1/20/2016

G.R.No.149177

THIRDDIVISION

KAZUHIROHASEGAWAandNIPPON G.R.No.149177
ENGINEERINGCONSULTANTSCO.,

LTD.,
Present:

Petitioners,
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.,

Chairperson,

AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,

CHICONAZARIO,
versus
NACHURA,and

REYES,JJ.

Promulgated:

MINORUKITAMURA,
November23,2007
Respondent.

xx

DECISION

NACHURA,J.:

BeforetheCourtisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt
[1]
assailingtheApril18,2001Decision oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.SPNo.
[2]
60827,andtheJuly25,2001Resolution denyingthemotionforreconsiderationthereof.

On March 30, 1999, petitioner Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd. (Nippon), a
Japaneseconsultancyfirmprovidingtechnicalandmanagementsupportintheinfrastructure
[3]
projects of foreign governments, entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement
(ICA) with respondent Minoru Kitamura, a Japanese national permanently residing in the
[4]
Philippines. Theagreementprovidesthatrespondentwastoextendprofessionalservices
[5]
toNipponforayearstartingonApril1,1999. Nipponthenassignedrespondenttowork
as the project manager of the Southern Tagalog Access Road (STAR) Project in the
Philippines,followingthecompany'sconsultancycontractwiththePhilippineGovernment.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

1/15

1/20/2016

G.R.No.149177

[6]

When the STAR Project was near completion, the Department of Public Works and
Highways(DPWH)engagedtheconsultancyservicesofNippon,onJanuary28,2000,this
timeforthedetailedengineeringandconstructionsupervisionoftheBongabonBalerRoad
[7]
Improvement (BBRI) Project. Respondent was named as the project manager in the
[8]

contract'sAppendix3.1.

On February 28, 2000, petitioner Kazuhiro Hasegawa, Nippon's general manager for its
International Division, informed respondent that the company had no more intention of
automaticallyrenewinghisICA.Hisserviceswouldbeengagedbythecompanyonlyupto
the substantial completion of the STAR Project on March 31, 2000, just in time for the
[9]
ICA'sexpiry.

Threatened with impending unemployment, respondent, through his lawyer, requested a

negotiation conference and demanded that he be assigned to the BBRI project. Nippon
insistedthatrespondentscontractwasforafixedtermthathadalreadyexpired,andrefused
[10]
tonegotiatefortherenewaloftheICA.

As he was not able to generate a positive response from the petitioners, respondent
consequentlyinitiatedonJune1,2000CivilCaseNo.000264forspecificperformanceand
[11]
damageswiththeRegionalTrialCourtofLipaCity.

Fortheirpart,petitioners,contendingthattheICAhadbeenperfectedinJapanandexecuted
byandbetweenJapanesenationals,movedtodismissthecomplaintforlackofjurisdiction.
Theyassertedthattheclaimforimproperpreterminationofrespondent'sICAcouldonlybe
heard and ventilated in the proper courts of Japan following the principles of lex loci
[12]
celebrationisandlexcontractus.

In the meantime, on June 20, 2000, the DPWH approved Nippon's request for the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

2/15

1/20/2016

G.R.No.149177

replacement of Kitamura by a certain Y. Kotake as project manager of the BBRI Project.

[13]

[14]
OnJune 29, 2000, the RTC, invoking our ruling in Insular Government v. Frank
that
mattersconnectedwiththeperformanceofcontractsareregulatedbythelawprevailingat
[15]
[16]
theplaceofperformance,
deniedthemotiontodismiss.
Thetrialcourtsubsequently
[17]
deniedpetitioners'motionforreconsideration,
promptingthemtofilewiththeappellate
court,onAugust14,2000,theirfirstPetitionforCertiorariunderRule65[docketedasCA
[18]
G.R.SPNo.60205].
OnAugust 23, 2000, the CA resolved to dismiss the petition on
procedural groundsfor lack of statement of material dates and for insufficient verification
[19]
andcertificationagainstforumshopping.
AnEntryofJudgmentwaslaterissuedbythe
[20]
appellatecourtonSeptember20,2000.

