G.R. No. 122191 October 122191 October 8, 1998
Laws Applicable: Art 19 and 21 of Civil Code Lesso Lessons ns Appli Applicab cable: le: Conic Conictt of Laws, Laws, factua factuall situat situation ion,, connecti connecting ng factor, factor, characte characterizat rization, ion, choice choice of law, law, State of the ost signi!cant relationship "AC#S:S AC#S:Saud audii Arabia Arabian n Airlin Airlines es $SA%&' $SA%&'A(, A(, foreig foreign n airlin airlines es corporation doing business in the )hilippines and a* be served suons in agent in +aati, hired +ilagros )- +orada as a ight attendant for its airlines based in .eddah, Saudi ArabiaApril 2/, 1990: hile on a la*ove la*overr in .aarta .aarta,, 'ndonesi 'ndonesia, a, +orada went to a disco dance with fellow crew ebers #haer Al3azzawi and Allah Al3azzawi, both Saudi nationals- 't was alost orning orning when the* returned returned to their hotels so the* agreed to have breafast together at the roo of #ha #haer er-- Sho Short rtl* l* afte afterr Alla Allah h left left the the roo roo,, #ha #haer er atte attepte pted d to rape rape +orada +orada-- "ortu "ortunat natel* el*,, a roo roobo* bo* and severa severall securi securit* t* person personnel nel heard heard her cries cries for help help and rescued herher- 'ndonesian police arrested #haer and Allah Al 3azzawi, the latter as an accoplicehen hen +ora +orada da retur eturne ned d to .edd .eddah ah,, SA%& SA%&'A 'A o4ci o4cial als s interrogated her about the .aarta incident and re5uested her to go bac to .aarta to help arrange the release of #haer and Allah- 'n .aarta, SA%&'A Legal 64cers 64cers negotiated with the police for the iediate release of the detained crew eber ebers s but did not succeedsucceed- Afraid Afraid that that she ight be tric triced ed into into soeth soething ing she did not want want becaus because e of her inabilit* to understand the local dialect, +orado refused to coop cooper erat ate e and and decl declin ined ed to sign sign a blan blan pape paperr and and a docuent docuent written in the local local dialectdialect- 7ventual 7ventuall*, l*, SA%&'A SA%&'A allowed +orada to return to .eddah but barred her fro the .aarta ightsights-
'ndonesia 'ndonesian n authoriti authorities es agreed agreed to deport deport #haer #haer and Allah Allah and and the* the* were were again again put in servic servicee- hile hile,, +orad +orada a was was transferred to +anila .anuar* 18, 1992: +orada was ased to see +r- Ali +eniew*, Chief Chief Legal 64cer of SA%&'A, SA%&'A, in .eddah, .eddah, Saudi ArabiaArabia- e brought her to the police station where the police too her passport and 5uestioned 5uestioned her about the .aarta incident- #he police pressured her to drop the case against #haer and Allah- ot until she agreed to do so did the police return return her passport and allowed her to catch the afternoon ight out of .eddah .une 1;, 199<: +orada, while in =i*adh Saudi Arabia, Arabia, was not allowed to board the plane to +anila and instead ordered to tae a later ight to .eddah to see +r- +iniew*- >halid of the SA%&'A o4ce brought her to a Saudi court where she was ased to sign a docuent written in Arabic- #he* told her that this was necessar* to close the case against #haer and Allah but it was actuall* a notice for her to appear before the court on .une 2/, 199<- )lainti? then returned to +anila .une 2/, 199<: SA%&'A@s +anila anager, Asla Saleei, assured +orada that the investigation was routinar* and that it posed no danger to her so she reported to +iniew* in .eddah for further investigationinvestigation- She was brought to the Saudi court .une 2, 199<: Saudi Budge interrogated interrogated +orada through an interpreter about the .aarta incident for an hour and let her go- SA%&'A o4cers forbidden forbidden her to tae ight- She was told to go the 'night Service Service 64ce where her passport passport was taen and the* told her to reain in .eddah, at the crew 5uarters, until further orders .ul* <, 199<: She was brought to court again and to her astonishent and shoc, rendered a decision, translated to her in 7nglish, sentencing her to !ve onths iprisonent
and to 2; lashes- #he court tried her, her, together with #haer #haer and Allah, and found her guilt* of $1( adulter* $2( going to a disco disco,, danci dancing ng and listen listenin ing g to the usic usic in viola violatio tion n of 'sla 'slaic ic laws laws and $<( social socializi izing ng with with the ale ale crew, crew, in contravention contravention of 'slaic tradition"ailing to see the assistance of her eplo*er, SA%&'A, she ased the )hilippine 7bass* in .eddah to help her while her case is on appeal- She continued continued to woron woron the doestic doestic ight of SA%&'A, while #haer and Allah continued to serve in the international ightsecause she was wrongfull* convicted, the )rince of +aah disisse disissed d the case against her and allowed allowed her to leave Saud Saudii Arab Arabia ia-- efo eforre her her retur eturn n to +ani +anila la,, she she was was terinated fro the service b* SA%&'A, without her being infored of the causeoveber 2<, 199<: +orada !led a Coplaint for daages against SA%&'A, and >haled Alalawi, its countr* anager .anuar* 19, 1998: SA%&'A !led an 6nibus +otion #o &isiss on following grounds: $1( that the Coplaint states no cause of action against SA%&'A $2( that defendant Al alawi is not a real part* in interest $<( that the clai or dea deand nd set set fort forth h in the the Cop Copla lain intt has has been been waiv waived ed,, abandoned or otherwise eDtinguished and $8( that the trial court has no Burisdiction to tr* the caseAfter opposition to the otion to disiss b* +orada and repl* b* SA%&'A, +orada !led an Aended Coplaint dropping Al alawialawi- SA%&'A !led its +anifest +anifestatio ation, n, +otion to &isiss &isiss Aended Coplaint, subse5uentl* otion for reconsideration which were all deniedSA%&'A !led its )etition for Certiorari and )rohibition with )ra*er for 'ssuance of rit of )reliinar* 'nBunction andEor
#eporar* #eporar* =estraining =estraining 6rder with the Court of Appeals- #=6 was granted but rit of )reliinar* 'nBunction was deniedCA: )hilippines is an appropriate foru considering that the Aend Aended ed Copla Coplaint int@s @s basis basis for reco recover ver* * of daage daages s is Articl Article e 21 of the Civil Code, and thus, thus, clearl clearl* * within within the Burisdiction Burisdiction of respondent Court- 't further held that certiorari is not the proper reed* in a denial of a +otion to &isiss, inasuch as the petitioner should have proceeded to trial, and in case of an adverse ruling, !nd recourse in an appealSA%&'A !led its Suppleental )etition for =eview with )ra*er for #eporar* =estraining 6rder: CL'C> #6 S77 +6=7 o
't is a conict of laws that ust be settled at the outset:
F +orada@s clai for alleged abuse abuse of rights occurred in the >ingdo of Saudi ArabiaF 7Distence of a foreign eleent 5uali!es the instant case for the application of the law of the >ingdo of Saudi Arabia, b* virtue of the leD loci delicti coissi rule+orada: Aended Coplaint is based on Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code which is a atter of doestic law
'SS%7: E the =#C of Guezon Cit* has Burisdiction over the case case and it is the proper proper foru foru for recov recover* er* of daage daages s under Art- 21 of the Civil Code which should govern-
7L&: 7L&: H7SH7S- petiti petition on for certio certiorar rarii is hereb* hereb* &'S+' &'S+'SS7 SS7&&=7+A&7& =7+A&7& to =#C of Guezon Guezon Cit*, Cit*, ranch ranch 9 for further proceedings
here here the factual factual antecede antecedents nts satisfact satisfactoril oril* * establish establish the eDistence of a foreign eleent, the proble could present a IconictsI case A factual factual situation situation that cuts across across territorial territorial lines and is a?ected b* the diverse laws of two or ore states is said to contain a Iforeign eleentIo
+orada is a resident )hilippine national
o
SA%&'A is a resident foreign corporation
o b* virtue virtue of the eplo*ent eplo*ent of +orada +orada with the SA%&'A as a ight stewardess, events did transpire during her an* occasions of travel across national borders, particularl* fro +anila, )hilippines to .eddah, Saudi Arabia, and vice versa, that caused a IconictsI situation to arise "ors of foreign eleent: o Siple: one one of the the parties to a contract is an alien alien or has a foreign doicile, or that a contract between nationals of one State involves properties situated in another State o
CopleD
Jiolations of Articles 19 and 21 are actionable, with Budiciall* enforceable reedies in the unicipal foru- =#C =#C of Guezon Cit* possesses Burisdiction Burisdiction over the subBect atter of the suit)ragatic considerations, including the convenience of the parties, also weigh heavil* in favor of the =#C Guezon Cit* assuing Burisdiction: Burisdiction: o
private interest of the litigant
o
enforceabilit* of a Budgent if one is obtained
o
relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial
F )laint )lainti? i? a* a* not, not, b* choice choice of an incon inconve venie nient nt foru, foru, IveDI, IharassI, or IoppressI the defendant, e-g- b* inicting upon hi needless eDpense or disturbance- but unless the balance is strongl* in favor of the defendant, the plainti?s choice of foru should rarel* be disturbedeighing the relative clais of the parties, the court a 5uo found found it best best to hear hear the case in the )hilipp )hilippine iness- ad it refused to tae cognizance of the case, it would be forcing plainti? plainti? $private $private respondent respondent now( to see reedial reedial action elsewhere, i-e- in the >ingdo of Saudi Arabia where she no longer aintains substantial connections- #hat would have cause caused d a funda fundaent ental al unfai unfairne rness ss to herher- +oreov +oreover, er, b* hearing the case in the )hilippines no unnecessar* di4culties and inconvenience have been shown b* either of the parties #rial #rial court possesses Burisdiction Burisdiction over the persons of the parties o * !ling her Coplaint Coplaint and Aended Aended Coplaint Coplaint with the trial trial court, court, priva private te respo responde ndent nt has volun voluntar tar* * subi subitte tted d herself to the Burisdiction of the court o SA%&'A SA%&'A has e?ecti e?ective vel* l* subitte subitted d to the trial trial court@s court@s Burisdiction Burisdiction b* pra*ing for the disissal of the Aended Coplaint on grounds other than lac of BurisdictionAs to the choice choice of applic applicabl able e law, law, it sees to answer answer 2 iportant 5uestions: o $1( hat hat legal s*ste s*ste should should control control a given situation situation where soe of the signi!cant facts occurred in two or ore states o $2( to what what eDten eDtentt should should the chosen chosen legal legal s*ste s*ste regulate the situation Although ideall*, all choiceoflaw choiceoflaw theories should intrinsicall* intrinsicall* advance both notions of Bustice and predictabilit*, the* do
not alwa*s do so- #he foru is then faced with the proble of deciding which of these two iportant values should be stressedefore a choice can be ade, it is necessar* for us to deterine under what categor* a certain set of facts or rules fall o
IcharacterizationI or the Idoctrine of 5uali!cationK
F process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the ind of 5uestion speci!ed in a conicts rule F purpose: to enable the foru to select the proper law Choiceoflaw rules invariabl* consist of: $essential eleent of conict rules( o factual situationErelationship or operative fact $such as propert* right, contract clai( and F starting point of anal*sis o test or connecting factor or point of contact $such as the situs of the res, the place of celebration, the place of perforance, or the place of wrongdoing( M could be:
arriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort coitted- #he leD loci actus is particularl* iportant in contracts and torts F $N( the place where an act is intended to coe into e?ect, e-g-, the place of perforance of contractual duties, or the place where a power of attorne* is to be eDercised F $;( the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern their agreeent, the leD loci intentionis F $/( the place where Budicial or adinistrative proceedings are instituted or done- #he leD fori O the law of the foru O is particularl* iportant because, as we have seen earlier, atters of IprocedureI not going to the substance of the clai involved are governed b* it and because the leD fori applies whenever the content of the otherwise applicable foreign law is eDcluded fro application in a given case for the reason that it falls under one of the eDceptions to the applications of foreign law and F $( the ag of a ship, which in an* cases is decisive of practicall* all legal relationships of the ship and of its aster or owner as such- 't also covers contractual relationships particularl* contracts of a?reightent
F $1( #he nationalit* of a person, his doicile, his residence, his place of soBourn, or his origin
ote that one or ore circustances a* be present to serve as the possible test for the deterination of the applicable law-
F $2( the seat of a legal or Buridical person, such as a corporation
ased on pleadings on record, including allegations in the Aended Coplaint:
F $<( the situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is deeed to be situated- 'n particular, the leD situs is decisive when real rights are involved
o +orada was ade to face trial for ver* serious charges, including adulter* and violation of 'slaic laws and tradition
F $8( the place where an act has been done, the locus actus, such as the place where a contract has been ade, a
o SA%&'A a* have acted be*ond its duties as eplo*er b* handing over the person of +orada to .eddah o4cials which contributed to and apli!ed or even proDiatel* caused additional huiliation, iser* and su?ering- 't also too
advantage of the trust, con!dence and faith in the guise of authorit* as eplo*ero Conviction and iprisonent was wrongful but inBur* or har was inicted upon her person and reputation which ust be copensated or redress for the wrong doing Coplaint involving torts Iconnecting factorI or Ipoint of contactI place or places where the tortious conduct or leD loci actus occurred P )hilippines where SA%&'A deceived +orada, a "ilipina residing and woring hereIState of the ost signi!cant relationshipI M applied o taen into account and evaluated according to their relative iportance with respect to the particular issue: F $a( the place where the inBur* occurred F $b( the place where the conduct causing the inBur* occurred F $c( the doicile, residence, nationalit*, incorporation and place of business of the parties
