8/13/2019 Con Laws

1/8

8/13/2019 Con Laws

2/8

In the case at bar, Cynthia was never served any summons in any of the manners authorized by the

Rules of Court. The summons served to Teresa cannot bind Cynthia. It is incumbent upon Victoria to

compel the court to authorize the extraterritorial service of summons against Cynthia. Her failure to do so

for a long period of time constitutes a failure to prosecute on her part.

Laureano

324 SCRA 414 Conflict of Laws Private International Law Proof of Foreign Law - Applicability of

Foreign Laws

In 1978, Menandro Laureano was hired as a pilot by the Singapore Airlines Limited (SAL). In 1982

however, SAL was hit by recession and so it had to lay off some employees. Laureano was one of them.

Laureano asked for reconsideration but it was not granted. Aggrieved, Laureano filed a labor case for

illegal dismissal against SAL. But in 1987, he withdrew the labor case and instead filed a civil case for

damages due to illegal termination of contract against SAL. Laureano filed the case here in the

Philippines. SAL moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The motion was

denied. On trial, SAL alleged that the termination of Laureano is valid pursuant to Singaporean law.

The trial court ruled in favor of Laureano. SAL appealed the case raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction,non applicability of Philippine laws, and estoppel, among others. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial

court.

ISSUE: Whether or not Singaporean Law is applicable to this case.

HELD: No. The specific Singaporean Law which holds valid the dismissal of Laureano is not proved in

court. As such, the trial court cannot make a determination if the termination is indeed valid under

Singaporean Law. Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of the laws of Singapore. SAL has the

burden of proof. SAL failed to prove such law hence Philippine law shall apply. However, the case must

be dismissed on the ground of estoppel. Under our laws, all money claims arising from employer-

employee relationships must be filed within three years from the time the cause of action accrued.

Laureanos cause of action accrued in 1982 when he was terminated but he only filed the money claim in

1987 or more than three years from 1982. Hence he is already barred by prescription.

Omanfil

300 SCRA 213 Conflict of Laws Private International Law Proof of Foreign Law

In February 1993, Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co., Ltd., through its local agent, Omanfil

International Manpower Development Corporation, engaged Eduardo Felipe to work as a rigger in

Malaysia. In June 1993, the ferry boat in which Eduardo was assigned met an accident. His body was

never found.

A provision in the Malaysia labor law provides:

Where death has resulted from the injury, a lump sum equal to forty five months earnings or fourteen

thousand four hundred ringgit[RM],whichever is the less;A local labor office in Malaysia then wrote a letter to Hyundai advising the latter of the computation it

arrived at, to wit;

45 months x US $620.04 (monthly salary of Eduardo) = US $27,902.02.

RM14,400 which is equivalent to US $5,393.29 is less than US $27,902.02, hence, Hyundai deposited

the lesser amount with the said labor office.

The wife of Eduardo, Lora Felipe, does not agree that Hyundai is liable for the lesser amount hence she

filed a labor case against Hyundais agent, Omanfil. The labor arbiter ordered Omanfil to pay $27,902.02

8/13/2019 Con Laws

3/8

to Lora. This was affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission. It was ruled that the Malaysian

labor law is susceptible to two interpretations because it is vague; that in case of doubt of labor laws, it

must be construed in favor of the laborer.

ISSUE: Whether or not the National Labor Relations is correct.

HELD: No. The Malaysian Law in question is not vague. Clearly what is due to Lora as death benefit (for

her dead husband) is 14,400 Malaysian Ringgit since that amount is less than US $27,902.02. Further, itappears that the Director General of Labor of Malaysia certified that Eduardo is only entitled to a

maximum of RM14,000.00 pursuant to the labor law in question. This certification is duly authenticated by

Mr. Bayani V. Mangibin, our Consul General in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Such authentication of the said

Certification, which provides an interpretation of said foreign labor law by none other than the Director of

Labor of Malaysia is proof of the foreign law. Further still, this was never contested by Lora.