Aggrievedbythisdevelopment,petitionersfiledwiththeCA,onSeptember19,2000,still
within the reglementary period, a second Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 already
stating therein the material dates and attaching thereto the proper verification and
certification.Thissecondpetition,whichsubstantiallyraisedthesameissuesasthoseinthe
[21]
first,wasdocketedasCAG.R.SPNo.60827.

Rulingonthemeritsofthesecondpetition,theappellatecourtrenderedtheassailedApril
[22]
18,2001Decision
findingnograveabuseofdiscretioninthetrialcourt'sdenialofthe
motiontodismiss.TheCAruled,amongothers,thattheprincipleoflexlocicelebrationis
was not applicable to the case, because nowhere in the pleadings was the validity of the
written agreement put in issue. The CA thus declared that the trial court was correct in
[23]
applyinginsteadtheprincipleoflexlocisolutionis.

Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied by the CA in the assailed
[24]
July25,2001Resolution.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

3/15

1/20/2016

G.R.No.149177

Remaining steadfast in their stance despite the series of denials, petitioners instituted the
[25]
instantPetitionforReviewonCertiorari
imputingthefollowingerrorstotheappellate
court:

A.THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDINFINDINGTHAT
THE TRIAL COURT VALIDLY EXERCISED JURISDICTION OVER THE INSTANT
CONTROVERSY, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACT SUBJECT MATTER
OF THE PROCEEDINGS A QUO WAS ENTERED INTO BY AND BETWEEN TWO
JAPANESENATIONALS,WRITTENWHOLLYINTHEJAPANESELANGUAGEAND
EXECUTEDINTOKYO,JAPAN.

B.THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDINOVERLOOKING
THE NEED TO REVIEW OUR ADHERENCE TO THE PRINCIPLE OF LEX LOCI
SOLUTIONIS IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT DEVELOPMENT[S] IN PRIVATE
[26]
INTERNATIONALLAWS.

ThepivotalquestionthatthisCourtiscalledupontoresolveiswhetherthesubjectmatter
jurisdiction of Philippine courts in civil cases for specific performance and damages
involvingcontractsexecutedoutsidethecountrybyforeignnationalsmaybeassailedonthe
principles of lex loci celebrationis, lex contractus, the state of the most significant
relationshiprule,orforumnonconveniens.

However,beforerulingonthisissue,wemustfirstdisposeoftheproceduralmattersraised
bytherespondent.

Kitamura contends that the finality of the appellate court's decision in CAG.R. SP No.
60205 has already barred the filing of the second petition docketed as CAG.R. SP No.
60827 (fundamentally raising the same issues as those in the first one) and the instant
petitionforreviewthereof.

We do not agree. When the CA dismissed CAG.R. SP No. 60205 on account of the
petition's defective certification of nonforum shopping, it was a dismissal without
[27]
prejudice.
ThesameholdstrueintheCA'sdismissalofthesaidcaseduetodefectsin
[28]
the formal requirement of verification
and in the other requirement in Rule 46 of the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

4/15

1/20/2016

G.R.No.149177

[29]
Rules of Court on the statement of the material dates.
The dismissal being without
prejudice,petitionerscanrefilethepetition,orfileasecondpetitionattachingtheretothe
appropriate verification and certificationas they, in fact didand stating therein the material
[30]
[31]
dates,withintheprescribedperiod
inSection4,Rule65ofthesaidRules.

Thedismissalofacasewithoutprejudicesignifiestheabsenceofadecisiononthemerits
and leaves the parties free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action as though the
dismissedactionhadnotbeencommenced.Inotherwords,theterminationofacasenoton
themeritsdoesnotbaranotheractioninvolvingthesameparties,onthesamesubjectmatter
[32]
andtheory.

Necessarily,becausethesaiddismissaliswithoutprejudiceandhasnoresjudicataeffect,
and even if petitioners still indicated in the verification and certification of the second
[33]
certiorari petition that the first had already been dismissed on procedural grounds,
petitionersarenolongerrequiredbytheRulestoindicateintheircertificationofnonforum
shoppingintheinstantpetitionforreviewofthesecondcertioraripetition,thestatusofthe
aforesaid first petition before the CA. In any case, an omission in the certificate of non
forumshoppingaboutanyeventthatwillnotconstituteresjudicataandlitispendentia, as
inthepresentcase,isnotafataldefect.Itwillnotwarrantthedismissalandnullificationof
the entire proceedings, considering that the evils sought to be prevented by the said
[34]
certificatearenolongerpresent.