place
of
F $d( the place where the relationship, if an*, between the parties is centered v private respondent is a resident "ilipina national, woring here v a resident foreign corporation engaged here in the business of international air carriage SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES (SAUDIA) vs. COURT O A!!EALS, "ILAGROS !. "ORADA #$% &ON. RODOLO A. ORTI', $ s c#*#ct+ #s !res%$ -%e o/ Br#$c
89, RTC o/ G.R. No. 122191 October 8, 1998
0eo$
Ct+
"AC#S: )etitioner SA%&'A hired private respondent +6=A&A as a ight attendant in 19, based in .eddah- 6n 1990, while on a la*over in .aarta, 'ndonesia, she went to part* with 2 ale attendants, and on the following orning in their hotel, one of the ale attendants attepted to rape her- She was rescued b* hotel attendants who heard her cr* for help #he 'ndonesian police arrested the 2+6=A&A returned to .eddah, but was ased b* the copan* to go bac to .aarta and help arrange the release of the 2 ale attendants- +6=A&A did not cooperate when she got to .aartahat followed was a series of interrogations fro the Saudi Courts which she did not understand as this was in their language- 'n 199<, she was surprised, upon being ordered b* SA%&'A to go to the Saudi court, that she was being convicted of $1( adulter* $2( going to a disco, dancing and listening to the usic in violation of 'slaic laws and $<( socializing with the ale crew, in contravention of 'slaic tradition, sentencing her to !ve onths iprisonent and to 2; lashes- 6nl* then did she realize that the Saudi court had tried her, together with the 2, for what happened in .aartaSA%&'A denied her the assistance she re5uested, ut because she was wrongfull* convicted, )rince of +aah disissed the case against her and allowed her to leave Saudi Arabia- Shortl* before her return to +anila, she was terinated fro the service b* SA%&'A, without her being infored of the cause6n oveber 2<, 199<, +orada !led a Coplaint for daages against SA%&'A, and >haled Alalawi $QAlalawiK(, its countr* anagerSA%&'A ALL737S: )rivate respondentRs clai for alleged
abuse of rights occurred in the >ingdo of Saudi Arabia- 't alleges that the eDistence of a foreign eleent 5uali!es the instant case for the application of the law of the >ingdo of Saudi Arabia, b* virtue of the leD loci delicti coissi rule+6=A&A ALL737S: Since her Aended Coplaint is based on Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code, then the instant case is properl* a atter of doestic law'SS%7: 6 the )hilippine courts have Burisdiction to tr* the case 7L&: H7S6n the presence of a Q"oreign 7leentK in the case: A factual situation that cuts across territorial lines and is a?ected b* the diverse laws of two or ore states is said to contain a Qforeign eleentK- #he presence of a foreign eleent is inevitable since social and econoic a?airs of individuals and associations are rarel* con!ned to the geographic liits of their birth or conception- #he fors in which this foreign eleent a* appear are an*- #he foreign eleent a* sipl* consist in the fact that one of the parties to a contract is an alien or has a foreign doicile, or that a contract between nationals of one State involves properties situated in another State- 'n other cases, the foreign eleent a* assue a copleD for'n the instant case, the foreign eleent consisted in the fact that private respondent +orada is a resident )hilippine national, and that petitioner SA%&'A is a resident foreign corporation- Also, b* virtue of the eplo*ent of +orada with the petitioner Saudia as a ight stewardess, events did transpire during her an* occasions of travel across national borders, particularl* fro +anila, )hilippines to .eddah, Saudi Arabia, and vice versa, that caused a QconictsK situation to arise-
C6%=# disagrees with +6=A&A that his is purel* a doestic case- owever, the court !nds that the =#C of Guezon Cit* possesses Burisdiction over the subBect atter of the suit- 'ts authorit* to tr* and hear the case is provided for under Section 1 of =epublic Act o- /;91, to wit: )129 Sec- 19- .urisdiction in Civil Cases- O =egional #rial Courts shall eDercise eDclusive Burisdiction: DDD DDD DDD $( 'n all other cases in which deand, eDclusive of interest, daages of whatever ind, attorne**Rs fees, litigation eDpenses, and cots or the value of the propert* in controvers* eDceeds 6ne hundred thousand pesos $)100,000-00( or, in such other cases in +etro +anila, where the deand, eDclusive of the aboveentioned ites eDceeds #wo hundred #housand pesos $)200,000-00($7phasis ours( DDD DDD DDD Section 2 $b(, =ule 8 of the =evised =ules of Court O the venue, Guezon Cit*, is appropriate: Sec- 2 Jenue in Courts of "irst 'nstance- O Tow =egional #rial CourtU $a( DDD DDD DDD $b( )ersonal actions- O All other actions a* be coenced and tried where the defendant or an* of the defendants resides or a* be found, or where the plainti? or an* of the plainti? resides, at the election of the plainti?eighing the relative clais of the parties, the court a 5uo found it best to hear the case in the )hilippines- ad it refused to tae cognizance of the case, it would be forcing plainti? $private respondent now( to see reedial action elsewhere, i-e- in the >ingdo of Saudi Arabia where she no longer aintains substantial connections- #hat would have caused a fundaental unfairness to her+oreover, b* hearing the case in the )hilippines no unnecessar* di4culties and inconvenience have been shown
b* either of the parties- #he choice of foru of the plainti? $now private respondent( should be upheld #he trial court also ac5uired Burisdiction over the parties+6=A&A through her act of !ling, and SA%&'A b* pra*ing for the disissal of the Aended Coplaint on grounds other than lac of BurisdictionAs to the choice of applicable law, we note that choiceoflaw probles see to answer two iportant 5uestions: $1( hat legal s*ste should control a given situation where soe of the signi!cant facts occurred in two or ore states and $2( to what eDtent should the chosen legal s*ste regulate the situationConsidering that the coplaint in the court a 5uo is one involving torts, the Qconnecting factorK or Qpoint of contactK could be the place or places where the tortious conduct or leD loci actus occurred- And appl*ing the torts principle in a conicts case, we !nd that the )hilippines could be said as a situs of the tort $the place where the alleged tortious conduct too place(- #his is because it is in the )hilippines where petitioner allegedl* deceived private respondent, a "ilipina residing and woring here- According to her, she had honestl* believed that petitioner would, in the eDercise of its rights and in the perforance of its duties, Qact with Bustice, give her due and observe honest* and good faith-K 'nstead, petitioner failed to protect her, she claied- #hat certain acts or parts of the inBur* allegedl* occurred in another countr* is of no oent- "or in our view what is iportant here is the place where the overall har or the totalit* of the alleged inBur* to the person, reputation, social standing and huan rights of coplainant, had lodged, according to the plainti? below $herein private respondent(- All told, it is not without basis to identif* the )hilippines as the situs of the alleged tort-
'n appl*ing QState of the ost signi!cant relationshipK rule, to deterine the State which has the ost signi!cant relationship, the following contacts are to be taen into account and evaluated according to their relative iportance with respect to the particular issue: $a( the place where the inBur* occurred $b( the place where the conduct causing the inBur* occurred $c( the doicile, residence, nationalit*, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and $d( the place where the relationship, if an*, between the parties is centeredAs alread* discussed, there is basis for the clai that overall inBur* occurred and lodged in the )hilippines- #here is liewise no 5uestion that private respondent is a resident "ilipina national, woring with petitioner, a resident foreign corporation engaged here in the business of international air carriage- #hus, the QrelationshipK between the parties was centered here, although it should be stressed that this suit is not based on ere labor law violations- "ro the record, the clai that the )hilippines has the ost signi!cant contact with the atter in this dispute, raised b* private respondent as plainti? below against defendant $herein petitioner(, in our view, has been properl* established6#7: #hese Qtest factorsK or Qpoints of contactK or Qconnecting factorsK could be an* of the following: $1( #he nationalit* of a person, his doicile, his residence, his place of soBourn, or his origin $2( the seat of a legal or Buridical person, such as a corporation $<( the situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is deeed to be situated- 'n particular, the leD situs is decisive when real rights are involved $8( the place where an act has been done, the locus actus, such as the place where a contract has been ade, a
arriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort coitted- #he leD loci actus is particularl* iportant in contracts and torts $N( the place where an act is intended to coe into e?ect, e-g-, the place of perforance of contractual duties, or the place where a power of attorne* is to be eDercised $;( the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern their agreeent, the leD loci intentionis $/( the place where Budicial or adinistrative proceedings are instituted or done- #he leD fori O the law of the foru O is particularl* iportant because, as we have seen earlier, atters of QprocedureK not going to the substance of the clai involved are governed b* it and because the leD fori applies whenever the content of the otherwise applicable foreign law is eDcluded fro application in a given case for the reason that it falls under one of the eDceptions to the applications of foreign law and $( the ag of a ship, which in an* cases is decisive of practicall* all legal relationships of the ship and of its aster or owner as such- 't also covers contractual relationships particularl* contracts of a?reightent+ilagros +orada was woring as a stewardess for Saudia Arabian Airlines- 'n 1990, while she and soe coworers were in a la*over in .aarta, 'ndonesia, an Arab coworer tried to rape her in a hotel roo- "ortunatel*, a roobo* heard her cr* for help and two of her Arab coworers were arrested and detained in 'ndonesia- Later, Saudia Airlines re assigned her to wor in their +anila o4ce- hile woring in +anila, Saudia Airlines advised her to eet with a Saudia Airlines o4cer in Saudi- She did but to her surprise, she was brought to a Saudi court where she was interrogated and eventuall* sentenced to N onths iprisonent and 29 lashes she allegedl* violated +usli custos b* part*ing with ales- #he )rince of +aah got wind of her conviction and the )rince deterined that she was wrongfull* convicted hence the )rince absolved her and sent her bac to the )hilippines- Saudia Airlines later on disissed +orada-
+orada then sued Saudia Airlines for daages under Article 19 and 21 of the Civil Code- Saudia Airlines !led a otion to disiss on the ground that the =#C has no Burisdiction over the case because the applicable law should be the law of Saudi Arabia- Saudia Airlines also pra*ed for other reliefs under the preises'SS%7: hether or not Saudia AirlinesR contention is correct7L&: o- "irstl*, the =#C has ac5uired Burisdiction over Saudia Airlines when the latter !led a otion to disiss with petition for other reliefs- #he asing for other reliefs e?ectivel* ased the court to ae a deterination of Saudia AirlinesRs rights hence a subission to the courtRs BurisdictionSecondl*, the =#C has ac5uired Burisdiction over the case because as alleged in the coplaint of +orada, she is bringing the suit for daages under the provisions of our Civil Law and not of the Arabian Law- +orada then has the right to !le it in the GC =#C because under the =ules of Court, a plainti? a* elect whether to !le an action in persona $case at bar( in the place where she resides or where the defendant resides- 6bviousl*, it is well within her right to !le the case here because if sheRll !le it in Saudi Arabia, it will be ver* disadvantageous for her $and of course, again, )hilippine Civil Law is the law invoed( #hirdl*, one iportant test factor to deterine where to !le a case, if there is a foreign eleent involved, is the so called Qlocus actusK or where an act has been done- 'n the case at bar, +orada was alread* woring in +anila when she was suoned b* her superior to go to Saudi Arabia to eet with a Saudia Airlines o4cer- She was not infored that she was going to appear in a court trial- Clearl*, she was defrauded into appearing before a court trial which led to her wrongful conviction- #he act of defrauding, which is tortuous, was coitted in +anila and this led to her huiliation,
iser*, and su?ering- And appl*ing the torts principle in a conicts case, the SC !nds that the )hilippines could be said as a situs of the tort $the place where the alleged tortious conduct too place(UNITED STATES vs. OLER Dece3ber 41, 1952 (1 !6 71)
)A=#'7S: Coplainant and appellant: %nited States &efendants and appellees: illia "owler et- al-
SubBect +atter: Applications of the provisions of Art- 2 of the =evised )enal Code "acts: 'n August 12, 1901, the defendants were accused of the theft of 1; chapagne bottles worth 20 dollars while on board the vessel, QLawtonK- #he counsel for defendants alleged to the Court of "irst 'nstance of +anila that the* were without Burisdiction over the crie charged- Since it happened in the high seas and not in the cit* of +anila or in the territor* in which the Burisdiction of the court eDtends, the* ased that the case be disissed-
"AC#S: August 12, 1901, the defendants were accused of the theft of 1; chapagne bottles worth 20 dollars while on board the vessel QLawtonK- #he counsel for defendants alleged to the Court of "irst 'nstance that the* were without Burisdiction over the crie charged - Since it happened in the high seas and not in the cit* of +anila or in the territor* in which the Burisdiction of the court eDtends, the* ased that the case be disissed'SS%7:hether or not the Court of "irst 'nstance has Burisdiction over cries coitted on the high seas on board of transport not registered in the )hilippines 7L&:o- #he )hilippine court has no Burisdiction over the crie of theft coitted on high seas on board a vessel not registered or licensed in teh )hilippines- #he transport QLawtonK not being a vessel of this class, our courts are without Burisdiction to tae a cognizance of a crie coitted on board the sae #itle: %S v- "owler, 1 )hil- ;18