Wildvalley

342 SCRA 213 Conflict of Laws Private International Law Proof of Foreign Law

In the Orinoco River in Venezuela, it is a rule that ships passing through it must be piloted by pilots

familiar to the river. Hence, in 1988 Captain Nicandro Colon, master of Philippine Roxas, a ship owned byPhilippine President Lines, Inc. (PPL), obtained the services of Ezzar Vasquez, a duly accredited pilot in

Venezuela to pilot the ship in the Orinoco River. Unfortunately, Philippine Roxas ran aground in the

Orinoco River while being piloted by Vasquez. As a result, the stranded ship blocked other vessels. One

such vessel was owned Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. (WSC). The blockade caused $400k worth of

losses to WSC as its ship was not able to make its delivery. Subsequently, WSC sued PPL in the RTC of

Manila. It averred that PPL is liable for the losses it incurred under the laws of Venezuela, to

wit: Reglamento General de la Ley de Pilotaje and Reglamento Para la Zona de Pilotaje No 1 del

Orinoco. These two laws provide that the master and owner of the ship is liable for the negligence of the

pilot of the ship. Vasquez was proven to be negligent when he failed to check on certain vibrations that

the ship was experiencing while traversing the river.

ISSUE: Whether or not Philippine President Lines, Inc. is liable under the said Venezuelan laws.HELD: No. The two Venezuelan Laws were not duly proven as fact before the court. Only mere

photocopies of the laws were presented as evidence. For a copy of a foreign public document to be

admissible, the following requisites are mandatory:

(1) It must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or by his deputy; and

(2) It must be accompanied by a certificate by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general,

consul, vice consular or consular agent or foreign service officer, and with the seal of his office.

And in case of unwritten foreign laws, the oral testimony of expert witnesses is admissible, as are printed

and published books of reports of decisions of the courts of the country concerned if proved to be

commonly admitted in such courts.

Failure to prove the foreign laws gives rise to processual presumption where the foreign law is deemed to

be the same as Philippine laws. Under Philippine laws, PPL nor Captain Colon cannot be held liable for

the negligence of Vasquez. PPL and Colon had shown due diligence in selecting Vasquez to pilot the

vessel. Vasquez is competent and was a duly accredited pilot in Venezuela in good standing when he

was engaged.

Edi-staff

537 SCRA 409 Conflict of Laws Private International Law Proof of Foreign Law

8/13/2019 Con Laws

4/8

In 1993, EDI-Staffbuilders, Inc. (EDI), upon request of Omar Ahmed Ali Bin Bechr Est. (OAB), a company

in Saudi Arabia, sent to OAB resumes from which OAB can choose a computer specialist. Eleazar Gran

was selected. It was agreed that his monthly salary shall be $850.00. But five months into his service in

Saudi Arabia, Gran received a termination letter and right there and then was removed from his post. The

termination letter states that he was incompetent because he does not know the ACAD system which is

required in his line of work; that he failed to enrich his knowledge during his 5 month stay to prove hiscompetence; that he is disobedient because he failed to submit the required daily reports to OAB. Gran

then signed a quitclaim whereby he declared that he is releasing OAB from any liability in exchange of

2,948.00 Riyal.

When Gran returned, he filed a labor case for illegal dismissal against EDI and OAB. EDI in its defense

averred that the dismissal is valid because when Gran and OAB signed the employment contract, both

parties agreed that Saudi labor laws shall govern all matters relating to the termination of Grans

employment; that under Saudi labor laws, Grans termination due to incompetence and insubordination is

valid; that Grans insubordination and incompetence is outlined in the termination letter Gran received.

The labor arbiter dismissed the labor case but on appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission

(NLRC) reversed the decision of the arbiter. The Court of Appeals likewise affirmed the NLRC.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Saudi labor laws should be applied.

