Monday, November 30, 2009

PRIL Dec1

    There are 3 distinct but interrelated concepts in PRIL
  1. Jurisdiction
  2. Choice of law
  3. Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment
  4. *the fact that the court exercises jurisdiction, does not automatically follow that it would apply its own forum law...
    *usually, in Family law cases and torts cases, courts would apply forum law instead of foreign law because of policies and values. As opposed to contract law, which most of jurisdictions share common provisions and basic principles, not value-laden laws so even if apply foreign law, as if you're applying local law…
    e.g. other countries have divorce, while in Philippines, not allowed…
    -these laws reflect the values of that society…
    *In the world, only RP and Malta have no divorce!
    VARIOUS APPROACHES
  5. TRADITIONAL APPROACHES
  6. -more territorial
    -laws have effect only w/n a certain territory
  7. MODERN APPROACHES
  8. TRADITIONAL APPROACHES
  9. VESTED-RIGHTS THEORY
  10. -Which law applies: Occur in the place where the last act giving rise to a COA
    e.g. torts: ACT + INJURY
    If both happen in 1 state: domestic
    If 2 different places: conflicts-torts case
    e.g. Tortuous conduct happens in state A, injury happens in State B.
    -last act: place of injury
    How vested right? Right = right to enforce a COA
    -if State B allows the act to be actionable, he can bring a suit in any forum with a COA irrelevant if the other forum does not make it actionable
    GRAY V. GRAY
    -wife sued husband because of the injury she incurred because of her husbands driving.
    -they lived in NH /New Hamp-shir/ - which allowed suits between spouses
    -the incident happened in Maine - which does not allow suits between spouses
    -Wife sued husband in NH
    HELD: wife cannot sue husband because in the place where the injury occurred, she has no right to sue her husband
    Law 1: can't sue even if there's a COA because they are husband and wife
    Law2: can't sue because there's no COA in the first place, incidental lang status nila as spouses - which applies in this case!!! Broad prohibition
    *what if law 1: can sue in another forum which allows suits between spouses BECAUSE THE WIFE HAS A COA!
    Probable policy why disallow suits between spouses: marital harmony, may resolve dispute by themselves
    ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN R.R. CO V. CARROLL
    -Carroll was hired as a breakman by AGS RR Co - both parties are from ALABAMA
    -Employment contract entered in ALABAMA
    -HOWEVER, injury to Carroll happened in MISSISSIPPI  - which does not allow suits by EE vs. ER for negligent acts of "fellow servants"
    -so Carroll sued in Alabama, where there is no such prohibition
    HELD: CARROLL CANNOT SUE ER!
    -COA arose in Mississippi
    -as to the contract: only relevant to determine the relationship between the EE-ER
    -the COA arose not from the EE-ER but from the negligence of co-Ees
    ***
    Vested rights theory simple. SUC of results.
    PROs: anticipate outcome of the case because uniform…
    CONS: unjust
    -plus so much uncertainty in your rights. If you're riding a moving vehicle, if you cross a border you have a right but after crossing another border, you lose such right to sue...
    Cf. Principle of preference
    LOCAL LAW THEORY
    -using purely domestic law, or the "local law" to determine the rights of the parties. Disregards the foreign element of the case
    -this is considered TERRITORIAL: the forum applies its local laws
    >local law determines when it cannot apply local law
    >local law gives rise to a right in a conflicts of law case
    PRINCIPLES OF PREFERENCE
    -social expediency + justice
    -3 steps:
    1. Scrutinize transaction
    2. Compare foreign law vs. domestic law (effects)
    3. Which effect would be in accordance with justice and social expediency
    -even if still territorial, considers other factors too…
    -gives a character of a modern approach
    Traditional law: justice is in the uniformity of decisions, even if the approach results to an unjust result
    MODERN APPROACHES
    MOST SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP APPROACH
    -forum would look at where the most  RELEVANT + IMPORTANT FACTUAL CONTACTS occur!!!! Not the number of contacts
    AUTEN V. AUTEN
    -Auten spouses married in England, had children in England, lived there for 14 years…But husband left them, went to NY
    -Mrs. Auten followed Mr. Auten in NY, compelled him to enter a SEPARATION AGREEMENT  wherein Mr. Auten would give support (£50) to family, would live separately, and Mrs. Auten cannot sue him in connection with their separation
    HELD: Apply ENGLAND LAW, which has the most concern in prescribing and governing the obligations of Mr. Auten to family…
    -apply the law which the parties intends or expects to be applied: here ENGLISH LAW ***
    If traditional approach applied, would the result be different?