'ssue: hether or not the Court of "irst 'nstance of +anila has Burisdiction over the criinal case theft coitted on board while navigating on high seas on a vessel not registered in the )hilippineseld:o- #he )hilippine court has Burisdiction over the crie of theft coitted on high seas on board a vessel not registered or licensed in the )hilippines- #he 7nglish =ule states that such cries are triable in our countr* when cries are coitted on board a foreign vessel sailing fro a foreign port and which enters the )hilippine waters- 'n the case at bar, the vessel Lawton was navigating the high seas at the coission of the crie- 3iven the location of the vessel at the tie, such act is not triable within our Burisdiction-
rief "act Suar*- &efendants published an article and reenacted a pla* about )lainti? and his fail* being held hostage- #he article and pla* were false, but were portra*ed b* &efendant to be the truth- )lainti? sued &efendant for
false
light-
S*nopsis of =ule of Law- &efendants published an article and reenacted a pla* about )lainti? and his fail* being held hostage- #he article and pla* were false, but were portra*ed b* &efendant to be the truth- )lainti? sued &efendant for false light"acts- ill $)lainti?(, his wife, and !ve children were held hostage in their suburban )hiladelphia hoe b* three escaped convicts- )lainti? and his fail* were released without an* har but the stor* ade the front pages of the newspapers- )lainti?s then oved to Connecticut- #ie, 'nc$&efendant( published an article that told of a new roadwa* thriller, #he &esperate ours- #he article said )lainti? and his fail* rose in herois in the tie of crisis- #he article included pictures of scenes fro the pla* that was to be reenacted in )lainti?Rs )hiladelphia hoe- )lainti? sued under Sections N0N1 of the ew Hor Civil =ights Law &efendantRs publication of the issues gave the ipression that the pla* was true when in fact it did not accuratel* recount )lainti?Rs actual eDperience and &efendant new the article was false and untrue- &efendant answered that the article was a subBect of a legitiate news article- #he trial Budge denied &efendantRs otion to disiss and the B ur* awarded )lainti? VN0,000 in actual daages and V2N,000 in punitive daages- #he ew Hor Court of Appeals a4red #he Supree Court granted certiorari'ssue- &oes a publication of a false report on a atter of public interest need onl* eet the ew Hor #ies test of actual alice to perit recover* in a lawsuit for false lightW eld- Hes=eversed and reandedX 7Dposure of the self to others in var*ing degrees is a concoitant of life in a civilized counit*- #he ris of their
eDposure is an essential incident of life in a societ*, which places a priar* value on freedo of speech and of press- A broadl* de!ned freedo of the press assures the aintenance of our political s*ste- "ear of litigation will inevitabl* create the danger that the legitiate utterance will be penalized- owever, constitutional guarantees cannot tolerate sanctions against calculated falsehood without signi!cant ipairent of their essential functionX #he evidence in this case reasonabl* would support a Bur* !nding of either innocent or erel* negligent isstateent b* &efendant, or a !nding that &efendant portra*ed the pla* as a reenactent of the ill fail*Rs eDperience recless of the truth or with actual nowledge that the portra*al was false&issent- $.- "ortas( Altering or changing the true facts so the article as published was a !ctionalized account is a nowing or recless falsit* per se- Alteration denotes a positive act and not a negligent or inadvertent happeningConcurrence- #here are two concurring opinions- .ustice arlan concurs in part and dissents in partX $.- &ouglas( 't sees to e to be irrelevant to tal about an* right of privac* in the conteDt of this highl* public event)lainti? was catapulted into the public doain b* events over which he had no control- is activities are now a atter of public doainX $.- arlan( Constitutional standards would be et b* a !nding of negligence b* &efendant- )lainti? is neither a public !gure nor a public o4cial- 't would be unreasonable to assue that )lainti? could !nd a foru for aing a successful refutation of &efendantRs aterial- )lainti? cae to the public attention through an unfortunate circustance and without an* voluntar* acts on his part- e has not waived his privac* nor an* protections a?orded b* the State fro irresponsible publicit*-
&iscussion- Sanctions against either innocent or negligent isrepresentation would present a grave hazard of discouraging the press fro eDercising constitutional guarantees- owever, constitutional guarantees can tolerate sanctions against calculated falsehood without signi!cant ipairent of their essential function- #he trial Budge did not instruct the Bur* properl* in that a !nding of liabilit* could onl* be based on a !nding of nowing and recless falsit* in the publication of the articleESTERN (192;)
E0UI!"ENT
AND
SU!!L
CO :.
REES
Short Suar*: A foreign corporation wanted to enBoin a doestic corporation who intends to use the foreign corp@s nae in =), and would engage in the sae business as the foreign corp, fro using its nae- Court held that even if the corporation is not doing business and is not licensed in the )hilippines, it could still protect the use of its trade nae"acts: a foreign corporation organized under laws of evada was issued a provisional license b* &irector of ureau of Coerce and 'ndustr* it then started iporting and selling in =) electrical and telephone apparatus and supplies anufactured b* estern 7lectric Co $7C international(, a foreign corpo, never licensed nor engaged in business in =) the* had been in the business for the past N0 *ears and have ac5uired high trade reputation eran et- Al !led Articles of 'ncorporation as a )hilippine corp wE nae estern 7lectric Copan* $7C(Y the* are also engaged in anufacturing of electrical and telephone apparatus and supplies-
7C international !led for #ep 'nBunction to stop issuance of certi!cate of incorp for 7C &efense: 7C is a foreign corp not licensed, nor is doing business, in =) so has no legal capacit* to sue 6 7C AS L73AL CA)AC'#H #6 S%7 #6 )=6#7C# '#S =7)%#A#'6 7J7 '" '#S 6# =73'S#7=7& 6= &6'3 %S'7SS ' =)W H7S the right to use the copan*@s corporate and trade nae is a propert* right which a* be asseted against the whole world A6J7= S#A= +'LL'3 J- ALL7 A& 77L7= C6=): tradear acnowledges no territorial boundaries of unicipalities or states or nations, but eDtends to ever* aret where the trader@s goods have becoe nown and identi!ed b* the use of the ar
=A 29<: '#7LL7C#%AL )=6)7=#H C6&7 6" 199 established the 'ntellectual )ropert* 6!ce does not allow corps to register as their trade naes those which are ell nown internationall* and in the =), 6 registered in =) $alread* used as a ar b* soe other person( %sed for identical or siilar goods or services allows a corporation wEc a* not be engaged in business or is not registered in =) to still !le suit $civil or adinistrative( to protect its trade nae $note: onl* owners of registered ars in =) can recover daages for tradear infringeent(
ester$ E<*3e$t vs. Re+es GR 2=89=, 2 Dece3ber 192=> E$ B#$c, -o$s (-) "acts: 'n 192N, estern 75uipent and Suppl* Co- applied for the issuance of a license to engage in business in the )hilippines- 6n the other hand, estern 7lectric Co- has never been licensed to engage in business, nor has it ever engaged in business in the )hilippines- estern 75uipent, since the issuance of its license, engaged in the iportation and sale of electrical and telephone apparatus and supplies anufactured b* estern 7lectric- A local corporation, 7lectric Suppl* Co- 'nc- has been iporting the sae products in the )hilippines- 'n 192;, 7lectric Suppl*Rs president, enr* eran, along with other persons sought to organize a corporation to be nown as estern 7lectric Co- 'nc- estern 75uipent, et al- !led against eran to prevent the fro organizing said corporation- #he trial court ruled in favor of estern 75uipent, holding that the purpose of the incorporation of the proposed corporation is illegal or void-
'ssue: hether the foreign corporation estern 7lectric Co'nc- has right of action to prevent an o4cer of the governent fro issuing a certi!cate of incorporation to )hilippine residents who attept to pirate the corporate nae of the foreign corporation and engage in the sae businesseld: Hes- A tradear boundaries of unicipalities,
acnowledges no
territorial
=ights to the use of its corporate nae or trade nae is a propert* right, a right in re, which it a* assert and protect against the whole world, in an* of the courts in the world M even in Burisdictions where it does not transact business M Bust the sae as it a* protect its tangible propert*, real or personal, against trespass or conversion- #he trial court was correct in holding that the purpose of the proposed
corporation b* eran, et- al- as fraudulent and contrar* to law, as it attepts to unBustl* copete with the real estern 7lectric Co- 'nc- and deceive "ilipinos into thining that the goods the* propose to sell are goods of anufacture of the real estern 7lectric Co- states or nations, but eDtends to ever* aret where the traderRs goods have becoe nown and identi!ed b* the use of the arSterling )roducts Js- "arbenfabrien a*er 3= L1990;, <0 April 19;9 7n anc, Sanchez $.(- "acts: #he a*er Cross in circle Qtradear was registered in 3eran* in 1908 to "arbenfabrien vor- "riedr- a*er $""(, successor to the original "riedr- au*er et- Cop-, and predecessor to "arbenfabrien a*er atiengessel craft $"2(- #he Qa*er, and Qa*er Cross in circleK tradears were ac5uired b* sterling &rug 'nc- when it ac5uired ""Rs subsidiar* a*er Coof ew Hor as a result of the se5uestration of its assets b* the %S Alien )ropert* Custodian during orld ar '- a*er products have been nown in )hilippines b* the close of the 19th centur*- Sterling &rugs, 'nc-, however, owns the tradears Qa*erK in relation to edicine- "A attepted to register its cheical products with the Qa*er Cross in circleK tradears- Sterling )roducts 'nternational and "A see to eDclude each other fro use of the tradears in the )hilippines- #he trial court sustained S)'Rs right to use the a*er tradear for edicines and directed "A to add distinctive word$s( in their ar to indicate their products coe fro 3eran*-K oth appealed- 'ssue: hether S)'Rs ownership of the tradears eDtends to products not related to edicine- eld: o- S)'Rs certi!cates of registration as to the a*er tradears registered in the )hilippines cover edicines onl*- othing in the certi!cates include cheicals or insecticides- S)' thus a* not clai Q!rst useK of the tradears prior to the registrations thereof on an* product other than edicines- "or if otherwise held, a situation a* arise whereb* an applicant a* be tepte
even if he had never intended to use the tradear for the said goods- 6nibus registration is not conteplated b* the #radear Law- #he net result of the decision is that S)' a* hold on its a*er tradear for edicines and "A a* continue using the sae tradears for insecticide and other cheicals, not edicine- #he forula fashioned b* the lower court avoids the ischief of confusion of origin, and does not visit "A with reprobation and condenation- A stateent that its product cae fro 3eran* an*how is but a stateent of factL# Ce3se L#coste vs. er$#$%e GR 74=97?9=, 21 "#+ 198> rst Dvso$, Gterre -r. (-) "acts: La cheise Lacoste is a "rench corporation and the actual owner of the tradears QLacoste,K QCheise Lacoste,K QCrocodile &eviceK and a coposite ar consisting of the word QLacosteK and a representation of a crocodileEalligator, used on clothings and other goods sold in an* parts of the world and which has been areted in the )hilippines $notabl* b* =ustans( since 19;8- 'n 19/N and 19//, eandas G- Co- was issued certi!cate of registration for the tradear QCheise Lacoste and G Crocodile &eviceK both in the suppleental and )rincipal =egistr*- 'n 190, La Cheise Lacoste SA !led for the registration of the QCrocodile deviceK and QLacosteK- 3aes and 3arents $3obindra eandas, assignee of eandas G-Co-( opposed the registration of QLacoste-K 'n 19<, La Cheise Lacoste !led with the ' a lettercoplaint alleging acts of unfair copetition coitted b* eandas and re5uesting the agenc*Rs assistance- A search warrant was issued b* the trial courtJarious goods and articles were seized upon the eDecution of the warrants- eandas !led otion to 5uash the warrants, which the court granted- #he search warrants were recalled, and the goods ordered to be returned- La Cheise Lacoste !led a petition for certiorari-
'ssue: hether the proceedings before the patent o4ce is a preBudicial 5uestion that need to be resolved before the criinal action for unfair copetition a* be pursued- eld: o- #he proceedings pending before the )atent 64ce do not partae of the nature of a preBudicial 5uestion which ust !rst be de!nitel* resolved- #he case which suspends the criinal action ust be a civil case, not a ere adinistrative case, which is deterinative of the innocence or guilt of the accused- #he issue whether a tradear used is di?erent fro anotherRs tradear is a atter of defense and will be better resolved in the criinal proceedings before a court of Bustice instead of raising it as a preliinar* atter in an adinistrative proceeding- 'nasuch as the goodwill and reputation of La Cheise Lacoste products date bac even before 19;8, eandas cannot be allowed to continue the tradear QLacosteK for the reason that he was the !rst registrant in the Suppleental =egister of a tradear used in international coerce- =egistration in the Suppleental =egister cannot be given a posture as if the registration is in the )rincipal =egister- 't ust be noted that one a* be declared an unfair copetitor even if his copeting tradear is registered- La Cheise Lacoste is world renowned ar, and b* virtue of the 20 oveber 190 +eorandu of the +inister of #rade to the director of patents in copliance with the )aris Convention for the protection of industrial propert*, e?ectivel* cancels the registration of contrar* claiants to the enuerated ars, which include QLacoste-K LA C&E"ISE LACOSTE :. ERNANDE' (G.R. NO. L? 74=97?9=)
