CONFLICT OF LAWS
Instructions:
1. Submit a comprehensive case digest of the foregoing cases.
2. WRITE your digest in a yellow paper;
3. In the digest, properly identify the issues related to our subject conflict
laws and cite the judgment relating to said issues.
4. DEADLINE for submission is on November 28, 2022. NO LATE SUBMISSION.
I. General principles.
a. Hilton Vs. Guyot 159 U.S 113, 1895
DOCTINE:
Comity is neither a matter of absolute obligation, on the one hand, nor of
mere courtesy and good will, upon the other. But it is the recognition which
one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial
acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and
convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens or of other persons who are
under the protection of its laws.
b. Communication Materials and Design, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals [260 SCRA 673
(1996)]
DOCTRINE:
Hence, the Philippine Court may refuse to assume jurisdiction in spite of its
having acquired jurisdiction. Conversely, the court may assume jurisdiction
over the case if it chooses to do so; provided, that the following requisites are
met:
1) That the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently
resort to;
2) That the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as
to the law and the facts; and,
3) That the Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to enforce its
decision.
c. Philsec. Investment Corporation vs. Court of Appeals [274 SCRA 102; 113 (1997)]
DOCTRINE:
Second. Nor is the trial court’s refusal to take cognizance of the case
justifiable under the principle of forum non conveniens:
First, a MTD is limited to the grounds under Rule 16, sec.1, which does not
include forum non conveniens. The propriety of dismissing a case based on
this principle requires a factual determination, hence, it is more properly
considered a matter of defense.
Second, while it is within the discretion of the trial court to abstain from
assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so only after “vital facts are
established, to determine whether special circumstances” require the court’s
desistance.
d. Bellis vs. Bellis, G.R. No. L-23678, June 6, 1967;
e. Government vs. Frank, G.R. No. 2935, March 23, 1909;
f. Cadalin vs. POEA, G.R. No. L-104776, Dec. 5, 1994)
DOCTRINE:
Borrowing Statute - a statute which directs the court of the forum to apply
the foreign statute to the pending claims based on a foreign law
g. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp VS. Sheman 176 SCRA 331 1989
II. Jurisdiction
a. Pennoyer Vs. Neff 95 US 714 1878
b. Idonah Perkins VS. Roxas 72 Phil 514 1941
c. Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc., Vs. CA G.R No. 112573 February 9, 1995
d. Saudi Arabia Airlines vs. CA, G.R. No. 122191, Oct. 8, 1998;
e. Union Carbide Corp. Gas Plant Disaster 634 F. Supp 842 1986
f. Wing On Company VS. Syyap 64 O.G 8311 1967
g. Fleumer VS. Hix 54 Phil. 610 1930
h. Philippine Trust Co. VS. Bohanan 1960
III. Choice of Law
a. Gray vs. Gray 87 N.H. 82, 174 A.H 508 1934
b. Auten vs. Auten 308 N.Y 155, 124 N.E 2d 99 1954
DOCTRINE:
Center of gravity doctrine (most significant relationship theory; grouping
of contacts) - choice of law problems in conflict of laws are resolved by the
application of the law of the jurisdiction which has the most significant
relationship to or contact with event and parties to litigation and the issue
therein.
c. Babcok vs. Jackson 12 N.Y. 2d 73, 191 N.E 2d 279 1963
d. Gibbs vs. The Government of The Philippine Islands G.R. No. L-35694 1933
e. Aznar VS. Garcia 117 Phil. 106