    >>>YES. Law of place of contracting so NY Law applies (place of execution of the contract)
    >>>si Ma'am: Breach was in NY because it is where Mr. Auten refused to pay the support (place of enforcement)
    ...The acceptance of the agreement was in NY
    HAAG V. BARNES
    -Illinois lawyer and NY Legal secretary had an illegitimate child born in Illinois. They entered into a SUPPORT AGREEMENT wherein the Illinois lawyer would pay $275/month for support. NY Legal secretary sued separately
    CRITIQUE: Different application of the MOST SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP APPROACH
    -difference in determining what contact is significant and relevant
    -very individualistic: the judge alone would determine what law would apply, what contacts would be relevant….depends on the judge
    INTEREST ANALYSIS
    -look at the policy behind the law of the states, not merely the significant factual contacts in the dispute; apply the law of the state which has more real interest in applying its law
    -"Interest" of the STATE, not the individual, not the litigants
    TRUE CONFLICT: where both states are both interested
    Cf: Alabama and Mississippi case
    ALABAMA: liability of ER for damages to Ees… (to compel the Ers to be more vigilant in making sure that the Ees would do their jobs well…)
    MISSISSIPPI: protect ER from liability arising from the negligence of co-EEs of the complainant EE - protect rin Ees…because the ER would get back at the Ees in one way or another
    In Grey v. Grey decided using interest analysis, would the result be the same?
    NH: allows suits vs. spouses - interest
    Maine: does not allow suits - interest in preserving harmonious relationship of their own citizens
    ***
    BOBCOCK V. JACKSONS
    -neighbor Bobcock was seriously injured because of an incident wherein Mr. Jackson drove the vehicle
    -Bobcock sued Jackson
    -Jackson, as a defense, alleged that Ontario law does not allow suits unless the owner or driver of the vehicle is engaged in the business of carrying passengers for compensation…
    …basta alam mo na un...

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

PRIL: Chapter V. Choice of Law

  1. Correlation between jurisdiction and Choice of Law
    1. Factors that will justify jurisdiction may be the same factors that will determine WON it is proper for the forum to apply its own internal law (same factors for exercise of jurisdiction and internal law application)
    2. If forum applies internal law because it has real interest in the case, plaintiff will bring suit in state which has real interest in applying its law (real interest determines jurisdiction and choice of law)
    3. More likely forum would apply own internal law, so plaintiff would file before forum, internal law of which is favorable to him (where internal law favorable to him, choose that court)
    *But there may be instances where no exercise of jurisdiction but internal law applies, or exercises jurisdiction but its internal law does not apply
  2. Approaches to choice of law
  3. 2 important questions:
  4. What legal system should control
  5. What extent should chosen legal system regulate the situation
  6. Ideally, choice-of-law theories should advance both:
    *Justice
    *Predictability
    Classification of Choice of Law: Von Mehren and Trautman
  7. Traditional Approach
  8. -emphasize principles of simplicity, convenience and uniformity
  9. Modern Approach
  10. -relate to reaching appropriate results in particular cases
  11. TRADITIONAL APPROACH
  12. Vested-Rights Theory - Beale
    -choice of law rules that are simple in form and capable of easy administration would promote uniformity of result, enhance predictability and discourage forum-shopping
    -an act done in a foreign jurisdiction gives rise to the existence of a right if the laws of that state provides so, and this right is vested on the plaintiff and he could enforce it in any forum he chooses to bring suit.
    -applies LAW FO THE PLACE OF OCCURRENCE OF THE LAST ACT necessary to complete the COA
    GRAY v. GRAY
    Facts: Sps Gray lived in New Hampshire
    -H & W went to Maine. H drove their vehicle, then accident happened at Maine.