"acts:)etitioner La Cheise Lacoste is a foreign corporation and the actual owner of the tradears ZLacoste,R ZCheise Lacoste,R and ZCrocodile &eviceR used on clothing and other goods that are sold in an* parts of the world- erein respondent eadas [ Co-, a doestic !r, applied and was
granted registration of the ar ZCheise Lacoste and Crocodile &eviceR for its garent products- Soetie later, petitioner applied for the registration of its ar ZCrocodile &eviceR and ZLacosteR but was opposed b* herein respondentLater, petitioner !led a lettercoplaint of unfair copetition before the ' which led to the issuance of search warrants and the seizure of goods of respondent eadas=espondent oved to 5uash the warrants alleging that its tradear was di?erent fro petitionerRs tradear=espondent court ruled to set aside the warrants and to return the seized goods'ssue:hether or not petitionerRs tradear is a wellnown ar protected under the )aris Convention=uling: H7S'n upholding the right of the petitioner to aintain the present suit before our courts for unfair copetition or infringeent of tradears of a foreign corporation, we are oreover recognizing our duties and the rights of foreign states under the )aris Convention for the )rotection of 'ndustrial )ropert* to which the )hilippines and "rance are parties)ursuant to this obligation, the +inistr* of #rade issued a eorandu addressed to the &irector of the )atents 64ce directing the latter to reBect all pending applications for )hilippine registration of signature and other world faous tradears b* applicants other than its original owners or users- #he conicting clais over internationall* nown tradears involve such nae brands as Lacoste, et- al- 't is further directed that, in cases where warranted, )hilippine registrants of such tradears should be ased to surrender their certi!cates of registration, if an*, to avoid suits for daages and other legal action b* the tradearsR foreign or local owners or original users-
#he 'nterediate Appellate Court, in the La Cheise Lacoste S-A- v- Sadhwani decision which we cite with approval sustained the power of the +inister of #rade to issue the ipleenting eorandu and declared La Cheise Lacoste S-A- the owner of the disputed tradear, stating: Q'n the case at bar, the +inister of #rade, as Zthe copetent authorit* of the countr* of registration,R has found that aong other wellnown tradears ZLacosteR is the subBect of conicting clais- "or this reason, applications for its registration ust be reBected or refused, pursuant to the treat* obligation of the )hilippines-K Advertiseents e66s #ro vs. Co66ector o/ I$ter$#6 Reve$e GR 7=25, 28 -$e 195 rst Dvso$, "or#$ (-)@ 8 concur, 1 concur in result "acts: irdie Lillian 7*e died on 1; Septeber 19<2, at Los Angeles, California, the place of her alleged last residence and doicile- Aong the properties she left was her 1E2 conBugal shares of stoc in the enguet Consolidated +ining Co-, an anon*ous partnership $sociedad anonia(, organized under the laws of the )hilippines- She left a will dul* aditted to probate in California where her estate was adinistered and settledells "argo ban and %nion #rust Co- was dul* appointed trustee of the trust b* the said will- #he "ederal and California StateRs inheritance taDes due thereon have been dul* paid- #he Collector of 'nternal =evenue in the )hilippines, however, sought to subBect the shares of stoc to inheritance taD, to which ells "argo obBected- 'ssue: hether the shares of stoc are subBect to )hilippine inheritance taD considering that the decedent was doiciled in California- eld: 6riginall*, the settled law in the %nited States is that intangibles have onl* one situs for the purpose of inheritance taD, and such situs is in the doicile of the decedent at the tie of his or her death- ut the rule has been relaDed- #he aDi Qobila se5uuntur persona,K
upon which the rule rests, has been decried as a ere Q!ction of law having its origin in considerations of general convenience and public polic*, and cannot be applied to liit or control teh right of the State to taD propert* within its BurisdictionK and ust Q*ield to established fact of legal ownership, actual presence and control elsewhere, and cannot be applied if to do so whould result in inescapable and patent inBustice-K #he relaDation of the original rule rests on either of two fundaental considerations: $1( upon the recognition of the inherent power of each governent to taD persons, properties, and rights within its Burisdiction and enBo*ing, thus, the protection of its laws and $2( upon the principle that as to intangibles, a single location in space is hardl* possible, considering the ultiple, distinct relationships which a* be entered into with respect theretoerein, the actual situs of the shares of stoc is in the )hilippines, the corporation being doiciled therein- #he certi!cates of stoc reained in the )hilippines up to the tie when the deceased died in California, and the* were in possession of one S*rena +c>ee, secretar* of the corporation, to who the* have been delivered and indorsed in blan- +c>ee had the legal title to the certi!cates of stoc held in trust for the true owner thereof- #he owner residing in California has eDtended here her activities with respect to her intangibles so as to avail hereself of the protection and bene!t of )hilippine laws- Accordingl*, the Burisdiction of the )hilippine 3overnent to taD ust be upheld=5 !6. 42; "erc#$t6e L# Cor*or#to$ Co%e S#res o/ Stoc Sts o/ S#res o/ Stoc
'n Septeber 19<2, irdie Lillian 7*e died in Los Angeles, California, %SA which was also her place of doicile- She left various properties- Aong those properties include soe intangibles consisting of /0,000 shares in the enguet Consolidated +ining Copan*, a corporation organized and eDisting under )hilippine laws-
#he Collector of 'nternal =evenue sought to assess and collect estate taD on the said shares- ells "argo ans [ %nion #rust Copan*, the trustee of the estate of the decedent 7*e, obBected to said assessent- ells "argo averred that said shares were alread* subBected to inheritance taD in California and hence cannot be taDed again in the )hilippines $note at that tie the )hilippines was still under the Coonwealth and were not *et totall* independent fro the %S('SS%7: hether or not the shares are subBect to estate taD in the )hilippines7L&: Hes- #he Supree Court ruled that even though the )hilippines was considered a %S territor* at that tie, it is still a separate Burisdiction fro the %S in several aspects particularl* taDation- ence, the )hilippines has the power to taD said shares- #he situs of taDation is here in the )hilippines because the situs of the shares of stoc concerned is here in the )hilippines because of the fact that the said shares were issued here b* a corporation organized and eDisting under the laws of the )hilippines which is also doiciled here"urther, $and this is the deeper reason(, when 7*e was alive, she actuall* delivered the title to said shares to the resident secretar* of the corporation here in the )hilippines hence the shares never left the )hilippinesote: As a rule, intangibles follow the person $obilia se5uuntur persona(- ence, intangibles are taDable in the place where their owner a* be doiciled- owever, Section 108 of the '=C provides that if the shares have attained business situs here in the )hilippines, then said shares are taDable here even if the owner of said shares are doiciled abroad!&ILI! "ORRIS, INC. :S COURT O A!!EALS
3-=- o- 91<<2
.ul* 1;, 199<
"acts: #his is a petition for review under =ule 8N of the =ules of Court, to see the reversal and setting aside of the following issuances of the Court of Appeals $CA()hilip +orris, 'nc- and two other petitioners are ascribing whisical eDercise of the facult* conferred upon agistrates b* Section ;, =ule N of the =evised =ules of Court when respondent Court of Appeals lifted the writ of preliinar* inBunction it earlier had issued against "ortune #obacco Corporation, fro anufacturing and selling Q+A=>K cigarettes in the local aret- aning on the thesis that petitionersR respective s*bols Q+A=> J''K, Z+A=> #7K, and Q+A=>K, also for cigarettes, ust be protected against unauthorized appropriationAll petitioners are not doing business in the )hilippines but are suing on an isolated transaction, #he* 'nvoed provisions of the )aris Convention for the )rotection of 'ndustrial and 'ntellectual )ropert*- As corporate nationals of eber countries of the )aris %nion, the* can sue before )hilippine courts for infringeent of tradears, or for unfair copetition, without need of obtaining registration or a license to do business in the )hilippines, and without necessit* of actuall* doing business in the )hilippines)hilip +orris and its subsidiaries !led the coplaint for infringeent and daages against "ortune #obacco before the )asig =egional #rial Court $=#C( for anufacturing and selling cigarettes bearing the tradear Q+arK which is identical and confusingl* siilar to )hilip +orris tradears #he said act was disissed- ence, this petition at bar-
&iscussions: "ollowing universal ac5uiescence and coit*, our unicipal law on tradears regarding the re5uireent of actual use in the )hilippines ust subordinate an international agreeent inasuch as the apparent clash is being decided b* a unicipal tribunal- ithal, the fact that international law has been ade part of the law of the land does not b* an* eans ipl* the priac* of international law over national law in the unicipal sphere- %nder the doctrine of incorporation as applied in ost countries, rules of international law are given a standing e5ual, not superior, to national legislative enactents =ulingEs: o- #here is no proof that an* of petitionerRs products which the* see to protect fro an* adverse e?ect of the tradear applied for b* defendant, is in actual use and available for coercial purposes an*where in the )hilippinesA fundaental principle of )hilippine #radear Law is that actual use in coerce in the )hilippines is a prere5uisite to the ac5uisition of ownership over a tradear or a trade nae'n view of the eDplicit representation of petitioners in the coplaint that the* are not engaged in business in the )hilippines, it inevitabl* follows that no conceivable daage can be su?ered b* the not to ention the foreost consideration heretofore discussed on the absence of their QrightK to be protected-
'ssueEs:
!&ILI! "ORRIS :. CA (G.R. NO. 91442)
hether or not there has been an invasion of plainti?sR right of propert* to such tradear or trade nae-
"acts:
)etitioners are foreign corporations organized under %S laws not doing business in the )hilippines and registered owners of s*bols Z+A=> J'',R Z+A=> #7,R and ZLA=>R used in their cigarette products- )etitioners oved to enBoin respondent "ortune #obacco fro anufacturing and selling cigarettes bearing the s*bol Z+A=>R asserting that it is identical or confusingl* siilar with their tradears- )etitioners relied on Section 21A of the #radear Law to bring their suit and the )aris Convention to protect their tradears- #he court denied the pra*er for inBunction stating that since petitioners are not doing business in the )hilippines, respondentRs cigarettes would not cause irreparable daage to petitionerCA granted the inBunction but on a subse5uent otion, dissolved the writ'ssues: $1( hether or not petitionerRs ar a* be a?orded protection under said laws $2( hether or not petitioner a* be granted inBunctive relief=uling: $1( 6- Het, insofar as this discourse is concerned, there is no necessit* to treat the atter with an eDtensive response because adherence of the )hilippines to the 19;N international covenant due to pact sunt servanda had been acnowledged in La Cheise- 3iven these conuence of eDisting laws aidst the cases involving tradears, there can be no disagreeent to the guiding principle in coercial law that foreign corporations not engaged in business in the )hilippines a* aintain a cause of action for infringeent priaril* because of Section 21A of the #radear Law when the legal standing to sue is alleged, which petitioners have done in the case at hand-
)etitioners a* have the capacit* to sue for infringeent irrespective of lac of business activit* in the )hilippines on account of Section 21A of the #radear Law but the 5uestion whether the* have an eDclusive right over their s*bol as to Bustif* issuance of the controversial writ will depend on actual use of their tradears in the )hilippines in line with Sections 2 and 2A of the sae law- 't is thus incongruous for petitioners to clai that when a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in )hilippines !les a coplaint for infringeent, the entit* need not be actuall* using its tradear in coerce in the )hilippines- Such a foreign corporation a* have the personalit* to !le a suit for infringeent but it a* not necessaril* be entitled to protection due to absence of actual use of the eble in the local aret$2( 6- +ore telling are the allegations of petitioners in their coplaint as well as in the ver* petition !led with this Court indicating that the* are not doing business in the )hilippines, for these fran representations are inconsistent and incongruent with an* pretense of a right which can breached'ndeed, to be entitled to an inBunctive writ, petitioner ust show that there eDists a right to be protected and that the facts against which inBunction is directed are violative of said right- 6n the econoic repercussion of this case, we are eDtreel* bothered b* the thought of having to participate in throwing into the streets "ilipino worers engaged in the anufacture and sale of private respondentRs Q+A=>K cigarettes who ight be retrenched and forced to Boin the rans of the an* uneplo*ed and unproductive as a result of the issuance of a siple writ of preliinar* inBunction and this, during the pendenc* of the case before the trial court, not to ention the diinution of taD revenues represented to be close to a 5uarter illion pesos annuall*- 6n the other hand, if the status 5uo is aintained, there will be no daage that would be su?ered b* petitioners inasuch as the* are not doing business in the )hilippines- 'n view of the
eDplicit representation of petitioners in the coplaint that the* are not engaged in business in the )hilippines, it inevitabl* follows that no conceivable daage can be su?ered b* the not to ention the foreost consideration heretofore discussed on the absence of their QrightK to be protected"IG&T COR!ORATION #$% LA CA"!ANA ABRICA DE TABACO, INC. vs. E.-. GALLO INER #$% T&E ANDRESONS GROU!, INC.