The Court also finds no merit in respondent's contention that petitioner Hasegawa is only
authorizedtoverifyandcertify,onbehalfofNippon,thecertiorari petition filed with the
[35]
CAandnottheinstantpetition.True,theAuthorization
datedSeptember4,2000,which
isattachedtothesecondcertioraripetitionandwhichisalsoattachedtotheinstantpetition
forreview,islimitedinscopeitswordingsindicatethatHasegawaisgiventheauthorityto
signforandactonbehalfofthecompanyonlyinthepetitionfiledwiththeappellatecourt,
[36]
andthatauthoritycannotextendtotheinstantpetitionforreview.
Inaplethoraofcases,
however, this Court has liberally applied the Rules or even suspended its application
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

5/15

1/20/2016

G.R.No.149177

wheneverasatisfactoryexplanationandasubsequentfulfillmentoftherequirementshave
[37]
beenmade.
Giventhatpetitionershereinsufficientlyexplainedtheirmisgivingsonthis
[38]
[39]
pointandappendedtotheirReply
anupdatedAuthorization
forHasegawatoacton
behalf of the company in the instant petition, the Court finds the same as sufficient
compliancewiththeRules.

However,theCourtcannotextendthesameliberaltreatmenttothedefectintheverification
andcertification.Asrespondentpointedout,andtowhichweagree,Hasegawaistrulynot
authorized to act on behalf of Nippon in this case. The aforesaid September 4, 2000
AuthorizationandeventhesubsequentAugust17,2001Authorizationwereissuedonlyby
Nippon'spresidentandchiefexecutiveofficer,notbythecompany'sboardofdirectors.In
notafewcases,wehaveruledthatcorporatepowersareexercisedbytheboardofdirectors
thus,noperson,notevenitsofficers,canbindthecorporation,intheabsenceofauthority
[40]
from the board.
Considering that Hasegawa verified and certified the petition only on
hisbehalfandnotonbehalfoftheotherpetitioner,thepetitionhastobedeniedpursuantto
[41]
Loquiasv.OfficeoftheOmbudsman.
Substantialcompliancewillnotsufficeinamatter
[42]
that demands strict observance of the Rules.
While technical rules of procedure are
designed not to frustrate the ends of justice, nonetheless, they are intended to effect the
proper and orderly disposition of cases and effectively prevent the clogging of court
[43]
dockets.

Further, the Court has observed that petitioners incorrectly filed a Rule 65 petition to
questionthetrialcourt'sdenialoftheirmotiontodismiss.Itisawellestablishedrulethatan
order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory, and cannot be the subject of the
extraordinary petition for certiorari or mandamus. The appropriate recourse is to file an
answerandtointerposeasdefensestheobjectionsraisedinthemotion,toproceedtotrial,
[44]
and,incaseofanadversedecision,toelevatetheentirecasebyappealinduecourse.
[45]
Whiletherearerecognizedexceptionstothisrule,
petitioners'casedoesnotfallamong
them.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

6/15

1/20/2016

G.R.No.149177

Thisbringsustothediscussionofthesubstantiveissueofthecase.

Asserting that the RTC of Lipa City is an inconvenient forum, petitioners question its
jurisdictiontohearandresolvethecivilcaseforspecificperformanceanddamagesfiledby
therespondent.TheICAsubjectofthelitigationwasenteredintoandperfectedinTokyo,
Japan,byJapanesenationals,andwrittenwhollyintheJapaneselanguage.Thus,petitioners
[46]
positthatlocalcourtshavenosubstantialrelationshiptotheparties
followingthe[state
[47]
ofthe]mostsignificantrelationshipruleinPrivateInternationalLaw.