    Maine: spouses barred from maintaining action against each other
    NH: no prohibition
    -W brought action for damages arising from personal injuries before NH
    WON W had COA vs. H?
    HELD: NO.
    W argues that the only relationship with Maine is that the accident and injury happened there.
    Status vs. incidents of status
    Status: Husband and Wife
    Incidents of status: those prescribed by the law of the place where the transactions took place.
    -Maine law should be applied because it is where the accident happened, where the COA happened.
    Maine law does not merely prohibit a suit between H & W, it provides that the acts complained of (by one against another) do not give rise to any COA. No breach of legal duty
    *Local conduct should be governed by local law. Rules and conduct have no force to regulate acts done outside the jurisdiction which made the rules, save as their operation is enforced by control over parties found within the jurisdiction…
    (so pano un, basta away mag-asawa wala lang. wala kaming pakialam sa inyo!)
    ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN RR. CO. V. CARROLL
    FACTS
    All happened in ALABAMA:
    *Carroll is a resident of Alabama
    *Alabama Great Southern RR Co. (Company) is incorporated in Alabama
    *Contract between Carroll and Company was entered in Alabama
    What happened in Mississippi: Carroll got injured in Mississippi for the negligent failure of Company's employees to spot a defective link between 2 freight cars
    Mississippi law
    Alabama Law
    No recovery for negligence caused by acts of "fellow servants"
    Absolute liability on the company for injuries sufferred by employees in the course of their employment
    -so Carroll bought suit in Alabama
    WON Company Liable? (lower courts held YES)
    HELD: NO
  13. No COA in Mississippi where injury happened.
  14. -there can be no recovery in one State for injuries to the person sustained in another unless the infliction of the injuries is actionable under the law of the State in which they were received
  15. It doesn't fall w/n the exceptions
    1. ON the negligence which produced the casualty being done in Alabama: no basis
    -but even so, no COA arise in Alabama, as the injury was only sustained in Mississippi.
    -The laws of Alabama (Section 2590) does not apply beyond Alabama
    *SECTION 2590: When personal injury is RECEIVED IN ALABAMA by a servant or employee. The negligent infliction of an injury here under statutory circumstances creates a right of action here, which, being transitory, may be enforced in any other State or country the comity of which admits of it; BUT FOR AN INJURY INFLICTED ELSEWHERE THAN IN ALABAMA out statute gives NOR RIGHT OF RECOVERY, and the aggrieved party MUST LOOK TO THE LOCAL LAW TO ASCERTAIN WHAT HIS RIGHTS ARE.
    1. Not entitled to recover under the EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY ACT (it is argued that  this involved an EER in Alabama, with a contract entered in Alabama):  citizenship and domicile of the parties irrelevant to the COA
    ***
    Gray v. Gray: court automatically applied the law of the place of the wrong, rejecting a choice-of-law method based on reason, justice and expediency
    -but should have looked behind the policy why prohibit suits between spouses
    CRITIQUES to VESTED RIGHT THEORY 1. failure to resolve conflicts cases with reference to considerations of policy and fairness
    2. Counterintuitive, arbitrary
    Dr. Jovito Salonga:
    1. Self-delusion of reasoning: when say that it is NOT the foreign law but the rights under it which are enforced by the courts
    2. Not all rights acquired under foreign law are protected elsewhere, their protection not always desirable
    3. Protection of rights and interests not the only factors to be considered
    4. Not only protect vested rights but also foreign legal relationships which may result to extinction of duties and charges or invalidity of acts
    5. Difficult to apply when the material aspect of a transactions equally touch two or more states
    Local Law Theory: Walter Wheeler Cook
  16. the power of a state to regulate w/n its territory has no limitations EXCEPT such as may be imposed by its OWN POSITIVE LAW
  17. In conflict of laws problems the court does not enforce a foreign right but a right created by its own law by treating a case as a purely domestic case that does not involve a foreign element
  18. CRITIQUE:
    It tends to the "narrow-minded who may be inclined to depreciate the practical and equitable consideration that should control the adjudication of conflict cases in favor of an exaggerated local policy on the gound that they and the sovereign which they represent can do as they please"
    Principles of Preference - David Caver
    -choice of law should be determined by considerations of justice and social expediency and should not be the result of the mechanical application of a rule or principle of selection
    -steps that must be done by the court:
    1. Scrutinize the event or transaction
    2. Compare carefully the profferred rule of law + result wich its application might work (vs. rules of forum)
    3. Appraise results from standpoint of justice and social policy