"AC#S: 6n +arch 12, 199<, respondents sued petitioners in the =#C+aati for tradear and trade nae infringeent and unfair copetition, with a pra*er for daages and preliinar* inBunction-
8- the doinant feature of the 3allo cigarette was the rooster device with the anufacturerRs nae clearl* indicated as +'3#H C6=)6=A#'6, while in the case of 3allo iner*Rs wines, it was the full naes of the founders owners 7=7S# [ .%L'6 3ALL6 or Bust their surnae 3ALL6 6n April 21, 199<, the +aati =#C denied, for lac of erit, respondentRs pra*er for the issuance of a writ of preliinar* inBunction6n August 19, 199<, respondentRs otion for reconsideration was denied6n "ebruar* 20, 199N, the CA liewise respondentRs petition for review on certiorari-
disissed
#he* claied that petitioners adopted the 3allo tradear to ride on 3allo iner*Rs and 3allo and 7rnest [ .ulio 3allo tradearRs established reputation and popularit*, thus causing confusion, deception and istae on the part of the purchasing public who had alwa*s associated 3allo and 7rnest and .ulio [ 3allo tradears with 3allo iner*Rs wines-
After the trial on the erits, however, the +aati =#C, on oveber 2;, 199, held petitioners liable for, peranentl* enBoined fro coitting tradear infringeent and unfair copetition with respect to the 3ALL6 tradear-
'n their answer, petitioners alleged, aong other a4rative defenses that: petitioners 3allo cigarettes and 3allo iner*Rs wine were totall* unrelated products- #o wit:
'SS%7hether 3ALL6 cigarettes and 3ALL6 wines were identical, siilar or related goods for the reason alone that the* were purportedl* fors of vice-
1- 3allo iner*Rs 3ALL6 tradear registration certi!cates covered wines onl*, and not cigarettes
7L& ines and cigarettes are not identical, siilar, copeting or related goods-
2- 3ALL6 cigarettes and 3ALL6 wines were sold through di?erent channels of trade
'n resolving whether goods are related, several factors coe into pla*:
<- the target aret of 3allo iner*Rs wines was the iddle or highincoe bracet while 3allo cigarette bu*ers were farers, !sheren, laborers and other lowincoe worers
6n appeal, the CA a4red the +aati =#CRs decision and subse5uentl* denied petitionerRs otion for reconsideration-
the business $and its location( to which the goods
belong
the class of product to which the good belong
the productRs 5ualit*, 5uantit*, or size, including the nature of the pacage, wrapper or container
the nature and cost of the articles
the descriptive properties, ph*sical attributes or essential characteristics with reference to their for, coposition, teDture or 5ualit*
the purpose of the goods
whether the article is bought for iediate consuption, that is, da*toda* household ites
the !eld of anufacture
the conditions under which the article is usuall* purchased and
the articles of the trade through which the goods ow, how the* are distribted, areted, displa*ed and sold
#he test of fraudulent siulation is to the lielihood of the deception of soe persons in soe easure ac5uainted with an established design and desirous of purchasing the coodit* with which that design has been associated- #he siulation, in order to be obBectionable, ust be as appears liel* to islead the ordinar* intelligent bu*er who has a need to suppl* and is failiar with the article that he sees to purchase #he petitioners are not liable for tradear infringeent, unfair copetition or daages7=7"6=7, petition is grantedG.R. No. 7741 (Nove3ber 17, 1949) "ORAN, -.@
"AC#S:
=espondent 7ugene Arthur )erins instituted an action in the C"' of +anila against the enguet Consolidated +ining Copan* for dividends on shares of stoc registered in his nae, pa*ent of which was being withheld b* the copan* and, for the recognition of his right to the control and disposal of said shares, to the eDclusion of all othersenguet Consolidated +ining Copan*, in its Answer to the Coplaint averred that in connection with the shares of stoc in 5uestion, conicting clais were being ade upon it b* said =espondent 7ugene Arthur )erins, his wife 'donah Slade )erins, and one naed 3eorge - 7ngelhard, and pra*ed that these last two be ade parties to the action and served with Suons b* )ublication, so that the three Claiants a* litigate their conicting clais and settle their rights aong theselves- #he court has 6# issued an 6rder copelling the Conicting Claiants to interplead with one another and litigate their several clais aong theselves, but instead ordered =espondent 7ugene Arthur )erins to aend his Coplaint including the other two Claiants as )arties&efendant#he Coplaint was accordingl* aended and in addition to the relief pra*ed for in the 6riginal Coplaint, =espondent 7ugene Arthur )erins pra*ed that )etitioner 'donah Slade )erins and 3eorge 7ngelhard be adBudged without interest in the shares of stoc in 5uestion and eDcluded fro an* clai the* assert thereon #hereafter, Suons b* )ublication were served upon the nonresident &efendants, 'donah Slade )erins and 3eorge 7ngelhard, pursuant to the 6rder of the trial courtonresident &efendant 7ngelhard !led his Answer to the Aended Coplaint, while )etitioner 'donah Slade )erins, through counsel, !led her pleading entitled QobBection to venue, otion to 5uash, and deurrer to BurisdictionK wherein she challenged the Burisdiction of the lower court over her person)etitionerRs obBection, +otion and &eurrer having been overruled as
well as her +otion for =econsideration of the 6rder of &enial, she now brought the present )etition for Certiorari, pra*ing that the Suons b* )ublication issued against her be declared null and void, and that, with respect to her, =espondent .udge be peranentl* prohibited fro taing an* action on the case'SS%7: hether or not the C"' of +anila has ac5uired Burisdiction over the person of the )etitioner as a nonresident &efendant, or, notwithstanding the want of such Burisdiction, whether or not said court a* validl* tr* the caseW A=3%+7#S: )etitioner contends that the proceeding instituted against her is one of interpleading and is therefore an action in persona- She contends that the lower court had not ac5uired Burisdiction over her person not onl* because she is a nonresident, but also because the court had no Burisdiction over the subBectatter of the action=%L'3: Hes- ere, the service of the Suons b* )ublication was ordered b* the lower court b* virtue of an action 5uasi in re against the nonresident &efendant- #he action being 5uasi in re, the C"' of +anila has Burisdiction over the person of the )etitioner)etition is &7'7& with costs against the )etitioner=A#'6 &7C'&7&': #he general rule is that a suit against a nonresident cannot be entertained b* a )hilippine court- here, however, the action is in re or 5uasi in re in connection with propert* located in the )hilippines, the court ac5uires Burisdiction over
the res, and its Burisdiction over the person of the non resident is nonessential- 'n order that the court a* eDercise power over the res, it is not necessar* that the court should tae actual custod* of the propert*, potential custod* thereof being su4cient- #here is potential custod* when, fro the nature of the action brought, the power of the court over the propert* is ipliedl* recognized b* law\ 'n an action in re or 5uasi in re against a nonresident defendant, Burisdiction over his person is nonessential, and if the law re5uires in such case that the suons upon the defendant be served b* publication, it is erel* to satisf* the constitutional re5uireent of due process #he reason for the rule that )hilippine courts cannot ac5uire Burisdiction over the person of a nonresident, as laid down b* the Supree Court of the %nited States in )enno*er v- e? T1/U, a* be found in a recognized principle of public law to the e?ect that Qno State can eDercise direct Burisdiction and authorit* over persons or propert* without its territor* $Stor*, Con- L-, ch- 2 heat, 'nt- L-, pt- 2, ch- 2(- #he several States are of e5ual dignit* and authorit*, and the independence of one iplies the eDclusion of power fro all others- And so it is laid down b* Burists, as an eleentar* principle, that the laws of one State have no operation outside of its territor*, 7]C7)# so far as is allowed b* coit* and that no tribunal established b* it can eDtend its process be*ond that territor* so as to subBect either persons or propert* to its decisions- QAn* eDertion of authorit* of this sort be*ond this liit,K sa*s Stor*, Qis a ere nullit*, and incapable of binding such persons or propert* in an* other tribunalsK Stor*, Con- L-, sec- N<9^ $)enno*er v- e? T1/U, 9N %-S-, /18 28 Law- ed-, N;N, N;N;9(hen, however, the action relates to propert* located in the )hilippines, the )hilippine courts a* validl* tr* the case, upon the principle that a QState, through its tribunals, a* subBect propert* situated within its liits owned b* non
residents to the pa*ent of the deand of its own citizens against the and the eDercise of this Burisdiction in no respect infringes upon the sovereignt* of the State where the owners are doiciled- 7ver* State owes protection to its citizens and, when nonresidents deal with the, it is a legitiate and Bust eDercise of authorit* to hold and appropriate an* propert* owned b* such nonresidents to satisf* the clais of its citizens- 't is in virtue of the StateRs Burisdiction over the propert* of the nonresident situated within its liits that its tribunals can in5uire into the non residentRs obligations to its own citizens, and the in5uir* can then be carried onl* to the eDtent necessar* to control the disposition of the propert*- 'f the nonresident has no propert* in the State, there is nothing upon which the tribunals can adBudicate-K $)enno*er v- e? T1/U( 'n the instant case, there can be no 5uestion that the action brought b* =espondent 7ugene Arthur )erins in his Aended Coplaint against )etitioner 'donah Slade )erins sees to eDclude her fro an* interest in a propert* located in the )hilippines- #hat propert* consists in certain shares of stocs of the enguet Consolidated +ining Copan*, a sociedad anonia, organized in the )hilippines under the provisions of the Spanish Code of Coerce, with its principal o4ce in the Cit* of +anila and which conducts its ining activities therein- #he situs of the shares is in the Burisdiction where the corporation is created, whether the certi!cated evidencing the ownership of those shares are within or without that Burisdiction- $"letcher C*clopedia Corporations, )eranent ed- Jol- 11, p- 9N(- %nder these circustances, SC holds that the action thus brought is 5uasi in re, for while the Budgeent that a* be rendered therein is not strictl* a Budgent in re, Qit !Des and settles the title to the propert* in controvers* and to that eDtent partaes of the nature of the Budgent in reK $N0 C-.-, p N0<(- As held b* the Supree Court of the %nited States in )enno*er ve? T1/U:
't is true that, in a strict sense, a proceeding in re is one taen directl* against propert*, and has for its obBect the disposition of the propert*, without reference to the title of individual claiants but, in a large and ore general sense, the ters are applied to actions between parties, where the direct obBect is to reach and dispose of propert* owned b* the, or of soe interest therein #he action being in 5uasi in re, the C"' of +anila has Burisdiction over the person of the )etitioner- 'n order to satisf* the constitutional re5uireent of due process, Suons has been served upon her b* publication #here is no 5uestion as to the ade5uac* of publication ade nor as to the ailing of the 6rder of )ublication to the )etitionerRs last nown place of residence in the %nited States- ut, of course, the action being 5uasi in re and notice having be ade b* publication, the relief that a* be granted b* the )hilippine court ust be con!ned to the res, it having no Burisdiction to render a personal Budgent against the nonresident- 'n the Aended Coplaint !led b* =espondent 7ugene Arthur )erins, no one* Budgent or other relief in persona is pra*ed for against the )etitioner #he onl* relief sought therein is that she be declared to be without an* interest in the shares in controvers* and that she be eDcluded fro an* clai thereto v "#r$#+ 2514 "AC#S: )etitioner +inoru "uBii $"uBii( is a .apanese national who arried respondent +aria )az 3alela +arina* $+arina*( in the )hilippines on 2< .anuar* 2008- #he arriage did not sit well with petitionerRs parents- #hus, "uBii could not bring his wife to .apan where he resides- 7ventuall*, the* lost contact with each other-
'n 200, +arina* et another .apanese, Shinichi +aeara $+aeara(- ithout the !rst arriage being dissolved,
+arina* and +aeara were arried on 1N +a* 200 in Guezon Cit*, )hilippines- +aeara brought +arina* to .apanowever, +arina* allegedl* su?ered ph*sical abuse fro +aeara- She left +aeara and started to contact "uBii"uBii and +arina* et in .apan and the* were able to reestablish their relationship- 'n 2010, "uBii helped +arina* obtain a Budgent fro a fail* court in .apan which declared the arriage between +arina* and +aeara void on the ground of biga*- 6n 18 .anuar* 2011, "uBii !led a petition in the =#C entitled: Q.udicial =ecognition of "oreign .udgent $or &ecree of Absolute ullit* of +arriage(-K &7C'S'6 6" L67= C6%=#S: $1( =#C: disissed the petition for I.udicial =ecognition of "oreign .udgent _$or &ecree of Absolute ullit* of +arriage(I based on iproper venue and the lac of personalit* of petitioner, +inoru "uBii, to !le the petition-