The Court notes that petitioners adopted an additional but different theory when they
[48]
elevated the case to the appellate court. In the Motion to Dismiss
filed with the trial
court, petitioners never contended that the RTC is an inconvenient forum. They merely
arguedthattheapplicablelawwhichwilldeterminethevalidityorinvalidityofrespondent's
claimisthatofJapan,followingtheprinciplesoflexlocicelebrationisandlex contractus.
[49]
Whilenotabandoningthisstanceintheirpetitionbeforetheappellatecourt,petitioners
[50]
oncertiorarisignificantlyinvokedthedefenseofforumnonconveniens.
Onpetitionfor
review before this Court, petitioners dropped their other arguments, maintained the forum
nonconveniensdefense,andintroducedtheirnewargumentthattheapplicableprincipleis
[51]
the[stateofthe]mostsignificantrelationshiprule.

Bethatasitmay,thisCourtisnotinclinedtodenythispetitionmerelyonthebasisofthe
[52]
changeintheory,asexplainedinPhilippinePortsAuthorityv.CityofIloilo.
Weonly
pointedoutpetitioners'inconstancyintheirargumentstoemphasizetheirincorrectassertion
ofconflictoflawsprinciples.

To elucidate, in the judicial resolution of conflicts problems, three consecutive phases are
involved: jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement of judgments.
Corresponding to these phases are the following questions: (1) Where can or should
litigationbeinitiated?(2)Whichlawwillthecourtapply?and(3)Wherecantheresulting
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

7/15

1/20/2016

G.R.No.149177

[53]
judgmentbeenforced?

[54]
Analytically, jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct concepts.
Jurisdiction
considerswhetheritisfairtocauseadefendanttotraveltothisstatechoiceoflawasksthe
further question whether the application of a substantive law which will determine the
merits of the case is fair to both parties. The power to exercise jurisdiction does not
automaticallygiveastateconstitutionalauthoritytoapplyforumlaw.Whilejurisdictionand
thechoiceofthelexforiwilloftencoincide,theminimumcontactsforonedonotalways
[55]
providethenecessarysignificantcontactsfortheother.
Thequestionofwhetherthelaw
ofastatecanbeappliedtoatransactionisdifferentfromthequestionofwhetherthecourts
[56]
ofthatstatehavejurisdictiontoenterajudgment.

In this case, only the first phase is at issuejurisdiction. Jurisdiction, however, has various
aspects.Foracourttovalidlyexerciseitspowertoadjudicateacontroversy,itmusthave
jurisdictionovertheplaintifforthepetitioner,overthedefendantortherespondent,overthe
subjectmatter,overtheissuesofthecaseand,incasesinvolvingproperty,overtheres or
[57]
thethingwhichisthesubjectofthelitigation.
Inassailingthetrialcourt'sjurisdiction
herein,petitionersareactuallyreferringtosubjectmatterjurisdiction.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a judicial proceeding is conferred by the sovereign
authority which establishes and organizes the court. It is given only by law and in the
[58]
mannerprescribedbylaw.
Itisfurtherdeterminedbytheallegationsofthecomplaint
irrespectiveofwhethertheplaintiffisentitledtoallorsomeoftheclaimsassertedtherein.
[59]
Tosucceedinitsmotionforthedismissalofanactionforlackofjurisdictionoverthe
[60]
subjectmatteroftheclaim,
themovantmustshowthatthecourtortribunalcannotact
[61]
onthemattersubmittedtoitbecausenolawgrantsitthepowertoadjudicatetheclaims.

Intheinstantcase,petitioners,intheirmotiontodismiss,donotclaimthatthetrialcourtis
notproperlyvestedbylawwithjurisdictiontohearthesubjectcontroversyfor,indeed,Civil
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

8/15

1/20/2016

G.R.No.149177

Case No. 000264 for specific performance and damages is one not capable of pecuniary
[62]
estimationandisproperlycognizablebytheRTCofLipaCity.
Whattheyratherraise
asgroundstoquestionsubjectmatterjurisdictionaretheprinciplesoflexlocicelebrationis
andlexcontractus,andthestateofthemostsignificantrelationshiprule.