    -principle of preference: conceived to provide a fair accommodation of conflicting state policies and afford fair treatment to the parties caught up in conflicting state policies
    -territorialist: look to the place where the significant events occurred or where the legal relationship is centered
  19. MODERN APPROACHES
  20. Place of the Most significant relationships - Willis Reese (2nd Restatement)
    -plurality of factors:
    (a) the needs of the interstate and international systems
    (b)relevant policies of the concerned states
    © relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interest of those in the determination of the particular issue
    (d)the protection of justified expectations of the parties
    (e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law
    (f) certainty, predictability, and uniformity of result
    (g) ease in the determination and the application of the law to be applied
    Consider factual contacts! Depends on the relative importance and relevance to the issue at hand
    Torts:
  21. Place where injury occurred
  22. Place where the negligent conduct occurred
  23. Domicile, residence or nationality of the parties
  24. Place where the relationship between the parties is entered
  25. Contracts:
  26. Law chosen by the parties and in the absence thereof
  27. Place of contracting
  28. Place of negotiation of the contract
  29. Place of performance
  30. Domicile, residence, or nationality, or place of incorporation and place of business of parties
  31. AUTEN v. AUTEN
    Facts:
    -Husband and Wife Auten married in England. They stayed together for 14 years and had 2 children
    -Husband left wife. H went to NY.
    -W went to NY to seek support from H. They executed SEPARATION AGREEMENT in NY:
    1. H has to pay £50/month through a NY trustee for the support of his wife and children
    2. Parties had to live separately
    3. W cannot bring action relating to separation
    -H did not give financial support, even with the SEPARATION AGREEMENT
    -SO WIFE BROUGHT SUIT FOR LEGAL SEPARATION IN ENGLAND (adultery)
    >H was served with processes, but nothing happened
    -SO WIFE BROUGHT SUIT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT BEFORE NY COURT
    Defense of H: wife's institution of legal separation violates their Separation Agreement
    (I forgot where I read it but NY law seems to prohibit agreements on Separation, while English law does not)
    NY LC: found for H, applying NY Law
    HELD: Apply England law so for W
    discussion
    If matters upon execution
    If connected with performance
    Includes interpretation and validity of the contracts
    Includes breach of contract and excuses for the breach
    law of the place where contract is made
    law of the place where the contract, by its terms, is to be performed
    CENTER OF GRAVITY/GROUPING OF CONTACTS THEORY
    -courts, instead of regarding as conclusive the parties' intention or the place which has the MOST SIGNIFICANT CONTACTS
    Cons: less certainty and rigidity
    Pros: gives the place HAVING THE MOST INTEREST IN THE PROBLEM paramount control over the legal issues arising out of a particular factual context, thus allowing the forum to apply the policy of the jurisdiction most intimately concerned with the outcome of the particular litigation
    -enables court not only to reflect the relative interests of several jurisdictions involved, but also to gie effect to the probable intention of the parties
    WHY MORE SIGNIFICANT CONTACTS IN ENGLAND:
    *separation between British subjects, married in England, had children in England, lived there for 14 years
    *H willfully deserted and abandoned W and Children IN ENGLAND
    *agreement was signed in US when H only had a temporary visa
    *W only went to US because H would not go to England
    *W returned to England after making H agree in US
    *Support was to be paid in pounds (not dollars)
    *H could visit Children in England
    Only incidental that the contract was done in US because:
    *it is where the H stayed
    *Where the trustee stayed
    >>>It is England which has the greatest concern in prescribing and governing the obligations of the English husband and father, and in securing to the wife and children essential support and maintenance
    HAAG v. BARNES
    FACTS: (illinois, Chicago and NY)
    Barnes: Illinois Lawyer
    Haag: NY Legal secretary
    -the two had an illegitimate child
    -after being pregnant, Haag went to CALIFORNIA to live with sister
    -went to CHICAGO where the 2 entered into a SUPPORT AGREEMENT:
    *Barnes would shoulder hospital expenses for birth
    *Barnes would pay $275/month until the child reached age 16 to free him from any other obligation
    *ILLINOIS LAW would apply
    Illinois law
    NY Law
    Allowed agreements by parents of illegitimate child
    DOES NOT allow
    -Upon giving birth (in Illinois), Haag went back to work in NY with Child and returned to NY and field this support action (note: not enforcement of the support agreement)
    -as defense: Barnes invokes the support agreement (probably the support sought was bigger than the amount in the Support Agreement)
    HELD: Support Agreement valid (so in favor of Barnes?)