'SS%7S [ =%L'3: $1( hether the =ule on &eclaration of Absolute ullit* of Joid +arriages and Annulent of Joidable +arriages $A-+o021110SC( is applicableo- =ule on &eclaration of Absolute ullit* of Joid +arriages and Annulent of Joidable +arriages $A-+- o- 021110SC( does not appl* in a petition to recognize a foreign Budgent relating to the status of a arriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign countr*- +oreover, in .ulianoLlave v=epublic, this Court held that the rule in A-+- o- 02 1110 SC that onl* the husband or wife can !le a declaration of nullit* or annulent of arriage Qdoes not appl* if the reason behind the petition is biga*-K hile the )hilippines has no divorce law, the .apanese "ail* Court Budgent is full* consistent with )hilippine public polic*, as bigaous
arriages are declared void fro the beginning under Article
$2( hether a husband or wife of a prior arriage can !le a petition to recognize a foreign Budgent nullif*ing the subse5uent arriage between his or her spouse and a foreign citizen on the ground of biga*-
Hes- QTtUhe recognition of the foreign divorce decree a* be ade in a =ule 10 proceeding itself, as the obBect of special proceedings $such as that in =ule 10 of the =ules of Court( is precisel* to establish the status or right of a part* or a particular fact-K=ule 10, Section 1 of the =ules of Court states: Sec- 1- ho a* !le petition- O An* person interested in an* act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil register, a* !le a veri!ed petition for the cancellation or correction of an* entr* relating thereto, with the =egional #rial Court of the province where the corresponding civil registr* is located$7phasis supplied( #here is no doubt that the prior spouse has a personal and aterial interest in aintaining the integrit* of the arriage he contracted and the propert* relations arising fro it-
$<( hether the =egional #rial Court can recognize the foreign Budgent in a proceeding for cancellation or
correction of entries in the Civil =egistr* under =ule 10 of the =ules of Court-
Citation: 3-=- o- 19;089, .une 2;, 201< )onente: Carpio S7C6& &'J'S'6 &octrine:
Hes- #here is neither circuvention of the substantive and procedural safeguards of arriage under )hilippine law, nor of the Burisdiction of "ail* Courts under =-A- o- <;9- A recognition of a foreign Budgent is not an action to nullif* a arriage- 't is an action for )hilippine courts to recognize the e?ectivit* of a foreign Budgent, which presupposes a case which was alread* tried and decided under foreign law'n the recognition of foreign Budgents, )hilippine courts are incopetent to substitute their Budgent on how a case was decided under foreign law- #he* cannot decide on the Qfail* rights and duties, or on the status, condition and legal capacit*K of the foreign citizen who is a part* to the foreign Budgent- #hus, )hilippine courts are liited to the 5uestion of whether to eDtend the e?ect of a foreign Budgent in the )hilippines- 'n a foreign Budgent relating to the status of a arriage involving a citizen of a foreign countr*, )hilippine courts onl* decide whether to eDtend its e?ect to the "ilipino part*, under the rule of leD nationalii eDpressed in Article 1N of the Civil Code"or this purpose, )hilippine courts will onl* deterine $1( whether the foreign Budgent is inconsistent with an overriding public polic* in the )hilippines and $2( whether an* alleging part* is able to prove an eDtrinsic ground to repel the foreign Budgent, i-e- want of Burisdiction, want of notice to the part*, collusion, fraud, or clear istae of law or fact- 'f there is neither inconsistenc* with public polic* nor ade5uate proof to repel the Budgent, )hilippine courts should, b* default, recognize the foreign Budgent as part of the coit* of nationsU-II vs. "ARINA
=ecognition of foreign Budgent declaring nullit* of arriage M A recognition of a foreign Budgent is not an action to nullif* a arriage- 't is an action for )hilippine courts to recognize the e?ectivit* of a foreign Budgent, which presupposes a case which was alread* tried and decided under foreign law- Article 2; of the "ail* Code further confers Burisdiction on )hilippine courts to eDtend the e?ect of a foreign divorce decree to a "ilipino spouse without undergoing trial to deterine the validit* of the dissolution of the arriage- #he second paragraph of Article 2; of the "ail* Code provides that QTwUhere a arriage between a "ilipino citizen and a foreigner is validl* celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validl* obtained abroad b* the alien spouse capacitating hi or her to rearr*, the "ilipino spouse shall have capacit* to rearr* under )hilippine law-K "AC#S: )etitioner +inoru "uBii $"uBii(, a .apanese national arried respondent +aria )az 3alela +arina* $+arina*( in the )hilippines on .anuar* 2<, 2008- Sadl*, petitioner "uBii could not bring respondent +arina* bac to .apan and the* eventuall* lost contact with one another- 'n 200, +arina* et Shinichi +aeara and the* arried without the earlier arriage being dissolved- +arina* su?ered abuse fro +aeara and so she left hi and was able to reestablish contact with "uBii and reindle their relationship- #he couple was able to obtain a Budgent in a .apanese court that declared +arina*@s arriage to +aeara void on the ground of biga* in 2010- "uBii then !led a petition in the =#C entitled: Q.udicial =ecognition of "oreign .udgent $or
&ecree of Absolute ullit* of +arriage(Kpetitioner pra*ed that:
'n this case,
$1( the .apanese "ail* Court Budgent be recognized $2( that the bigaous arriage between +arina* and +aeara be declared void ab initio under Articles
'SS%7: hether or not a husband or wife of a prior arriage can !le a petition to recognize a foreign Budgent nullif*ing the subse5uent arriage between his or her spouse and a foreign citizen on the ground of biga*7L&: H7S- "irstl*, the =ule on &eclaration of Absolute ullit* of Joid +arriages and Annulent of Joidable +arriages $A-+o- 021110SC( does not appl* in a petition to recognize a foreign Budgent relating to the status of a arriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign countr*- +oreover, in .ulianoLlave v- =epublic, this Court held that the rule in A-+- o- 021110SC that onl* the husband or wife can !le a declaration of nullit* or annulent of arriage Qdoes not appl* if the reason behind the petition is biga*-K #he Supree Court further held that: "or )hilippine courts to recognize a foreign Budgent relating to the status of a arriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign countr*, the petitioner onl* needs to prove the foreign Budgent as a fact under the =ules of Court- #o be ore speci!c, a cop* of the foreign Budgent a* be aditted in evidence and proven as a fact under =ule 1<2, Sections 28 and 2N, in relation to =ule <9, Section 8$b( of the =ules of Court- )etitioner a* prove the .apanese "ail* Court Budgent through $1( an o4cial publication or $2( a certi!cation or cop* attested b* the o4cer who has custod* of the Budgent- 'f the o4ce which has custod* is in a foreign countr* such as .apan, the certi!cation a* be ade b* the proper diploatic or consular o4cer of the )hilippine foreign service in .apan and authenticated b* the seal of o4ceA petition to recognize a foreign Budgent declaring a arriage void does not re5uire relitigation under a )hilippine court of the case as if it were a new petition for declaration of nullit* of arriage- )hilippine courts cannot presue to now the foreign laws under which the foreign Budgent was
rendered- #he* cannot substitute their Budgent on the status, condition and legal capacit* of the foreign citizen who is under the Burisdiction of another state- #hus, )hilippine courts can onl* recognize the foreign Budgent as a fact according to the rules of evidence #here is therefore no reason to disallow "uBii to sipl* prove as a fact the .apanese "ail* Court Budgent nullif*ing the arriage between +arina* and +aeara on the ground of biga*- hile the )hilippines has no divorce law, the .apanese "ail* Court Budgent is full* consistent with )hilippine public polic*, as bigaous arriages are declared void fro the beginning under Article
"AC#S 'n 19/9 to 191, )hilippine 'nternational Shipping Corporation $)'SC( leased fro 'nterpool Ltd- and its wholl* owned subsidiar*, the Container #rading Corporation, several containers pursuant to the +ebership Agreeent and iring Conditions and the +aster 75uipent Leasing Agreeent both dated .une , 19/9- #he other petitioners )hilippine Construction Consortiu Corporation, )aci!c +ills 'nc- and %niversal Steel Selting Copan*, guaranteed to pa* the obligation due and an* liabilit* of the )'SC arising out of the leasing or purchasing of e5uipent'n 19/9 to 191, )'SC incurred outstanding and unpaid obligations with 'nterpool, in the aount of V98,8N;-2, representing unpaid per dies, dropo? charges, interest and other agreed charges, resulting in a case before the %S &istrict Court, Southern &istrict of ew Hor wherein a default Budgent against petitioners was rendered ordering the corpto pa* in the aount of V0,//9-<<, as li5uidated daages, together with interest in the aount of V1<,;/;-9N and costs in the aount of V0-00- or for a total Budgent of V98,8N;-2- #o enforce the default Budgent of the %S &istrict Court, a coplaint was instituted against )'SC and other guarantors before the GC =#C- )'SC failed to answer the coplaint and the* were declared in default- #he =#C ruled in favor of 'nterpool and which was a4red b* the CA-
'n the !rst instance, petitioners contend that the %-S- &istrict Court never ac5uired Burisdiction over their persons as the* had not been served with suons and a cop* of the Coplaint in < Civil 290 $7(- 'n the second instance, petitioners contend that such Burisdictional in!rit* e?ectivel* prevented the =egional #rial Court of Guezon Cit* fro taing cognizance of the Coplaint in Civil Case o- G <992/ and fro enforcing the %-S- &istrict Court@s &efault .udgent against the- )etitioners contend, !nall*, that
assuing the validit* of the disputed &efault .udgent, the sae a* be enforced onl* against petitioner )'SC the 9 petitioners not having been ipleaded originall* in the case !led in ew Hor, %-S-A'SS%7 E the %S &istrict Court default Budgent can be enforced and against the 9 other petitionersW Hes=%L'3 #o begin with, the evidence of record clearl* shows that the %-S- &istrict Court had validl* ac5uired Burisdiction over )'SC under the procedural law applicable in that foru i-e-, the %-S- "ederal =ules on Civil )rocedure- Copies of the Suons and Coplaint which were in fact attached to the )etition for =eview !led with the SC, were staped I=eceived, 1 .an 19<, )'SC +anila-I indicating that service thereof had been ade upon and acnowledged b* the )'SC o4ce in +anila on, 1 .anuar* 19< #hat foreign Budgent which had becoe !nal and eDecutor*, no appeal having been taen therefro and perfected b* petitioner )'SCis thus Ipresuptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest b* a subse5uent title-I #he SC note, further that there has been in this case no showing b* petitioners that the &efault .udgent rendered b* the %-S&istrict Court was vitiated b* Iwant of notice to the part*, collusion, fraud, or clear istae of law or fact- I 'n other words, the &efault .udgent iposing upon petitioner )'SC a liabilit* of %-S-V98,8N;-2 in favor of respondent 'nterpool, is valid and a* be enforced in this Burisdiction #he eDistence of liabilit* on the part of petitioner )'SC having been dul* established in the %-S- case, it was not iproper for respondent 'nterpool, in seeing enforceent in this Burisdiction of the foreign Budgent iposing such liabilit*, to have included the other 9 petitioners herein $i-e-, 3eorge Li, +arcos autista, Carlos Laude,#an Sing Li, Antonio Liu Lao, 6ng #eh )hilippine Consortiu Construction Corporation, )aci!c +ills, 'nc- and %niversal Steel Selting Co-, 'nc-( as
defendants in Civil Case o- G <992/, !led with ranch 9< of the =egional #rial Court of Guezon Cit*- #he record shows that said 9 petitioners had eDecuted continuing guaranteesI to secure perforance b* petitioner )'SC of its contractual obligations- As guarantors, the* had held theselves out as liable- Iwhether Bointl*, severall*, or in the alternative,I to respondent 'nterpool under their separate Icontinuing guaranteesI eDecuted in the )hilippines- #he ew Hor award of %-S-V98,8N;-2 is precisel* preised upon a breach b* )'SC of its own obligations under those Agreeents- #he SC consider the 9 other petitioners as persons against who TaU right to relief in respect to or arising out of the sae transaction or series of transactions Thas beenU alleged to eDistI and, conse5uentl*, properl* ipleaded as defendants in Civil Case o- G<992/- #here was, in other words, no need at all, in order that Civil Case o- G<992/ would prosper, for respondent 'nterpool to have !rst ipleaded the 9 other petitioners in the ew Hor case and there obtain Budgent against all 10 petitionersBOUDARD vs. TAIT
"AC#S T7ilie =enee oudard, as widow of +arie #heodore .eroe oudard and as guardian of their children, obtained a favorable Budgent fro the Court of "irst 'nstance of anoi, "rench 'ndoChina, for the su of 80,000 piastras, against Stewart 7ddie #ait who had been declared in default for his failure to appear at the trial- Said Budgent was based on the fact that +r- oudard, who was an eplo*ee of #ait, was illed in anoi b* coeplo*ees although outside the ful!ll ent of a dut*-
