PRIL: Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter

1. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER (competence)
-conferred by law or consti
-based on the nature of the controversy
-it is necessary that said power to try be properly invoked…by filing a petition
-cannot be conferred by consent of parties: decision is void if court exceeds its jurisdiction and power in rendering it
IDONAH PERKINS V. ROXAS
FACTS:
CFI case:
Original Action: Eugene Perkins vs. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. (BCMC) for recovery of dividends payable to him, which was withheld by company
BCMC (answer?): they withheld the payment because of adverse claims by Idonah Perkins (yes, his wife) and George Engelhard.
Amended Complaint: impleaded Idonah and George (both nonresidents)
Service: summons by publication
Idonah's ANSWER w/ cross complaint: NY judgment adjudged her the sole owner of said shares claimed by Eugene
-alleged that NY Judgment is res judicata on all questions constituting the subject matter of the case
ISSUE: WON CFI had jurisdiction over the subject matter of case
HELD: YES. CFI had jurisdiction to determine if NY Judgment is indeed res judicata
JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER:
the nature of the cause of action
and of the relief sought,
conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court,
and is to be sought for in
general nature of its powers,
or in authority specially conferred
Here:
Eugene's prayes is for
2. BCMC to recognize him as the owner of the shares of stocks
3. That Idonah and George be declared to have no claim on the stocks
4. That Eugene be awarded costs of sutit
>>>Eugene's action is for ADJUDICATION OF TITLE TO CERTAIN SHARES OF STOCKS OF BCMC AND THE GRANTING OF AFFIRMATIVE RELIEFS = w/n CFI's jurisdiction
Idonah's prayer:
For recogition of NY judgment + issue execution = also w/n CFI's jurisdiction
On fear of Idonah that NY judgment be annuled…
COURT: it is a question that goes to the merits of the controversy and relates to the rights of the parties as between each other, and NOT TO THE JURISDICTION OR POWER OF THE COURT
*TEST OF JURISDICTION: WON the tribunal has the power to enter upon the inquiry, NOT Whether its conclusion in the course of it is right or wrong
1. WAYS OF DEALING WITH CONFLICTS PROBLEM
1. DISMISS CASE
Doctrine of Forum non conveniens
-courts may decline to try the case on the ground that the controversy may be more suitably tried elsewhere
-literal  interpretation: forum is inconvenient
*Usual grounds when this was used by the court:
>When plaintiff made the choice of the forum primarily to harass defendant by inflicting upon him unnecessary expense and hardship in pursuing the remedy
>Where  non-resident plaintiff chose the forum because he felt that the jury verdicts were larger than in other for a
>When such would be burdensome on the court or taxpayers
>When the parties are non-residents and there was a severe backlog of cases when it perceived that jury duty, when compulsory, should not be foisted on a community with no link with or interest in the litigation
>when the court's local machinery was inadequate to effectuate a right, such as when it had no way of securing evidence and the attendance of willing witnesses
Union Carbide Case (short summary, as mentioned)
-thousands of residents of Bhopal, India filed suit for damages in NY as a result of a large scale accident in a Union Carbide Bhopal's chemical plant.
H: US Court dismissed case based on forum non conveniens doctrine
English and Scottish courts
-applied forum non conveniens when there was another available and ore appropriate forum, in which the ends of justice would be better served, by eliminating the vexatious or oppressive character of the pending proceedings and by removing any unfairness to either party which would result from trial in the forum seized of the case
*Avoid global forum shopping: filing of repetitious suits in courts of different jurisdiction over a case
-would result to different decisions by different courts
First Philippine International Bank vs. Court of Appeals(short summary, as mentioned)
-forum-shopping originated from PRIL, where non-resident litigants are given the option to choose the forum or place wherein to bring the suit
-why:
*to secure procedural advantages
*to annoy and harass defendant
*to avoid overcrowded dockets
*select a more friendly venue
Wing On Company v. Syyap
-plaintiff's choice of forum should not be disturbed "unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant"
HEINE V. NY INSURANCE COMPANY
Facts
New York Insurance Company
-incorporated in NY
-has statutory agents in Oregon, upon whom summons were made
-issued some 240 life insurance policies IN GERMANY, in German Marks, for GERMAN CITIZENS
-as a condition to do business in Germany, they were compelled to
(1) accede to the supervision and control of German insurance officials
(2) invest the proceeds arising from German policies in German securities
(3) establish an office in Germany w/ an agent upon whom service can be made.
