippines through any of the following means:

(a) By personal service coursed through the appropriate court in the foreign country with the
assistance of the [D]epartment of [F]oreign [A]ffairs:

(b) By publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in the country where the defendant
may be found and by serving a copy of the summons and the court order by registered mail at
the last known address of the defendant;

(c) By facsimile:

(d) By electronic means with the prescribed proof of service: or

(e) By such other means as the court. in its discretion, may direct.
Section 15. Service upon public corporations. - When the defendant is the Republic of the
Philippines, service may be effected on the Solicitor General; in case of a province, city or
municipality, or like public corporations, service may be effected on its executive head, or on
such other officer or officers as the law or the court may direct.

*Ordinarily, the presence of the defendant within the territorial jurisdiction of the court
was a prerequisite to its rendition of judgment personally binding him. BUT, now that
there are other form of notices, due process requires that if he is not present in the
forum, there be certain minimum contacts.

Long-arm statutes – statutes that specify the kinds of contacts upon which jurisdiction will be
asserted, such as the commission a tortious act within the state, the celebration of a contract
there or presence of the property owned by the defendant.
Minimum contacts – contacts with a state should be evaluated in terms of how fair it would be to
exercise jurisdiction over an absent defendant. (International Shoe Case)
Ex. Celebration of contract and tortious act – Northern Pacific R Co. v. Babcock
Requisites:
1) Systematic and continuous activity within the forum jurisdiction
2) Cause of action arising from that activity
*Due process must be observed

Case World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson,  444 U.S. 286 (1980)

Citation: 

Date:  Jan 21, 1980

Petitioners:  World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. - automobile wholesaler, NY corporations

that did no business in Oklahoma 

Respondents:  Oklahoma District Court Judge Charles S. Woodson

Doctrine: A state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident

defendant only so long as there exist "minimum contacts" between the
defendant and the forum State.

Antecedent   Respondents Harry and Kay Robinson purchased a new Audi automobile
Facts:  from petitioner Seaway Volkswagen, Inc. (Seaway), in Massena, N. Y., in
1976.Subsequently, in 1977,  the Robinson family who resided in New
York, left that State for a new home in Arizona. As they passed through
the State of Oklahoma, another car struck their Audi in the rear, causing a
fire which severely burned Kay Robinson and her two children. 

The Robinsons filed a products-liability action in the District Court for

Creek County, Oklahoma. They claim that their injuries resulted from
defective design and placement of the Audi's gas tank and fuel system.
They joined as defendants the automobile's manufacturer, Audi NSU Auto
Union Aktiengesellschaft (Audi); its importer, Volkswagen of America, Inc.
(Volkswagen); its regional distributor, petitioner World-Wide Volkswagen
Corp. (World-Wide); and its retail dealer,  Seaway. 

World-Wide Volkswagen is ncorporated and has its business office in New

York. It distributes vehicles, parts, and accessories, under contract with
Volkswagen, to retail dealers in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.
Seaway, one of these retail dealers, is incorporated and has its place of
business in New York. Insofar as the record reveals, Seaway and World-
 Wide are fully independent corporations whose relations with
each other and with Volkswagen and Audi are contractual only.

Respondents adduced no evidence that either World-Wide or Seaway

does
any business in Oklahoma, ships or sells any products to or in that State,
has an agent to receive process there, or purchases advertisements in
any
media calculated to reach Oklahoma. In fact, as respondents' counsel
conceded at oral argument, there was no showing that any automobile
sold by World-Wide or Seaway has ever entered Oklahoma with the single
exception of the vehicle involved in the present case.

Petitioner’s  
Contention: Seaway and World-Wide Volkswagen claimed that
Oklahoma's exercise of jurisdiction over them would
offend the limitations on the State's jurisdiction imposed
by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.

Respondent’s Their injuries resulted from defective design and

Contention: placement of the Audi's gas tank and fuel system. 

District Court’s Ruling:  It rejected the constitutional claim of World-Wide and

Seaway. It also rearrimed this ruling in denying
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. 

Thus, petitioner sought a writ of prohibition in the

Supreme Court of Oklahoma to restrain respondent 
District Court Judge Charles Woodson 
from exercising in personam jurisdiction over them.

SC of Oklahoma’s Ruling:  It denied the writ, ruling that personal jurisdiction over
petitioners was authorized by Oklahoma's "long-arm"
statute. It held that "A court may exercise personal
jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an
agent, as to a cause of action or claim for relief arising
from the person's . . . causing tortious injury in this state
by an act or omission outside this state if he regularly
does or solicits business or engages in any other
persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial
revenue from goods used or consumed or services
rendered, in this state. . . ."

The State Supreme Court rejected jurisdiction based on §

1701.03(a) (3),
which authorizes jurisdiction over any person "causing
tortious injury in this state by an act or omission in this
state." Something in addition to the infliction of tortious
injury was required.

Issue:  Whether or not a state court  may exercise personal

jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. 
US SC Ruling:
No. As has long been settled, and as we reaffirm today, a
state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a
nonresident defendant only so long as there exist
"minimum contacts" between the defendant and the forum
State. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, at
316. The concept of minimum contacts, in turn, can be
seen to perform two related, but distinguishable, functions.
It protects the defendant against the burdens of litigating in
a distant or inconvenient forum. And it acts to ensure that
the States, through their courts, do not reach out beyond
the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal
sovereigns in a federal system.

The protection against inconvenient litigation is typically

described in terms of "reasonableness" or "fairness." We
have said that the defendant's contacts with the forum
State must be such that maintenance of the suit "does not
offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.'"

Thus, the Due Process Clause "does not contemplate

that a state may make binding a judgment in personam
against an individual or corporate defendant with which
the state has no contacts, ties, or relations." International
Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, at 319. 

Even if the defendant would suffer minimal or no

inconvenience from being forced to litigate before the
tribunals of another State; even if the forum State has a
strong interest in applying its law to the controversy; even
if the forum State is the most convenient location for
litigation, the Due Process Clause, acting as an
instrument of interstate federalism, may sometimes act to
divest the State of its power to render a valid judgment.

Applying these principles to the case at hand, we find in

the record before us a total absence of those affiliating
circumstances that are a necessary predicate to any
exercise of state-court jurisdiction. Petitioners carry on no
activity whatsoever in Oklahoma. 

They close no sales and perform no services there. They

avail themselves of none of the privileges and benefits of
Oklahoma law. They solicit no business there either
through salespersons or through advertising reasonably
calculated to reach the State. Nor does the record show
that they regularly sell cars at wholesale o retail to
Oklahoma customers or residents or that they indirectly,
through others, serve or seek to serve the Oklahoma
market. In short, respondents seek to base jurisdiction on
one, isolated occurrence and whatever inferences can be
drawn therefrom: the fortuitous circumstance that a single
Audi automobile, sold in New York to New York residents,
happened to suffer an accident while passing through
Oklahoma.

It is argued, however, that because an automobile is

mobile by its very design and purpose it was "foreseeable"
that the Robinsons' Audi would cause injury in Oklahoma.
Yet "foreseeability" alone has never been a sufficient
benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the Due Process
Clause.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: 

Because we find that petitioners have no "contacts, ties, or

relations" with the State of Oklahoma, International Shoe
Co. v. Washington, supra, at 319, the judgment of the
Supreme Court of Oklahoma is Reversed.