HELD: No. The specific Saudi labor laws were not proven in court. EDI did not present proof as to the

existence and the specific provisions of such foreign law. Hence, processual presumption applies and

Philippine labor laws shall be used. Under our laws, an employee like Gran shall only be terminated upon

just cause. The allegations against him, at worst, shall only merit a suspension not a dismissal. His

incompetence is not proven because prior to being sent to Saudi Arabia, he underwent the required trade

test to prove his competence. The presumption therefore is that he is competent and that it is upon OAB

and EDI to prove otherwise. No proof of his incompetence was ever adduced in court. His alleged

insubordination is likewise not proven. It was not proven that the submission of daily track records is part

of his job as a computer specialist. There was also a lack of due process. Under our laws, Gran is entitled

to the two notice rule whereby prior to termination he should receive two notices. In the case at bar, he

only received one and he was immediately terminated on the same day he received the notice.

Lastly, the quitclaim may not also release OAB from liability. Philippine laws is again applied here sansproof of Saudi laws. Under Philippine Laws, a quitclaim is generally frowned upon and are strictly

examined. In this case, based on the circumstances, Gran at that time has no option but to sign the

quitclaim. The quitclaim is also void because his separation pay was merely 2,948 Riyal which is lower

than the $850.00 monthly salary (3,190 Riyal).

Asiavest

In 1985, the High Court of Malaysia ordered the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) to

pay $5.1 million to Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad. This was the result of a recovery suit filed by

Asiavest against PNCC in Malaysia for PNCCs failure to complete a construction project there despite

due payment from Asiavest. Despite demand, PNCC failed to comply with the judgment in Malaysia

hence Asiavest filed a complaint for the enforcement of the Malaysian ruling against PNCC in the

Philippines. The case was filed with the Pasig RTC which eventually denied the complaint. The Court of

Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC.

Asiavest appealed. In its defense, PNCC alleged that the foreign judgment cannot be enforced here

because of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to PNCC, collusion and/or fraud, and there is a clear

mistake of law or fact. Asiavest assailed the arguments of PNCC on the ground that PNCCs counsel

participated in all the proceedings in the Malaysian Court.

8/13/2019 Con Laws

5/8

ISSUE: Whether or not the Malaysian Court judgment should be enforced against PNCC in the

Philippines.

HELD: Yes. PNCC failed to prove and substantiate its bare allegations of want of jurisdiction, want of

notice, collusion and/or fraud, and mistake of fact. On the contrary, Asiavest was able to present evidence

as to the validity of the proceedings that took place in Malaysia. Asiavest presented the certified and

authenticated copies of the judgment and the order issued by the Malaysian Court. It also presentedcorrespondences between Asiavests lawyers and PNCCs lawyers in and out of court which belied

PNCCs allegation that the Malaysian court never acquired jurisdiction over it. PNCCs allegation of fraud

is not sufficient too, further, it never invoked the same in the Malaysian Court.

The Supreme Court notes, to assail a foreign judgment the party must present evidence of want of

jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Otherwise, the

judgment enjoys the presumption of validity so long as it was duly certified and authenticated. In this

case, PNCC failed to present the required evidence.

Phil. Wheels

In 1978, FASGI Enterprises Inc. (FASGI), a foreign corporation organized under the laws of California,

USA, entered into a contract with Philippine Aluminum Wheels, Inc. (PAWI), a Philippine corporation,whereby the latter agrees to deliver 8,594 wheels to FASGI. FASGI received the wheels and so it paid

PAWI $216,444.30. Later however, FASGI found out that the wheels are defective and did not comply

with certain US standards. So in 1979, FASGI sued PAWI in a California court. In 1980, a settlement was

reached but PAWI failed to comply with the terms of the agreement. A second agreement was made but

PAWI was again remiss in its obligation. The agreement basically provides that PAWI shall return the

purchase price in installment and conversely, FASGI shall return the wheel in installment. PAWI was only

able to make two installments (which were actually made beyond the scheduled date). FASGI also

returned the corresponding number of wheels. Eventually in 1982, FASGI sought the enforcement of the

agreement and it received a favorable judgment from the California court. PAWI is then ordered to pay an

equivalent of P252k plus damages but FASGI was not ordered to return the remaining wheels. PAWI was

not able to comply with the court order in the US. So in 1983, FASGI filed a complaint for the enforcementof a foreign judgment with RTC-Makati. Hearings were made and in 1990, the trial judge ruled against

FASGI on the ground that the foreign judgment is tainted with fraud because FASGI was not ordered to

return the remaining wheels (unjust enrichment) and that PAWIs American lawyer entered into the

agreements without the consent of PAWI. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign judgment may be enforced here in the Philippines.