-the German citizens insured who are in US and Germany sued NY Insurance Company in US Court
-they are arguing that since the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter + parties, it HAS NO DISCRETION but should proceed w/ case…
regardless where the COA arose
…or law by which it is controlled
…or difficulty the court would encounter in attempting to interpret and enforce a foreign contract
…or interference w/ other business of the court
ISSUE:  WON US courts are compelled to take cognizance of the dispute?
HELD: NO.
-both US and German are open and functioning and competent to take jurisdiction of the controversies
-service can be made upon the defendants in either of such jurisdictions
BUT
*to require NY Insurance Company to defend the actions in this district would impose upon them  great and unnecessary inconvenience and expense
>produce in US numerous records, books, and papers, all of which are in daily use by it in taking care of current business (in GERMANY)
*It would also cause inconveniences in US Courts
>consume months of time of court to try and dispose of it
>disarrange calendar, resulting in delay, inconvenience, and expense to other litigants
*Forum non conveniens
-The court has discretion to exercise jurisdiction. The courts have repeatedly refused, in their discretion, to entertain jurisdiction in COA arising in a foreign jurisdiction, WHERE BOTH PARTIES ARE NONRESIDENTS OF THE FORUM
-The courts of this country are established and maintained primarily to determine controversies between its own citizens and those having business there, and manifestly the court may protect itself against a flood of litigation over contracts made and to be performed in a foreign country…
IN RE: UNION CARBIDE
FACTS -December 23, 1984, lethal gas known as METHYL ISOCYANATE was released from Union Carbide India Ltd in Bhopal, India. This killed over 2k persons, and injured over 200k.
-four days after,  some 145 class actions in federal district courts in US were commenced on behalf of victims. The Judicial Panel assigned the actions to the Southern District of NY, and were consolidated
-India enacted the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Process of Claims) Act which granted the Indian Government (Union of India or UOI) the exclusive right to represent the victims of India or elsewhere. Pursuant to this, UOI filed a separate case before the Southern District Court of NY (different from the class actions earlier consolidated)
-UCC moved to dismiss the complaints:
(1) forum non conveniens
(2) lack of standing to bring the actions to represent the victims
DC: grant MTD, with the following conditions
(1) UCC must consent to the jurisdiction of the Indian courts and waive defenses based on the Statute of Limitations
(2) agree to satisfy the Indian Court judgment, which comport with the minimal requirements of due process
(3) be subject to discover, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in US
-UOI filed complaint in India vs. UCC and UCIL; the plaintiffs in the civil case (or rather, the prosecutors) still appealed from the DC judgment, arguing:
(1) UCC has domicile in US so US courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant
(2) most crucial and probative evidence is located in US
HELD:
1. Dismissal forum non conveniens valid
>Indian Citizen-Plaintiffs  have revoked their authorizations of American counsels to represent them and substituted UOI. UOI already filed with Indian court
>Indian courts provide reasonably adequate alternative forum
>though evidence in US: basic design programs,
Most of the evidence in INDiA: *principal witnesses
*documents bearing on the development and construction of the plant
*detailed designs
*implementation of plans
*operation and regulation of the plant
*safety precautions
*facts w/ respect to the accident itself
*deaths and injuries attributable to the accident
2. Conditions imposed not all sound
1ST CONDITION: UCC must consent to the jurisdiction of the Indian courts and waive defenses based on the Statute of Limitations
-not unusual and has been imposed in numerous cases (to enable foreign court to provide adequate alternative)
2ND CONDITION: agree to satisfy the Indian Court judgment, which comport with the minimal requirements of due process
-proceeded on the erroneous assumption that absent such requirement, the plaintiffs might not be able to enforce a favorable judgment vs. UCC in US
NY Law, however, provides that it would render a "conclusive judgment" as final, conclusive and enforeceable, unless