TheCourtfindstheinvocationofthesegroundsunsound.
[63]
Lexlocicelebrationisrelatestothelawoftheplaceoftheceremony
orthelawofthe
[64]
place where a contract is made.
The doctrine of lex contractus or lex loci contractus
[65]
meansthelawoftheplacewhereacontractisexecutedortobeperformed.
Itcontrols
[66]
the nature, construction, and validity of the contract
and it may pertain to the law
voluntarily agreed upon by the parties or the law intended by them either expressly or
[67]
implicitly.
Under the state of the most significant relationship rule, to ascertain what
state law to apply to a dispute, the court should determine which state has the most
substantialconnectiontotheoccurrenceandtheparties.Inacaseinvolvingacontract,the
courtshouldconsiderwherethecontractwasmade,wasnegotiated,wastobeperformed,
[68]
and the domicile, place of business, or place of incorporation of the parties.
This rule
takesintoaccountseveralcontactsandevaluatesthemaccordingtotheirrelativeimportance
[69]
withrespecttotheparticularissuetoberesolved.

Since these three principles in conflict of laws make reference to the law applicable to a
[70]
dispute,theyarerulesproperforthesecondphase,thechoiceoflaw.
They determine
whichstate'slawistobeappliedinresolvingthesubstantiveissuesofaconflictsproblem.
[71]
Necessarily,astheonlyissueinthiscaseisthatofjurisdiction,choiceoflawrulesare
notonlyinapplicablebutalsonotyetcalledfor.

Further,petitioners'prematureinvocationofchoiceoflawrulesisexposedbythefactthat
they have not yet pointed out any conflict between the laws of Japan and ours. Before
determining which law should apply, first there should exist a conflict of laws situation
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

9/15

1/20/2016

G.R.No.149177

[72]
requiringtheapplicationoftheconflictoflawsrules.
Also,whenthelawofaforeign
country is invoked to provide the proper rules for the solution of a case, the existence of
[73]
suchlawmustbepleadedandproved.

It should be noted that when a conflicts case, one involving a foreign element, is brought
before a court or administrative agency, there are three alternatives open to the latter in
disposing of it: (1) dismiss the case, either because of lack of jurisdiction or refusal to
assume jurisdiction over the case (2) assume jurisdiction over the case and apply the
internallawoftheforumor(3)assumejurisdictionoverthecaseandtakeintoaccountor
[74]
apply the law of some other State or States.
The courts power to hear cases and
controversies is derived from the Constitution and the laws. While it may choose to
recognizelawsofforeignnations,thecourtisnotlimitedbyforeignsovereignlawshortof
treaties or other formal agreements, even in matters regarding rights provided by foreign
[75]
sovereigns.

[76]
Neithercantheothergroundraised,forumnonconveniens,
beusedtodeprivethe
trial court of its jurisdiction herein. First, it is not a proper basis for a motion to dismiss
[77]
because Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court does not include it as a ground.
Second,whetherasuitshouldbeentertainedordismissedonthebasisofthesaiddoctrine
dependslargelyuponthefactsoftheparticularcaseandisaddressedtothesounddiscretion
[78]
of the trial court.
In this case, the RTC decided to assume jurisdiction. Third, the
propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle requires a factual determination
[79]
hence,thisconflictsprincipleismoreproperlyconsideredamatterofdefense.

Accordingly,sincetheRTCisvestedbylawwiththepowertoentertainandhearthecivil
casefiledbyrespondentandthegroundsraisedbypetitionerstoassailthatjurisdictionare
inappropriate, the trial and appellate courts correctly denied the petitioners motion to
dismiss.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

10/15

1/20/2016

G.R.No.149177

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on certiorari is

DENIED.

SOORDERED.

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice

RUBENT.REYES
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethe
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

