BANCO DO BRASIL VS COURT OF APPEALS 333 SCRA 545 -(Conflict of Laws) Private International Law Service of Summons in In Personam

Cases FACTS: In 1989, Cesar Urbino, Sr. sued Poro Point Shipping Services for damages the former incurred when one of the latters ship ran aground causing losses to Urbino. Urbino impleaded Banco Do Brasil (BDB), a foreign corporation not engaged in business in the Philippines nor does it have any office here orany agent. BDB was impleaded simply because it has a claim over the sunken ship. BDB however failed to appear multiple times. Eventually, a judgment was rendered and BDB was adjudged to pay $300,000.00 in damages in favor of Urbino for BDB being a nuisance defendant.BDB assailed the said decision as it argued that there was no valid service of summons because the summons was issued tothe ambassador of Brazil. Further, the other summons which were made through publication is not applicable to BDB as italleged that the action against them is in personam. ISSUE: Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction over Banco Do Brasil. HELD: No. Banco Do Brasil is correct. Although the suit is originally in rem as it was BDBs claim on the sunken ship which was used as the basis for it being impleaded, the action nevertheless became an in personam one when Urbino asked for damagesin the said amount. As such, only a personal service of summons would have vested the court jurisdiction over BDB. Where the action is in personam, one brought against a person on the basis of his personal liability, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. When the defendant is a nonresident, personal service of summons within the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person. This cannot be done, however, if the defendant is not physically present in the country, and thus, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot validly try and decide the case against him.

KAZUHIRO HASEGAWA VS MINORU KITAMURA 538 SCRA 261 Conflict of Laws Private International Law Jurisdiction Lex Loci Celebrationis Lex Loci Solutionis State of the Most Significant Relationship Forum NonConveniens FACTS: In March 1999, Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd, aJapanese firm, was contracted by the Department of PublicWorks and Highways (DPWH) to supervise the construction ofthe Southern Tagalog Access Road. In April 1999, Nipponentered into an independent contractor agreement (ICA) withMinoru Kitamura for the latter to head the said project. The ICAwas entered into in Japan and is effective for a period of 1 year(so until April 2000). In January 2000, DPWH awarded theBongabon-Baler Road project to Nippon. Nippon subsequentlyassigned Kitamura to head the road project. But in February2000, Kazuhiro Hasegawa, the general manager of Nipponinformed Kitamura that they are pre-terminating his contract.Kitamura sought Nippon to reconsider but Nippon refused tonegotiate. Kitamura then filed a

complaint for specificperformance and damages against Nippon in the RTC of Lipa.Hasegawa filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that thecontract was entered in Japan hence, applying the principle oflex loci celebracionis, cases arising from the contract should becognizable only by Japanese courts. The trial court denied themotion. Eventually, Nippon filed a petition for certiorari with theSupreme Court.Hasegawa, on appeal significantly changed its theory, this timeinvoking forum non conveniens; that the RTC is aninconvenient forum because the parties are Japanesenationals who entered into a contract in Japan. Kitamura on the other hand invokes the trial courts ruling which states that matters connected with the performance of contracts areregulated by the law prevailing at the place of performance, sosince the obligations in the ICA are executed in the Philippines,courts here have jurisdiction. ISSUE : Whether or not the complaint against Nippon should bedismissed. HELD :No. The trial court did the proper thing in taking cognizance ofit. In the first place, the case filed by Kitamura is a complaintfor specific performance and damages. Such case is incapableof pecuniary estimation; such cases are within the jurisdictionof the regional trial court.Hasegawa filed his motion to dismiss on the ground of forumnon conveniens. However, such ground is not one of thoseprovided for by the Rules as a ground for dismissing a civilcase.The Supreme Court also emphasized that the contention thatJapanese laws should apply is premature. In conflicts cases,there are three phases and each next phase commences whenone is settled, to wit:1. Jurisdiction Where should litigation be initiated? Courtmust have jurisdiction over the subject matter, the parties,the issues, the property, the res. Also considers, whetherit is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state; choiceof law asks the further question whether the application ofa substantive law which will determine the merits of thecase is fair to both parties.2. Choice of Law Which law will the court apply? Once alocal court takes cognizance, it does not mean that thelocal laws must automatically apply. The court mustdetermine which substantive law when applied to themerits will be fair to both parties.3. Recognition and Enforcement of Judgment Where canthe resulting judgment be enforced?This case is not yet in the second phase because upon the RTCs taking cognizance of the case, Hasegawa immediately filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied. He filed a motionfor reconsideration, which was also denied. Then he bypassedthe proper procedure by immediately filing a petition forcertiorari. The question of which law should be applied shouldhave been settled in the trial court had Hasegawa notimproperly appealed the interlocutory order denying his MFR. ASIAVEST LIMITED VS COURT OF APPEALS 295 SCRA 469 Conflict of Laws Private International Law Service of Summons to a Non Resident ProcessualPresumption FACTS: In 1984, a Hong Kong court ordered Antonio Heras to payUS$1.8 million or its equivalent, with interest, to Asiavest Ltd. Apparently, Heras guaranteed a certain loan in Hong Kong andthe debtor in said loan defaulted hence, the creditor, Asiavest,ran after Heras. But before said judgment was issued and evenduring trial, Heras already left for good Hong Kong and hereturned to the Philippines. So when in 1987, when Asiavestfiled a complaint in court seeking to enforce the foreign judgment against Heras, the latter claim that he never receivedany summons, not in Hong Kong and not in the Philippines. Healso claimed that he never received a copy of the foreign judgment. Asiavest however

contends that Heras was actuallygiven service of summons when a messenger from the SycipSalazar Law Firm served said summons by leaving a copy to one Dionisio Lopez who was Heras son in law. ISSUE : Whether or not the foreign judgment can be enforcedagainst Heras in the Philippines. HELD :No. Although the foreign judgment was duly authenticated(Asiavest was able to adduce evidence in support thereto) andHeras was never able to overcome the validity of it, it cannotbe enforced against Heras here in the Philippines because