HELD: Yes. The judgment is valid. A valid judgment rendered by a foreign tribunal may be recognized

insofar as the immediate parties and the underlying cause of action are concerned so long as it is

convincingly shown that there has been an opportunity for a full and fair hearing before a court of

competent jurisdiction; that trial upon regular proceedings has been conducted, following due citation or

voluntary appearance of the defendant and under a system of jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial

administration of justice; and that there is nothing to indicate either a prejudice in court and in the system

of laws under which it is sitting or fraud in procuring the judgment. A foreign judgment is presumed to be

valid and binding in the country from which it comes, until a contrary showing, on the basis of a

presumption of regularity of proceedings and the giving of due notice in the foreign forum.

In this case, PAWI was very well represented in the California court. PAWIs insistence that its American

lawyer colluded with FASGI; that he entered into the compromise agreement without PAWIs authority is

belied by the fact that PAWI initially complied with the agreement. It did not disclaim the agreement. It

sent two installments (though belatedly) but failed to comply on the rest. It cannot now aver that the

8/13/2019 Con Laws

6/8

agreement is without its authority. Further, it is just but fair for the California court not to order FASGI to

return the remaining wheels because of PAWIs arrears.

Dacanay

540 SCRA 424 Civil Law Private International Law Nationality Theory Practice of Law is Reserved

for Filipinos

In 1998, Atty. Benjamin Dacanay went to Canada to seek medical help. In order for him to take

advantage of Canadas free medical aid program he became a Canadian citizen in 2004. In 2006

however, he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to Republic Act 9225 of the Citizenship

Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003. In the same year, he returned to the Philippines and he now

intends to resume his practice of law.

ISSUE: Whether or not Benjamin Dacanay may still resume his practice of law.

HELD: Yes. As a rule, the practice of law and other professions in the Philippines are reserved and

limited only to Filipino citizens. Philippine citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar. So when

Dacanay became a Canadian citizen in 2004, he ceased to have the privilege to practice law in the

Philippines. However, under RA 9225, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is

deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires his Filipino citizenship in

accordance with RA 9225. Hence, when Dacanay reacquires his Filipino citizenship in 2006, his

membership to the Philippine bar was deemed to have never been terminated.

But does this also mean that he can automatically resume his practice of law right after reacquisition?

No. Dacanay must still comply with several conditions before he can resume his practice of law, to wit:

(a) the updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in the IBP;

(b) the payment of professional tax;

(c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education; this is especially

significant to refresh the applicant/petitioners knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of legal

developments and

(d) the retaking of the lawyersoathwhich will not only remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a

lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic of

the Philippines.Compliance with these conditions will restore his good standing as a member of the Philippine bar.

TONGOL vs. TONGOL

Facts: On August 19, 1996, Orlando filed before the RTC of Makati City a verified petition for the

declaration of nullity of his marriage with Filipinas on the ground that the latter ispsychologically

incapacitated to comply with her essentialmarital obligations. Orlando Tongol alleged that Filipinas

wasunable to perform her duty as a wife because of unbearable attitude that will lead to their

constant quarrel. Inher Answer with Counter-Petition, Filipinas admitted thatefforts at reconciliation

have been fruitless and that theirmarriage is a failure. However, she claims that their marriagefailed

because it is insufficiency to fulfil hisobligation as married man. Both paties underwent

apsychological exam which proved that the respondentFilipinas Tongol has a psychological

insufficiency.Does the psychological problem of of Mrs. Filipina Tongolenough to compel the court to

nullify their marriage?No, as elucidated in Molina the psychological incapacity mustexist during the

ceremony of the marriage, the psychologicalincapacity must be apparent as to the extent that

the otherparty is uncapable the significance of their marriage andlastly, the malady must be incurable.