11/15

1/20/2016

G.R.No.149177

consultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
[1]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeBienvenidoL.Reyes,withthelateAssociateJusticeEubuloG.VerzolaandAssociateJustice
MarinaL.Buzon,concurringrollo,pp.3744.
[2]
Id.at4647.
[3]
CArollo(CAG.R.SPNo.60827),p.84.
[4]
Id.at116120.
[5]
Id.at3236.
[6]
Id.at85.
[7]
Id.at121148.
[8]
Id.at166171.
[9]
Id.at38.
[10]
Id.at3941.
[11]
Id.at109.
[12]
Id.at5357.
[13]
Id.at4243.
[14]
13Phil.236(1909).
[15]
InsularGovernmentv.Frank,id.at240.
[16]
CArollo(CAG.R.SPNo.60827),pp.2526.
[17]
Id.at2728.
[18]
CArollo(CAG.R.SPNo.60205),pp.242.
[19]
Id. at 44. The August 23, 2000 Resolution penned by Associate Justice Delilah VidallonMagtolis (retired), with the
concurrence of Associate Justices Eloy R. Bello, Jr. (retired) and Elvi John S. Asuncion (dismissed) pertinently provides as
follows:
A cursory reading of the petition indicates no statement as to the date when the petitioners filed their motion for
reconsiderationandwhentheyreceivedtheorderofdenialthereof,asrequiredinSection3,paragraph2,Rule46ofthe1997
Rules of Civil Procedure as amended by Circular No. 3998 dated August 18, 1998 of the Supreme Court. Moreover, the
verification and certification of nonforum shopping was executed by petitioner Kazuhiro Hasegawa for both petitioners
withoutanyindicationthatthelatterhadauthorizedhimtofilethesame.
WHEREFORE,the[petition]isDENIEDduecourseandDISMISSEDoutright.
SOORDERED.
[20]
Id.at45.
[21]
CArollo(CAG.R.SPNo.60827),pp.224.
[22]
Supranote1.
[23]
Id.at222.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

12/15

1/20/2016

G.R.No.149177

[24]
Supranote2.
[25]
Rollo,pp.335.
[26]
Id.at15.
[27]
SeeSpousesMelov.CourtofAppeals,376Phil.204,213214(1999),inwhichtheSupremeCourtruledthatcompliance
with the certification against forum shopping is separate from, and independent of, the avoidance of forum shopping itself.
Thus, there is a difference in the treatmentin terms of imposable sanctionsbetween failure to comply with the certification
requirementandviolationoftheprohibitionagainstforumshopping.Theformerismerelyacauseforthedismissal,without
prejudice,ofthecomplaintorinitiatorypleading,whilethelatterisagroundforsummarydismissalthereofandconstitutes
directcontempt.SeealsoPhilippineRadiantProducts,Inc.v.MetropolitanBank&TrustCompany,Inc., G.R. No. 163569,
December9,2005,477SCRA299,314,inwhichtheCourtruledthatthedismissalduetofailuretoappendtothepetitionthe
boardresolutionauthorizingacorporateofficertofilethesameforandinbehalfofthecorporationiswithoutprejudice.Sois
thedismissalofthepetitionforfailureofthepetitionertoappendtheretotherequisitecopiesoftheassailedorder/s.
[28]
SeeTorresv.SpecializedPackagingDevelopmentCorporation,G.R.No.149634,July6,2004,433SCRA455,463464,
inwhichtheCourtmadethepronouncementthattherequirementofverificationissimplyaconditionaffectingtheformof
pleadings,andnoncompliancetherewithdoesnotnecessarilyrenderitfatallydefective.
[29]
Section3,Rule46oftheRulesofCourtpertinentlystatesthatxxx[i]nactionsfiledunderRule65,thepetitionshall
further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was
received,whenamotionfornewtrialorreconsideration,ifany,wasfiledandwhennoticeofthedenialthereofwasreceived.x
xx
[30]
Estrerav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.Nos.15423536,August16,2006, 499 SCRA 86, 95 and SpousesMelo v. Court of
Appeals,supranote27,at214.
[31]
TheRulesofCourtpertinentlyprovidesinSection4,Rule65that[t]hepetitionmaybefilednotlaterthansixty(60)days
fromnoticeofthejudgment,orderorresolution.Incaseamotionforreconsiderationornewtrialistimelyfiled,whethersuch
motionisrequiredornot,thesixty(60)dayperiodshallbecountedfromnoticeofthedenialofsaidmotion.xxx
[32]
Delgadov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.137881,December21,2004,447SCRA402,415.
[33]
CArollo(CAG.R.SPNo.60827),p.21.
[34]
Fuentebellav.Castro,G.R.No.150865,June30,2006,494SCRA183,193194seeRoxasv.CourtofAppeals,415Phil.
430(2001).
[35]
Rollo,p.33CArollo(CAG.R.SPNo.60827),p.23.TheAuthorizationdatedSeptember4,2000pertinentlyreads:
I, KEN TAKAGI, President and Chief Executive Officer of NIPPON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CO., LTD., a
corporation duly organized and existing in accordance with the corporation laws of Japan, with principal address at 3231
Komagome,ToshimakuTokyo,Japan,herebyauthorizeitsInternationalDivisionGeneralManager,Mr.KazuhiroHasegawa,
tosignandactforandinbehalfofNipponEngineeringConsultantsCo.,Ltd.,forpurposesoffilingaPetitionforCertiorari
beforethepropertribunalinthecaseentitled:KazuhiroHasegawaandNipponEngineeringConsultantsCo.,Ltd.vs.Minoru
KitamuraandHon.AvelinoC.DemetriaoftheRegionalTrialCourt,FourthJudicialRegionBranch85,LipaCity,andtodo
suchotherthings,actsanddealswhichmaybenecessaryandproperfortheattainmentofthesaidobjectives [Underscoring
ours].
[36]
Cf.Orbetav.Sendiong,G.R.No.155236,July8,2005,463SCRA180,199200,inwhichtheCourtruledthattheagent's
signingthereinoftheverificationandcertificationisalreadycoveredbytheprovisionsofthegeneralpowerofattorneyissued
bytheprincipal.
[37]
Barcenasv.Tomas,G.R.No.150321,March31,2005,454SCRA593,604.
[38]
DatedOctober11,2001rollo,pp.192203.
[39]
DatedAugust17,2001,id.at202.
[40]
SanPabloManufacturingCorporationv.CommissionerofInternalRevenue,G.R.No.147749,June22,2006,492SCRA
192,197LDPMarketing,Inc.v.Monter,G.R.No.159653,January25,2006,480SCRA137,142Expertravel&Tours,Inc.v.
CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.152392,May26,2005,459SCRA147,160.
[41]
392Phil.596,603604(2000).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