(1) there's a violation of due process, partial tribunals
(2) no personal jurisdiction over defendant
-the NY DC cannot exercise authority over Indian courts (UCC alleged that there might be violation of its right to due process by Indian courts so US DC should retain authority to monitor the Indian court proceedings and be available on call to rectify in some undefined way any abuses of UCC's right to due process):
"ONCE IT DISMISSES THOSE PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUND OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, IT CEASES TO HAVE ANY FURTHER JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER UNLESS AND UNTIL A PROCEEDING MAY SOME DAY BE BROUGHT TO ENFORCE HERE A FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE INDIAN MONEY JUDGMENT"
3RD CONDITION: be subject to discover, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in US
-unfair: should afford both parties (defendant UCC and plaintiff UOI) equal access to both evidence, treat both sides equally
WING ON COMPANY V. SYYAP
-Wing On Company incorporated in NY
-Syyap Co., Inc. incorporated in RP
-contract entered in NY:
for the purchase of clothing material, w/ verbal agreement that Syyap would pay Wing On the value of the clothing material, then after the sale, the profits would be divided between them
-clothing materials worth $22,246.04 shipped from NY to RP
-only $3,530.04 paid. Syyap failed to settle debt and account for profits.
-Wing On Company sued Syyap in RP.
TC: for Wing On
Arguments of Syyap:
(1) no jurisdiction: Wing On is not licensed to do business in RP, no legal capacity to sue
(2) should have declined jurisdiction: forum non conveniens
HELD
Affirm!
On Forum non Conveniens
WHEN COURT WOULD DECLINE JURISDICTION BASED ON FOUM NON CONVENIENS
-Unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed
-Consideration of inadequacy to enforce the judgment
HERE: Defendant in the Philippines. So for the court to assume jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, RP Court is the convenient forum.
-the present suit is a PERSONAL ACTION, the case may be commenced and tried where the defendant resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff resides, at the election of the plaintiff.
Summary: should consider both public and private interests
Private interests:
*relative ease of access to source of proof
*Availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses
*cost of obtaining and attendance off willing witnesses
*possibility of viewing the premises if appropriate
*all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive
Public Interest
*administrative difficulties encountered when courts are congested
*jury duty: burden on community
*appropriateness of having the trial in a court that is familiar with the applicable state law rather than getting another forum enmeshed in a complicated conflict-of-laws problem
WHEN CAN'T REFUSE TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION:
*when the forum is the only state where jurisdiction over defendant can be obtained
*when the forum provides procedural remedies not available in another state
2. ASSUME JURISDICTION
GR: apply law of the forum
1. A specific law of the forum decrees that internal law should apply
Civil Code
Article 16: makes real and personal proerty subject to the law of the country where they are situated
Intestate and testamentary succession: governed by lex nationale of the person whose succession is under consideration
Article 829: makes revocation done outside the Philippines valid according to the law of the place where the will was made or lex domicilli
Article 819: prohibits Filipinos from making joint wills even if valid in the country where they were executed
2. The proper foreign law was not properly pleaded and proved
-no Judicial notice of foreign law
Relevant rules of evidence:
3. To prove written foreign law: follow requirements in Sec 24-25, Rule 132
4. May be subject of judicial admission
5. Processual presumption - no proof nor admission, foreign law presumed to be the same as that in the Philippines
Rule 132
Section 19 - CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS
For the purpose of their presentation evidence,
documents are either public or private.
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS are:
1. The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
2. Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
3. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to the entered therein.
All other writings are PRIVATE.