The definition ormanifestation of marriage must within the scope of article 36of the Family Code. As in

the present case, the psychologicalisufficiency of Mrs tongol is not severe that would render

herincapable of recognize the sanctity of her marital contractwith her husband, second, Dr. vellegas

ffailed to prove thethat the ailment is incurable. As to the facts of thepsychological examination report

8/13/2019 Con Laws

7/8

say: the emotional malady iscused merely by rejection of Mrs. Tongol by her mother whenshe was yong.

Further, the facts of the case did not show thatMrs. Tongol did not care about the welfare of their

children.And the financial issue as being cited in the facts, the courtdeemed that such phenomena is

natural in evry marriage andcan be settled easily. Hence the court dismissed the petitionof the nullity of

marriage.

It is settled that Article 36 of the Family Code is not to be confused with a divorcelaw that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefor manifest

themselves.[21]It refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even

before the celebration of marriage.[22]It is a malady so grave and so permanent as

to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial

bond one is about to assume.[23]In the instant case, the Court finds no error in the

findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that the aversive behavior of petitioner

and respondent towards each other is a mere indication of incompatibility brought

about by their different family backgrounds as well as their attitudes, which

developed after their marriage.

In sum, it is not disputed that respondent is suffering from a psychological

disorder. However, the totality of the evidence presented in the present case does

not show that her personality disorder is of the kind contemplated by Article 36 of

the Family Code as well as jurisprudence as to render her psychologically

incapacitated or incapable of complying with the essential obligations of marriage.

It remains settled that the State has a high stake in the preservation ofmarriage rooted in its recognition of the sanctity of married life and its mission to

protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social

institution.[24]Hence, any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and

continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.[25]

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The September 25, 2002 Decision

and March 19, 2003 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 66245

areAFFIRMED.

REPUBLIC VS ORBECIDO

Posted by kaye lee on 9:15 AM

472 SCRA 114, GR NO. 154380, October 5, 2005 [Article 26;Divorce]

FACTS:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/157610.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/157610.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/157610.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/157610.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/157610.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/157610.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/157610.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/157610.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/157610.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/157610.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/157610.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/157610.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/157610.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/157610.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/157610.htm#_ftn25http://skinnycases.blogspot.com/2013/08/republic-vs-orbecido.htmlhttp://skinnycases.blogspot.com/2013/08/republic-vs-orbecido.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/157610.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/157610.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/157610.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/157610.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/157610.htm#_ftn21

8/13/2019 Con Laws

8/8

Orbecido and Villanueva were married ad had two children. Wife went to US to work and later became a US citizen.

Thereafter he learned from his son that his wife obtained divorce and married another man. Orbecido filed a petition

for authority to remarry under the Article 26 (2) of the Family Code. RTC Zamboanga del Sur granted his petition.

The SolGen's motion for reconsideration was denied. Orbecido filed a petition for review of certiorari on the

Decision of the RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Orbecido can remarry under Article 26 (2).

RULING:

Yes. Article 26 Par.2 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of

the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a

divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at

the time of the solemnization of the marriage.

The reckoning point is not their citizenship at the time of celebration of marriage, but their citizenship at the time the

divorce decree is obtained abroad by alien spouse capacitating him/her to remarry.

However, Orbecido is barred from remarrying because he did not present competent evidence showing his wife had

obtained a divorce decree and had remarried.

Categories:Persons and Family Relations

http://skinnycases.blogspot.com/search/label/Persons%20and%20Family%20Relationshttp://skinnycases.blogspot.com/search/label/Persons%20and%20Family%20Relationshttp://skinnycases.blogspot.com/search/label/Persons%20and%20Family%20Relationshttp://skinnycases.blogspot.com/search/label/Persons%20and%20Family%20Relations