13/15

1/20/2016

G.R.No.149177

[42]
Loquiasv.OfficeoftheOmbudsman,id.at604.
[43]
Santosv.CourtofAppeals,413Phil.41,54(2001).
[44]
Yutingcov.CourtofAppeals,435Phil.83,92(2002).
[45]
BankofAmericaNT&SAv.CourtofAppeals,448Phil.181,193(2003).Asstatedherein,undercertainsituationsresortto
certiorariisconsideredappropriatewhen:(1)thetrialcourtissuedtheorderwithoutorinexcessofjurisdiction(2)thereis
patentgraveabuseofdiscretionbythetrialcourtor(3)appealwouldnotprovetobeaspeedyandadequateremedyaswhen
an appeal would not promptly relieve a defendant from the injurious effects of the patently mistaken order maintaining the
plaintiffs baseless action and compelling the defendants needlessly to go through a protracted trial and clogging the court
docketswithanotherfutilecase.
[46]
Rollo,p.228.
[47]
Id.at234245.
[48]
DatedJune5,2000CArollo(CAG.R.SPNo.60827),pp.5357.
[49]
Id.at55.
[50]
Id.at14.
[51]
Rollo,pp.1928.
[52]
453Phil.927,934(2003).
[53]
Scoles,Hay,Borchers,Symeonides,ConflictofLaws,3rd ed.(2000),p.3.
[54]
CoquiaandAguilingPangalangan,ConflictofLaws,1995ed.,p.64.
[55]
Supra note 53, at 162, citing Hay, The Interrelation of Jurisdictional Choice of Law in U.S. Conflicts Law, 28 Int'l. &
Comp.L.Q.161(1979).
[56]
Shafferv.Heitner,433U.S.186,21597S.Ct.2569,2585(1977),citingJusticeBlack'sDissentingOpinioninHansonv.
Denckla,357U.S.235,25878S.Ct.1228,1242(1958).
[57]
SeeRegalado,RemedialLawCompendium,Vol.1,8th RevisedEd.,pp.78.

