Conflict of Laws Case Digests (1st Set)

Hang Lung Bank Ltd. Vs Hon. Felintriye G. Saulog

Belo, Abiera & Associates for petitioner. Castelo Law Office for private respondent. FERNAN, C.J.: FACTS: Petitioner Huang Lung Bank filed a collection suit in the Supreme Court of Hongkong against Worlder and Cordova Chin San for sums of money due the petitioner from the former on the basis of two (2) continuing guarantee agreements petitioner entered into with Chin San in Hongkong. The foreign tribunal ordered the payment to petitioner of the sum of HK$279,325 with interest and cost. Demand was made in writing to Chin San at his Philippine address but no response was made thereto. Hence, petitioner instituted in the RTC of Makati, Metro Manila Branch CXLII an action for the enforcement of its claims against Chin San. Chin San filed a motion to dismiss claiming petitioner had no legal capacity to sue and the venue was improperly laid. The RTC granted the motion ruling that petitioner does not do business in the Philippines and is barred from maintaining suit pursuant to Sec. 14 of the General Banking Act. Its motion for reconsideration reconsideration having been denied, petitioner seeks the reversal of the orders of the RTC in a petition for certiorari. certiorari. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner has the capacity to file the action below. HELD: Yes. A foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines may not be denied the right to file an action in our courts for an isolated transaction in this country. Petitioner foreign banking corporation may not be denied the privilege of pursuing its claims claims against private respondent respondent for a contract which which was entered into and consummated outside the Philippines. Otherwise, it will hamper the growth and development of business relations between Filipino citizens and foreign nationals. Worse, it would be allowing the law to serve as a protective shield for unscrupulous Filipino citizens who have business relationships abroad. The complaint appears to be one of the enforcement of the Hongkong judgment because it prays for the grant of the affirmative relief given by said foreign

Titles you can't find anywhere else

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.



judgment. However, a foreign judgment judgment may not be enforced if it is not recognized in the jurisdiction where affirmative relief is being sought. Hence, in the interest of justice, the complaint should be considered as a petition p etition for the recognition of the Hongkong judgment under Section 50 (b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in order that the defendant, private respondent herein, may present evidence of lack of jurisdiction, notice, notice, collusion, fraud fraud or clear mistake of fact and law, if applicable.



Philippine Columbia Enterprises Co., et. al. Vs Hon. Gregorio Lantin, et. al.

Lorenzo Sumulong for petitioner. Bausa, Ampil & Suarez for respondents. REYES, J.B.L., J.: FACTS: Private respondent Katoh & Co. Ltd., a Japanese firm, filed in the CFI of Manila Branch VII a complaint alleging ten (10) causes of action against Manila-based Philippine Columbia Columbia Enterprises Co. and its general partners partners Rufino Dy Chin and Fermin Sy for the collection of payment of ten (10) different shipments of angle bars, mild steel bars and cold rolled steel sheets allegedly ordered by petitioners from private respondent. Petitioners moved to dismiss on the grounds that private respondent had no legal capacity to sue and the complaint states no cause of action. In the hearing of the motion, private respondent asked that the reception of evidence thereon be deferred to another date. On the date set, respondent objected to the presentation of evidence and filed a motion to defer hearing and determination of the motion to dismiss. The Court issued the questioned order deferring the determination of the motion to dismiss until the trial of the case on the merits because the ground stated therein does not appear to be indubitable. Petitioners moved to reconsider but their motion was denied, hence, this petition for certiorari. ISSUE: Whether or not the court committed grave abuse of discretion in deferring the determination of the motion to dismiss until the trial of the case on the merits because the ground stated therein does does not appear to be indubitable. indubitable. HELD: No. Where the complaint filed by a foreign corporation for collection of the value of angle bars states that plaintiff "is not engaged in business in the Philippines and that the transactions averred in this complaint were exports made and consummated in Tokyo, Japan in pursuance of International trade;" whereas the



doubtful and may, therefore, be deferred by the trial -court until after hearing on the merits. Actions by foreign corporations are governed by rules different from those in actions against them. Since a counterclaim partakes of the nature of a complaint or cause of action against plaintiff, if defendant local corporation files a counterclaim against plaintiff foreign corporation, the latter would be a defendant thereto, in which case said foreign corporation would not be maintaining a suit s uit and, consequently, Section 69 of the Corporation Law would not apply.



Boudard Vs Tait

Ramirez Gibbs,

and McDonough

Ortigas and

for Ozaeta

for

appellants. appellee.

DIAZ, J.: FACTS: The deceased Marie Theodore Jerome Boudard was killed by his co-employees in Hanoi, French Indo-China. The herein plaintiffs-appellants the widow Emilie Elmira Renee Boudard and her children sued the deceased’s employer, Stewart Eddie Tait and obtained a favorable judgment from the Court of First Instance therein for the sum of 40,000 piastras or Php 56,905.77 plus unspecified interest. A complaint for the execution of the judgment of the Hanoi court was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The CFI of Manila dismissed the said complaint based on lack of jurisdiction of the Hanoi court to render the impugned judgment because Tait was neither resident nor domicile of Hanoi as shown in the decision of the Hanoi Hanoi court itself. itself. The evidence adduced adduced likewise showed that the deceased was not his employee. Plaintiffs appealed. ISSUE: Whether or not the lower court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint

HELD: No. Appellants failed to show that the proceedings against the appellee in the Court of Hanoi were in accordance with the laws of France then in force. The best evidence of foreign judicial proceedings is a certified copy of the same with all the formalities required in sections 304 and 305 of Act No. 190 for only thus can one be absolutely sure of the authenticity of the record. Moreover, the evidence of record shows that the appellee was not in Hanoi during the time mentioned in the complaint of the appellants, nor were his employees or representatives. Judicial proceedings in a foreign country, regarding payment of money, are a re only effective against a party if summons is duly served on him within such foreign country before the proceedings. The process of a court has no extraterritorial effect, and no



process served here, any effect here against agains t either the defendant personally or his property situated situated here.

Conflict of Laws Case Digests (1st Set)

Recommend Documents