    >Agreement provides in the choice of law clause that Illinois law (which allows it) would apply
    >cited Auten v. Auten: even if the parties' intention and the place of the making of the contract are not given decisive effect, they are nevertheless to be given heavy weight in determining which jurisdiction "has the most significant contacts with the matter in dispute"
    Contacts considered here:
  32. Both parties were designated as "of Chicago, Illinois" + defendant's place of business in Illinois
  33. Child was born in Illinois
  34. Persons designated to act as agents for the principals are residents of Illinois, and so were the attorneys of both parties
  35. All contributions for support were from Chicago
  36. What only happened in NY:
  37. Child and mother presently lives in NY
  38. Part of the "liason" took place in NY
  39. *The public policy of this state having been satisfied (because the welfare of the child is fully protected), there is no reason why the provisions of the Support agreement should not be enforced under Illinois law and to treat it as A BAR TO THE PRESENT ACTION FOR SUPPORT
    ***
    Restatement 2d: state of the most significant relationship
    Auten v. Auten: "center of gravity", "place of the most significant contacts", "Grouping of contacts"
    Auten
    Haag
    The wife's home was the center of gravity
    The husband's home was the center of gravity
    CRITIQUE:
    *used to support virtually any result, hamper sound development of common law
    *how to determine (standard) which of the contacts were significant and how to evaluate relative importance of a group of contacts
    Interest Analysis - Brainered Currie
    -look at the policy behind the laws of the involved states and the interest each state had in applying its own law
    -factual contacts alone did not determine the outcome of a case UNLESS they reflected a state policy which would be advanced by application of the substantive state law
    -determine which state had the real interest in having its law applied
    Babcock v. Jackson
    Facts:
    This is the case where the neighbor, who just came with her neighbor couple, got injured when they were on their way to Ontario. So she sued her neighbor! (kikisama ka na nga lang eh…)
    -Bobcock and the spouses Jackson were neighbors in NY
    -they went to Ontario, where Mr. Jackson lost control of the car. Bobcock was badly injured
    -Bobcock sued Mr. Jackson in NY
    NY
    Ontario
    Requires a tort-feasor to compensate his guest for injuries caused by his negligence
    Has a statute that makes the driver/owner of the vehicle liable for bodily injury of a person being carried in that vehicle IF IT IS OPERATED IN THE BUSINESS OF CARRYING PASSENGERS FOR COMPENSATION
    -Defense of Mr. Jackson: Ontario law governs (since he is not a passenger vehicle driver, he is not liable…)
    WON Mr. Jackson should be liable
    HELD: YES. More contacts in NY. Ontario only involved because it is where the accident happened.
    Interests of the 2 states compared
    NY
    Ontario
    To make tort-feasor liable for the injury resulting from his negligence
    To prevent fraudulent assertion of claims by passengers, in collusion with the drivers, against insurance companies
    >Ontario has no conceivable interest in denying a remedy to a NY guest against his NY host for injuries suffered in Ontario by reason of conduct which was tortious under Ontario law.
    *the rights and liabilities of the parties which stem from their guest-host relationship should remain constant and not vary and shift as the automobile proceeds from place to place
    *where the issue involves standards of conduct, it is more likely that it is the law of the place of the tort which will be controlling but the disposition of the other issues must turn, as does the issue of the standard of conduct itself, on the law of the jurisdiction which has the strongest interest in the resolution of the particular issue presented.