[58]
U.S.v.DeLaSanta,9Phil.22,2526(1907).
[59]
Bokingov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.161739,May4,2006,489SCRA521,530TomasClaudioMemorialCollege,Inc.
v.CourtofAppeals,374Phil.859,864(1999).
[60]
SeeRULESOFCOURT,Rule16,Sec.1.
[61]
SeeInRe:Calloway,1Phil.11,12(1901).
[62]
Bokingov.CourtofAppeals,supranote59,at531533RadioCommunicationsofthePhils.Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,435
Phil.62,6869(2002).
[63]
Garciav.Recio,418Phil.723,729(2001)BoardofCommissioners(CID)v.DelaRosa,G.R.Nos.9512223,May31,
1991,197SCRA853,888.
[64]

<http://web2.westlaw.com/search/default.wl?rs=WLW7.10&action=Search&fn=_top&sv=Split&
method=TNC&query=CA(+lex+loci+celebrationis+)&db=DIBLACK&utid=%7bD0AE3BEE91BC4B2BB788
3FB4D963677B%7d&vr=2.0&rp=%2fsearch%2fdefault.wl&mt=WLIGeneralSubscription>(visitedOctober22,2007).
[65]

<http://web2.westlaw.com/search/default.wl?rs=WLW7.10&action=Search&fn=_top&sv=Split&
method=TNC&query=CA(+lex+loci+contractus+)&db=DIBLACK&utid=%7bD0AE3BEE91BC4B2BB788
3FB4D963677B%7d&vr=2.0&rp=%2fsearch%2fdefault.wl&mt=WLIGeneralSubscription>(visitedOctober22,2007).
[66]
Id.
[67]
PhilippineExportandForeignLoanGuaranteeCorporationv.V.P.EusebioConstruction,Inc.,G.R.No.140047,July13,
2004,434SCRA202,214215.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

14/15

1/20/2016

G.R.No.149177

[68]

<http://web2.westlaw.com/search/default.wl?rs=WLW7.10&action=Search&fn=_top&sv=Split&
method=TNC&query=CA(+most+significant+relationship+)&db=DIBLACK&utid=%7bD0AE3BEE91BC4B2BB788
3FB4D963677B%7d&vr=2.0&rp=%2fsearch%2fdefault.wl&mt=WLIGeneralSubscription>(visitedOctober22,2007).
[69]
SaudiArabianAirlinesv.CourtofAppeals,358Phil.105,127(1998).Thecontactswhichweretakenintoaccountinthis
casearethefollowing:(a)theplacewheretheinjuryoccurred(b)theplacewheretheconductcausingtheinjuryoccurred(c)
the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties and (d) the place where the
relationship,ifany,betweenthepartiesiscentered.
[70]
SeeAutenv.Auten,308N.Y155,159160(1954).
[71]
Supranote53,at117118supranote54,at6465.
[72]
Laurelv.Garcia,G.R.Nos.92013and92047,July25,1990,187SCRA797,810811.
[73]
InternationalHarvesterCompanyinRussiav.HamburgAmericanLine,42Phil.845,855(1918).
[74]
Salonga,PrivateInternationalLaw,1995ed.,p.44.
[75]
Veitz,Jr.v.UnisysCorporation, 676 F. Supp. 99, 101 (1987), citing Randallv.ArabianAm.Oil.Co., 778 F. 2d 1146
(1985).
[76]
Underthisrule,acourt,inconflictscases,mayrefuseimpositionsonitsjurisdictionwhereitisnotthemostconvenientor
available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere (Bank of America NT & SA v. Court of
Appeals,supranote45,at196).Thecourtmayrefusetoentertainacaseforanyofthefollowingpracticalreasons:(1)thebelief
thatthemattercanbebettertriedanddecidedelsewhere,eitherbecausethemainaspectsofthecasetranspiredinaforeign
jurisdictionorthematerialwitnesseshavetheirresidencethere(2)thebeliefthatthenonresidentplaintiffsoughttheforum,a
practice known as forum shopping, merely to secure procedural advantages or to convey or harass the defendant (3) the
unwillingnesstoextendlocaljudicialfacilitiestononresidentsoralienswhenthedocketmayalreadybeovercrowded(4)the
inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for effectuating the right sought to be maintained and (5) the difficulty of
ascertainingforeignlaw(Puyatv.Zabarte,405Phil.413,432[2001]).
[77]
PhilsecInvestmentCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.103493,June19,1997,274SCRA102,113.
[78]
BankofAmericaNT&SAv.CourtofAppeals,supranote45,at196.
[79]
BankofAmericaNT&SAv.CourtofAppeals,supranote45,at197.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/149177.htm

15/15