7ilie ouderd !led a petition with the C"' of +anila for the eDecution of the anoi Budgent but the court disissed the coplaint on the ground of lac of Burisdiction of the anoi Court, #ait not being a resident of that countr*-
=%L'3
'n view of the foregoing considerations, our conclusion is that we !nd no erit in the errors assigned to the lower court and the appealed Budgent is in accordance with the law-I
I- --'t is said that the "rench law regarding suons, according to its 7nglish translation presented b* the appel lants, is of the following tenor:
SOORA-"ULL NAGAR"ULL vs. BINALBAGAN?ISABELA SUGAR CO"!AN, INC. G.R. No. L?22=5> "#+ 28, 19=5
IS7C- ;9 $par- (- #hose who have no nown residence in "rance, in the place of their present residence if the place is unnown, the writ shall be posted at the ain door of the hall of the court where the Coplaint has been !led a second cop* shall be given to the Attorne*3eneral of the =epublic who shall visae the origilLal-I ut then, 7Dhibits 7, 71, " and "1 show that the suons alleged to have been addressed to the appellee, was delivered in +anila on Septeber 1, 19<<, to .-+- Shotwell, a representative or agent of Churchill [ #ait, 'nc-, which is an entit* entirel* di?erent fro the appellee-
"acts: %nder a Contract dated +a* ;, 1989, plainti?, a foreign corporation with o4ces at Calcutta, 'ndia, agreed to sell to defendant, a doestic corporation with o4ces at the +anila, 1,/00,000 pieces of essian bags at V2;-20 per 100 bags, C-'-"- 'loilo- Shipent of these bags was to be ade in e5ual installents of 82N,000 pcs- or 82N bales during each of the onths of .ul*, August, Septeber and 6ctober, 1989-
+oreover, the evidence of record shows that the appellee was not in anoi during the tie entioned in the coplaint of the appellants, nor were his eplo*ees or representatives #he rule in atters of this nature is that Budicial proceedings in a foreign countr*, regarding pa*ent of one*, are onl* e?ective against a part* if suons is dul* served on hi within such foreign countr* before the proceedings- I#he fundaental rule is that Burisdiction in persona, over nonresidents, so as to sustain a one* Budgent, ust be based upon personal service within the state which renders the Budgent't can not be said that the decision rendered b* the Court of anoi should be conclusive to such an eDtent that it cannot be contested, for it erel* constitutes, fro the viewpoint of our laws, pria facie evidence of the Bustness of appellants@ clai, and, as such, naturall* adits proof to the contrar*---
6n Septeber , 1989, plainti? advised defendant that of the N0 bales scheduled for shipent in .ul* and August, the forer was able to ship onl* <10 bales owing to the alleged failure of the AdaBee .ute +ills to suppl* the goods in due tie- 'n a letter dated Septeber 29, 1989, defendant re5uested plainti? to ship 100 bales of the N80 bales defaulted fro the .ul* and August shipents- 'n this connection, it a* also be entioned that of the 82N bales scheduled for shipent in Septeber, N8 bales were liewise defaulted resulting in a total of 1N8 bales which is now the obBect of the controvers*+eanwhile, on 6ctober 1, 1989, the 3overnent of 'ndia increased the eDport dut* of Bute bags fro 0 to
)lainti? applied to said #ribunal for arbitration regarding their clai- #he #ribunal re5uested the defendant to send the its version of the case- #his, defendant did on +arch 1, 19N1, thru the then 3overnent Corporate Counsel, forer .ustice )ope*o &iaz #he engal Chaber of Coerce, #ribunal of Arbitration, refused to sustain defendantRs contention and decided in favor of the plainti?, ordering the defendant to pa* to the plainti? the su of 1,N;2 rupees and annas- #his award was thereafter referred to the Calcutta igh Court which issued a decree a4ring the award'ssue: 6 the decision of the #ribunal of Arbitration of the engal Chaber of Coerce, as a4red b* the igh Court of .udicature of Calcutta, is enforceable in the )hilippineseld: %nder the =ules, a Budgent for a su of one* rendered b* a foreign court Qis presuptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest b* a subse5uent titleK, but when suit for its enforceent is brought in a )hilippine court, said Budgent Qa* be repelled b* evidence of a want of Burisdiction, want of notice to the part*, collusion, fraud, or clear istae of law or factK #here is no 5uestion at all that appellee was guilt* of a breach of contract when it failed to deliver onehundred !ft* four essian bales which, according to the contract entered into with appellant, should have been delivered to the latter in the onths of .ul*, August and Septeber, all of the *ear 1989- 't is e5uall* clear be*ond doubt that had these one hundred !ft*four bales been delivered in accordance with the contract aforesaid, the increase in the eDport taD due upon the would not have been iposed because said increased eDport taD becae e?ective onl* on 6ctober 1, 1989-
#o the eDtent, therefore, that the decisions of the #ribunal of Arbitration of the engal Chaber of Coerce and of the igh Court of .udicature of Calcutta fail to appl* to the facts of this case fundaental principles of contract, the sae a* be ipeached, as the* have been su4cientl* ipeached b* appellant, on the ground of Qclear istae of lawK- e can not sanction a clear istae of law that would wor an obvious inBustice upon appellantNortest Ore$t Ar6$es v. CA 21 SCRA 192 F199;
"AC#S T'n 19/8, an 'nternational )assenger Sales Agenc* Agreeent was entered into b* plainti? orthwest 6rient Airlines $orthwest( and defendant C-"- Sharp [ Co- $Sharp(, through its .apan branch, whereb* orthwest authorized Sharp to sell the forer@s airlines ticetsSharp failed to reit the proceeds of the ticet sales it ade on behalf of orthwest under the agreeent which led the latter to sue in #o*o for collection of the unreitted aount, with clai for daages #he #o*o &istrict Court of .apan issued a writ of suons against Sharp at its o4ce in Hoohaa, .apan but the baili? failed twice to serve the writs- "inall*, the #o*o &istrict Court decided to have the writs of suons served at Sharp@s head o4ce in +anila- Sharp accepted the writs but despite such receipt, it failed to appear at the hearings- #he &istrict Court proceeded to hear the coplaint and rendered Budgent ordering Sharp to pa* orthwest the su of <,1N,19N Hen plus daages- Sharp failed to appeal and the Budgent becae !nal and eDecutor*orthwest failed to eDecute the decision in .apan, hence, it !led a suit for enforceent of the Budgent before the =egional #rial Court of +anila- Sharp !led its answer averring that the Budgent of the .apanese court is null and void and unenforceable in this Burisdiction having been rendered without due and proper notice to Sharp-
#he case for enforceent of Budgent was tried on the erits- Sharp !led a +otion for .udgent on a &eurrer to 7vidence- #he trial court granted the deurrer otion, hold ing that the foreign Budgent in the .apanese court sought to be enforced is null and void for want of Burisdiction over the person of the defendant- orthwest appealed but the Court of Appeals sustained the trial court, holding that the process of the court has no eDtraterritorial e?ect and no Burisdiction was ac5uired over the person of the defendant b* serving hi be*ond the boundaries of the state- ence, this appeal b* orthwest-U =%L'3: IA foreign Budgent is presued to be valid and binding in the countr* fro which it coes, until the contrar* is shown- 't is also proper to presue the regularit* of the proceedings and the giving of due notice therein%nder Section N0, =ule <9 of the =ules of Court, a Budgent in an action in persona of a tribunal of a foreign countr* having Burisdiction to pronounce the sae is presuptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successorsininterest b* a subse5uent title- #he Budgent a*, however, be assailed b* evidence of want of Burisdiction, want of notice to the part*, collusion, fraud, or clear istae of law or fact- Also, under Section < of =ule 1<1, a court, whether of the )hilippines or elsewhere, enBo*s the presuption that it was acting in the lawful eDercise of Burisdiction and has regularl* perfored its o4cial dut*-
Conse5uentl*, the part* attacing a foreign Budgent has the burden of overcoing the presuption of its validit*- eing the part* challenging the Budgent rendered b* the .apanese court, SA=) had the dut* to deonstrate the invalidit* of such Budgent- 'n an attept to discharge that burden, it contends that the eDtraterritorial service of suons e?ected as its hoe o4ce in the )hilippines was not onl* ine?ectual but also void, and the .apanese Court did not, therefore, ac5uire Burisdiction over it't is settled that atters of reed* and procedure such as those relating to the service of process upon a defendant are governed b* the leD fori or the internal law of the foru- 'n this case, it is the procedural law of .apan where the Budgent was rendered that deterines the validit* of the eDtraterritorial service@of process on SA=)- As to what this law is is a 5uestion of fact, not of law- 't a* not be taen Budicial notice of and ust be pleaded and proved lie an* other fact- Sections 28 and 2N, =ule 1<2 of the =ules of Court provide that it a* be evidenced b* an o4cial publication or b* a dul* attested or authenticated cop* thereof- 't was then incubent upon SA=) to present evidence as to what that .apanese procedural law is and to show taat under it, the assailed eDtraterritorial service is invalid- 't did not- Accord ingl*, the presuption of validit* and regularit* of the service of suons and the decision thereafter rendered b* the .apanese court ust standAlternativel*, in the light of the absence of proof regarding .apanese law, the presuption of identit* or siilarit* or the socalled processual presupcion a* be invoed- Appl*ing it, the .apanese law on the atter is presued to be siilar with the )hilippine law on service of suons on a private foreign corporation doing business ir, the )hilippines- Section 18 of the =ules of Court provides that if the defendant is a foreign corporation doing business in the )hilippines, service a* be ade: 1( on its resident agent designated in
accordance with law for that purpose, or 2( if there is no such resident agent, on the governent o4cial designated b* law to that e?ect, or <( on an* of its o4cers or agents within the )hilippines'f the foreign corporation has designated an agent to receive suons, the designation is eDclusive, and service of suons is without force and gives the court no Burisdiction unless ade upon hihere the corporation has no such great agent, service shall be ade on the governent o4cial designated b* law, to wit: $a( the 'nsurance Coissioner, in the case of a foreign insurance copan* $b( the Superintendent of ans, in the case of a foreign baning corporation and $c( the Securities and 7Dchange Coission, in the case of other foreign corporations dul* licensed to do business in the )hilippineshenever service of process is so ade, the governent o4ce or o4cial served shall transit b* ail a cop* of the suons or other legal process to the corporation at its hoe or principal o4ce- #he sending of such cop* is a necessar* part of the serviceowhere in its pleadings did SA=) profess to having had a resident agent authorized to receive court processes in .apan- #his silence could onl* ean, or at least create an ipression, that it had none- ence, service on the designated governent o4cial or an* of its o4cers or agents in .apan could be availed ofAs found b* the Court of Appeals, it was the #o*o &istrict Court which ordered that suons for SA=) be served at its head o4ce in the )hilippines after the two attepts of service had failed- #he #o*o &istrict Court re5uested the Supree Court of .apan to cause the deliver* of the suons and other legal docuents to the )hilippinesActing on that re5uest, the Supree Court of .apan sent the suons together with the other legal docuents to the
+inistr* of "oreign A?airs of .apan, which in turn, forwarded the sae to the .apanese 7bass* in +anila- #hereafter, the court processes were delivered to the +inistr* $now &epartent( of "oreign A?airs of the )hilippines then to the 7Decutive .udge of the Court of "irst 'nstance $now =egional #rial Court( of +anila, who forthwith ordered &eput* Sheri? =olando alingit to serve the sae on SA=) at its principal o4ce in +anila- #his service is e5uivalent to service on the proper governent o4cial under Section 18, =ule 18 of the =ules of Court, in relation to Section 12 of the Corporation Code- ence, SA=)@s contention that such anner of service is not valid under )hilippine law holds no water'nasuch as SA=) was adittedl* doing business in .apan through its four registered branches at the tie the collection suit against it was !led, then in the light of the processual presuption, SA=) a* be deeed a resident of .A)A, and, as such, was aenable to the Burisdiction of the courts therein and a* be deeed to have assented to the said courts@ lawful ethods of serving processAccordingl*, the eDtraterritorial service of suons on it b* the .apanese Court was valid not onl* under the processual presuption but also because of the presuption of regularit* of perforance of o4cial dut*NORT&EST ORIENT AIRLINES, INC. vs. CA #$% C.. S&AR! H CO"!AN INC. G.R. No. 112;=4 ebr#r+ 9, 199;