    Van Voorhis, Dissent:
    Auten v. Auten not applicable in the ralm of torts.
    -simply a form of extraterritoriality if apply law to other states…
    -no overriding consideration of public policy which justifies or directs the change in the established rule…
    ****
    Babcock: application of NY Law advanced the policy reflected in that law, while the failure to apply Ontario law did not impair the policy behind the law.
    Critique:
    *conflicts cases were ordinarily concerned only with private and not governmental interests
    *unworkable, it will require the court to decide each case in an ad hoc basis
    *not all state legislatures published committee reports that explained the background and purpose of the laws - courts speculate
    *not all laws reflected policy or had a purpose other than to decide cases
    Comparative Impairment - William Baxter
    -subordination of the state objective which would be least impaired
    -courts weigh conflicting interests and apply the law of the state whose interest would be more impaired if its law were not followed
    Functional Analysis - Donald Trautman and Arthur Von Mehren
    -after determining the concerned jurisdiction or interested state
    -looked into:
    > the general policies of the state beyond those reflected in its substantive law
    >policies and values relating to effective and harmonious intercourse between states
    e.g. *reciprocity
    *advancement of multistate activity
    *protecting justifiable expectations
    *evenhandedness in dealing with similar cases
    *effectiveness
    -then consider the relative strength of a state policy (policy-weighing)
    e.g.
    Miliken v. Pratt (1981)
    Facts: Daniel Pratt, resident of Massachusetts, was sued by Miliken and Co. as a guaranty on his wife's loan, as required by the company.
    -loan executed in Maine
    Massachusetts law
    Maine Law
    Spouse can't act as surety for the other's obligation
    Spouse can be a surety for the other's debt
    -suit brought in Maine
    HELD: DANIEL LIABLE
    -contract was complete when Miliken received Daniel's guaranty and extended credit on the strength of his guaranty
    -place of contracting was Maine
     Trautman and Von Mehren comments: at the time the decision was made, restrictive policy on the right of women was on the wane in Massachusetts so at that time, the contract was made not based on a strongly held policy.
    -functional analysis: consider WON the law of a state reflects an "emerging" or "regressing" policy
    Choice-Influencing Considerations  - Robert Leflar
    (1) predictability of results
    (2) maintenance of interstate and international order
    (3) simplification of judicial task
    (4) application of the better rule of law
    (5) advancement of the forum's governmental interests
    Vs. interest analysis which apply a particular rule of substantive law in order to implement a policy reflected therein
    -courts would prefer rules of law whether they are forum law or another state's law as long as they make "good socioeconmic sense for the time the court speaks and are sound in view of present day conditions
    Critique: absence of principled and objective standards by which superiority of law over another may be determined.

PRIL: Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter

  1. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER (competence)
  2. -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
  3. BCMC to recognize him as the owner of the shares of stocks
  4. That Idonah and George be declared to have no claim on the stocks
  5. That Eugene be awarded costs of sutit
  6. >>>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
  7. WAYS OF DEALING WITH CONFLICTS PROBLEM
  8. DISMISS CASE
  9. 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:
  10. Dismissal forum non conveniens valid
  11. >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
  12. Conditions imposed not all sound
  13. 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
  14. ASSUME JURISDICTION
  15. GR: apply law of the forum
  16. A specific law of the forum decrees that internal law should apply
  17. 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
  18. The proper foreign law was not properly pleaded and proved
  19. -no Judicial notice of foreign law
    Relevant rules of evidence:
  20. To prove written foreign law: follow requirements in Sec 24-25, Rule 132
  21. May be subject of judicial admission
  22. Processual presumption - no proof nor admission, foreign law presumed to be the same as that in the Philippines
  23. 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.
  24. Requisites:
    1. The court takes judicial notice thereof
    2. The same is testified to by a witness expert in the subject
  25. CA took judicial notice of the Ballantyne Scale of Values[1]
  26. 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
  27. The case falls under any of the exceptions to the application of foreign law:
  28. ...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