Section 24 - PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORD
The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19,
when admissible for any purpose,
may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or
by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines,
with a certificate that such officer has the custody.
If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country,
the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept,
and authenticated by the seal of his office.
Section 25 - WHAT ATTESTATION OF COPY MUST STATE
Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested
for the purpose of evidence,
the attestation must state, in substance,
that the copy is a correct copy of the original,
or a specific part thereof, as the case may be.
The attestation must be
under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or
if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court.
…
To prove unwritten foreign law – Sec 46, Rule 130
Section 46 - LEARNED TREATISES
A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science, or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject.
6. Requisites:
1. The court takes judicial notice thereof
2. The same is testified to by a witness expert in the subject
7. CA took judicial notice of the Ballantyne Scale of Values[1]
Legal treatises also included
FLEUMER V. HIX
FACTS:
-Fleumer, the special administrator of Hix, presented the latter's will for probate in the Philippines
-the will did not show the following:
*acknowledgment by Hix in the presence of 2 competent witnesses
*W subscribed to will in presence of testator, and of each other
-Fleumer wanted to present the said will, executed in West Virginia by Hix who was residing at the time there, in RP
(not sure): Fleumer alleges that under W. Virginia law, will is duly executed
TO PROVE W. Virginia law: submitted a copy of Section 3868 of Act 1882 as found in West Virginia Code + Certified by the Director of our National Library
HELD: Should prove foreign law first before courts of RP take cognizance
-no judicial notice, foreign laws must be proved as facts
HERE:
-no showing that the book from which an extract was taken was printed or published under the authority of the State of West Virginia
-No attestation by the certificate of the officer having charge of the original, under the seal of the State of West Virginia (Section 301, Code of Civil Procedure back then? Now R132.24-25)
-no evidence to show that the extract from the laws of West Virginia was in force at the time the alleged will was executed
+
Due execution of the will was not established: only showed testimony of the petitioner
PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. V. BOHANAN
FACTS
-C.O. Bohanan, citizen of Nevada, died with a Will.
-Philippine Trust Co. was named executer of the will
-Will gave to *a grandson: P90,819.67 of the P211,639 + 1/2 of all shares of stock of several mining companies
*brother and sister: 1/2 of all shares of stock of several mining companies
*Only P6k was left to each of his children
-widow and 2 children of C.O. Bohanan questioned the validity of the will in the hearing for the project of partition (will already admitted)
HELD: Even if Nevada law not proved in this stage of the proceeding, it was taken judicial notice of because Philippine Trust Co. already produced Section 9905 of the Compiled Nevada laws twice before the courts below. As Nevada law does not impose compulsory heirs, project partition valid
Discussion
-Old Civil Law applicable: died 1944 while NCC applied 1945
Old civil code provides that the ff would be governed by the national law of the person whose succession is in order:
*order of succession
*extent of successional rights
*intrinsic validity of provisions of the will
-Here, CO Bohanan was a NEVADAn citizen.
-Nevada laws allow a testator to dispose of all his properties by will.
-to prove foreign law:
Section 41: an official record/entry…may be evidenced by
*official publication
*copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the record, or by his deputy + (if not kept in RP) certificate that such officer has custody
-HOW NEVADA LAW recognized
>During the October 1954 hearing of the Motion of Magdalena Bohanan for withdrawal of ther P20k share, Nevada Law was introduced as Exhibit 2
>During the January 1950 hearing, law was presented as Exhibit B
>Children and widow did not dispute the provisions of the laws of State of Nevada
>>>SO HERE, court decided to take judicial notice of the Nevada law, as presented in the earlier stages of the case
3. The case falls under any of the exceptions to the application of foreign law:
...when foreign law is
(1) contrary to an important public policy of the forum
(2) penal in nature
(3) procedural in nature
(4) purely fiscal/administrative in nature
(5) (will) work undeniable injustice to the citizens of the forum
(6) case involves real/personal property situated in theforum
(7) application of foreign law might endanger vital interest of the state (forum)
(8) contrary to good morals