"AC#S: )etitioner orthwest 6rient Airlines, 'nc$6=#7S#(, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of +innesota, %-S-A-, sought to enforce in the =#C +anila, a Budgent rendered in its favor b* a .apanese court against private respondent C-"- Sharp [ Copan*, 'nc-, $SA=)(, a corporation incorporated under )hilippine lawsfactual and procedural antecedents of this controvers*:
6n +a* 9, 19/8, orthwest Airlines and Sharp, through its .apan branch, entered into an 'nternational )assenger Sales Agenc* Agreeent, whereb* the forer authorized the latter to sell its air transportation ticets- %nable to reit the proceeds of the ticet sales ade b* defendant on behalf of the plainti? under the said agreeent, plainti? on +arch 2N, 190 sued defendant in #o*o, .apan, for collection of the unreitted proceeds of the ticet sales, with clai for daages-
rendered Budgent ordering the defendant to pa* the plainti? the su of <,1N,19N Hen and daages for dela* at the rate of ; per annu fro August 2, 190 up to and until pa*ent is copleted $pp- 1218, =ecords(-
6n April 11, 190, a writ of suons was issued b* the <;th Civil &epartent, #o*o &istrict Court of .apan against defendant at its o4ce at the #aihei*o uilding, anagawa )refecture #he attept to serve the suons was unsuccessful because the baili? was advised b* a person in the o4ce that +r- &inozo, the person believed to be authorized to receive court processes was in +anila and would be bac on April 28, 190-
)lainti? was unable to eDecute the decision in .apan, hence, on +a* 20, 19<, a suit for enforceent of the Budgent was !led b* plainti? before the =egional #rial Court of +anila ranch N8-
6n April 28, 190, baili? returned to the defendantRs o4ce to serve the suons- +r- &inozo refused to accept the sae claiing that he was no longer an eplo*ee of the defendantAfter the two attepts of service were unsuccessful, the Budge of the #o*o &istrict Court decided to have the coplaint and the writs of suons served at the head o4ce of the defendant in +anila- 6n .ul* 11, 190, the &irector of the #o*o &istrict Court re5uested the Supree Court of .apan to serve the suons through diploatic channels upon the defendantRs head o4ce in +anila6n August 2, 190, defendant received fro &eput* Sheri? =olando alingit the writ of suons $p- 2/;, =ecords(&espite receipt of the sae, defendant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing- #hus, the #o*o Court proceeded to hear the plainti?Rs coplaint and on T.anuar* 29, 191U,
6n +arch 28, 191, defendant received fro &eput* Sheri? alingit cop* of the Budgent- &efendant not having appealed the Budgent, the sae becae !nal and eDecutor*-
defendant !led its answer averring that the Budgent of the .apanese Court: $1( the foreign Budgent sought to be enforced is null and void for want of Burisdiction and $2( the said Budgent is contrar* to )hilippine law and public polic* and rendered without due process of law'n its decision, the Court of Appeals sustained the trial court't agreed with the latter in its reliance upon oudard vs- #ait wherein it was held that Qthe process of the court has no eDtraterritorial e?ect and no Burisdiction is ac5uired over the person of the defendant b* serving hi be*ond the boundaries of the state-K #o support its position, the Court of Appeals further stated: 'n an action strictl* in persona, such as the instant case, personal service of suons within the foru is re5uired for the court to ac5uire Burisdiction over the defendant $+agdalena 7state 'nc- vs- ieto, 12N SC=A 2<0(- #o confer Burisdiction on the court, personal or substituted service of suons on the defendant not eDtraterritorial service is necessar*'SS%7: whether a .apanese court can ac5uire Burisdiction over a )hilippine corporation doing business in .apan b* serving
suons through diploatic channels on the )hilippine corporation at its principal o4ce in +anila after prior attepts to serve suons in .apan had failed7L&: H7S- A foreign Budgent is presued to be valid and binding in the countr* fro which it coes, until the contrar* is shown- 't is also proper to presue the regularit* of the proceedings and the giving of due notice therein- ; #he Budgent a*, however, be assailed b* evidence of want of Burisdiction, want of notice to the part*, collusion, fraud, or clear istae of law or fact-$See Sec- N0, = <9( eing the part* challenging the Budgent rendered b* the .apanese court, SA=) had the dut* to deonstrate the invalidit* of such Budgent't is settled that atters of reed* and procedure such as those relating to the service of process upon a defendant are governed b* the leD fori or the internal law of the foru- 'n this case, it is the procedural law of .apan where the Budgent was rendered that deterines the validit* of the eDtraterritorial service of process on SA=)- As to what this law is is a 5uestion of fact, not of law't was then incubent upon SA=) to present evidence as to what that .apanese procedural law is and to show that under it, the assailed eDtraterritorial service is invalid- 't did notAccordingl*, the presuption of validit* and regularit* of the service of suons and the decision thereafter rendered b* the .apanese court ust standAlternativel* in the light of the absence of proof regarding .apanese law, the presuption of identit* or siilarit* or the socalled processual presuption a* be invoed- Appl*ing it, the .apanese law on the atter is presued to be siilar with the )hilippine law on service of suons on a private foreign corporation doing business in the )hilippinesSection 18, =ule 18 of the =ules of Court provides that if the defendant is a foreign corporation doing business in the
)hilippines, service a* be ade: $1( on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, $2( if there is no such resident agent, on the governent o4cial designated b* law to that e?ect or $<( on an* of its o4cers or agents within the )hilippineshere the corporation has no such agent, service shall be ade on the governent o4cial designated b* law, to wit: $a( the 'nsurance Coissioner in the case of a foreign insurance copan* $b( the Superintendent of ans, in the case of a foreign baning corporation and $c( the Securities and 7Dchange Coission, in the case of other foreign corporations dul* licensed to do business in the )hilippinesowhere in its pleadings did SA=) profess to having had a resident agent authorized to receive court processes in .apanhile it a* be true that service could have been ade upon an* of the o4cers or agents of SA=) at its three other branches in .apan, the availabilit* of such a recourse would not preclude service upon the proper governent o4cial, as stated aboveAs found b* the respondent court, two attepts at service were ade at SA=)Rs Hoohaa branch- oth were unsuccessful #he #o*o &istrict Court re5uested the Supree Court of .apan to cause the deliver* of the suons and other legal docuents to the )hilippines- Acting on that re5uest, the Supree Court of .apan sent the suons together with the other legal docuents to the +inistr* of "oreign A?airs of .apan which, in turn, forwarded the sae to the .apanese 7bass* in +anila - #hereafter, the court processes were delivered to the +inistr* $now &epartent( of "oreign A?airs of the )hilippines, then to the 7Decutive .udge of the Court of "irst 'nstance $now =egional #rial Court( of +anila, who forthwith ordered &eput* Sheri? =olando alingit to serve the sae on SA=) at its principal o4ce in +anila- #his
service is e5uivalent to service on the proper governent o4cial under Section 18, =ule 18 of the =ules of Court, in relation to Section 12 of the Corporation Code- ence, SA=)Rs contention that such anner of service is not valid under )hilippine laws holds no water-
the unreitted proceeds of the ticet sales, with clai for daages
e !nd 6=#7S#Rs clai for attorne*Rs fees, litigation eDpenses, and eDeplar* daages to be without erit- e !nd no evidence that would Bustif* an award for attorne*Rs fees and litigation eDpenses under Article 220 of the Civil Code of the )hilippines- or is an award for eDeplar* daages warranted-
#he attept to serve the suons was unsuccessful because +r- &inozo was in +anila and would be bac on April 28, 190
7=7"6=7, the instant petition is partl* 3=A#7&, and the challenged decision is A""'=+7& insofar as it denied 6=#7S#Rs clais for attorne*s fees, litigation eDpenses, and eDeplar* daages but =7J7=S7& insofar as in sustained the trial courtRs disissal of 6=#7S#Rs coplaint in Civil Case o- <1/;
After the 2 attepts of service were unsuccessful, Supree Court of .apan sent the suons together with the other legal docuents to the +inistr* of "oreign A?airs of .apan .apanese 7bass* in +anila+inistr* $now &epartent( of "oreign A?airs of the )hilippines7Decutive .udge of the Court of "irst 'nstance $now =egional #rial Court( of +anila who ordered &eput* Sheri? =olando alingitC-"- +ain 64ce
G.R. No. 112;=4 ebr#r+ 9, 199;
Lessons Applicable: #erritorialit* )rinciple $conicts of law( "AC#S: orthwest Airlines $orthwest( and C-"- Sharp [ Copan* $C-"-(, through its .apan branch, entered into an 'nternational )assenger Sales Agenc* Agreeent, whereb* the orthwest authorized the C-"- to sell its air transportation ticets +arch 2N, 190: %nable to reit the proceeds of the ticet sales, orthwest sued C-"- in #o*o, .apan, for collection of
April 11, 190: writ of suons was issued b* the <;th Civil &epartent, #o*o &istrict Court of .apan
April 28, 190: +r- &inozo returned to C-"- 64ce to serve the suons but he refused to receive claiing that he no longer an eplo*ee
August 2, 190: C-"- received fro &eput* Sheri? =olando alingit the writ of suons but failed to appear at the scheduled hearing .anuar* 29, 191: #o*o Court rendered Budgent ordering the C-"- to pa* <,1N,19N Hen and daages for dela* at the rate of ; per annu fro August 2, 190 up to and until pa*ent is copleted +arch 28, 191: C-"- received fro &eput* Sheri? alingit cop* of the Budgent- C-"- did not appeal so it becae !nal and eDecutor* +a* 20, 19<: orthwest !led a suit for enforceent of the Budgent a =#C
.ul* 1;, 19<: C-"- averred that the .apanese Court sought to be enforced is null and void and unenforceable in this Burisdiction having been rendered without due and proper notice andEor with collusion or fraud andEor upon a clear istae of law and fact- #he foreign Budgent in the .apanese Court sought in this action is null and void for want of Burisdiction over the person of the defendant considering that this is an action in persona- #he process of the Court in .apan sent to the )hilippines which is outside .apanese Burisdiction cannot confer Burisdiction over the defendant in the case before the .apanese Court of the case at bar
$1( on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or,
CA sustained =#C: Court agrees that if the C-"- in a foreign court is a resident in the court of that foreign court such court could ac5uire Burisdiction over the person of C-"- but it ust be served in the territorial Burisdiction of the foreign court
here the corporation has no such agent, service shall be ade on the governent o4cial designated b* law, to wit:
'SS%7: E the .apanese Court has Burisdiction over C-"-
$b( the Superintendent of ans, in the case of a foreign baning corporation
7L&: H7S- instant petition is partl* 3=A#7&, and the challenged decision is A""'=+7& insofar as it denied 6=#7S#@s clais for attorne*s fees, litigation eDpenses, and eDeplar* daages Conse5uentl*, the part* attacing $C-"-( a foreign Budgent has the burden of overcoing the presuption of its validit* Accordingl*, the presuption of validit* and regularit* of the service of suons and the decision thereafter rendered b* the .apanese court ust standAppl*ing it, the .apanese law on the atter is presued to be siilar with the )hilippine law on service of suons on a private foreign corporation doing business in the )hilippinesSection 18, =ule 18 of the =ules of Court provides that if the defendant is a foreign corporation doing business in the )hilippines, service a* be ade:
$2( if there is no such resident agent, on the governent o4cial designated b* law to that e?ect or $<( on an* of its o4cers or agents within the )hilippines'f the foreign corporation has designated an agent to receive suons, the designation is eDclusive, and service of suons is without force and gives the court no Burisdiction unless ade upon hi-
$a( the 'nsurance Coissioner in the case of a foreign insurance copan*
$c( the Securities and 7Dchange Coission, in the case of other foreign corporations dul* licensed to do business in the )hilippines- henever service of process is so ade, the governent o4ce or o4cial served shall transit b* ail a cop* of the suons or other legal proccess to the corporation at its hoe or principal o4ce- #he sending of such cop* is a necessar* part of the service #he service on the proper governent o4cial under Section 18, =ule 18 of the =ules of Court, in relation to Section 12 of the Corporation Code 6ur laws and Burisprudence indicate a purpose to assiilate foreign corporations, dul* licensed to do business here, to the status of doestic corporations e thin it would be entirel* out of line with this polic* should we ae a discriination against a foreign
