Civil Law – Conflict
of Laws – Processual Presumption – Forum Non Conveniens
Remedial Law – Civil Procedure – Rule 34 – Summary Judgment
Remedial Law – Civil Procedure – Rule 34 – Summary Judgment
Gil Miguel Puyat, a foreigner, lost a collection suit
filed against him by Ron Zabarte in a court in California, USA. The California
court ordered Puyat to pay the amount of $241k. Puyat was only able to pay $5k.
In January 1994, Zabarte filed an action to enforce
the California judgment here in the Philippines against Puyat. Puyat filed an
Answer where he alleged, among others, that the California court had no
jurisdiction over the case, hence, the foreign judgment is void. He likewise
averred that the trial court had no jurisdiction because the issue involved are
partnership matters which are under the jurisdiction of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC).
Zabarte then filed a motion for summary judgment as he
argued that Puyat’s Answer tendered no issue. The trial court granted the
motion and eventually gave a favorable judgment for Zabarte. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.
On appeal, Puyat now avers that the trial court should
have never taken cognizance of the case because it had no jurisdiction over the
case pursuant to the forum non
conveniens rule. He
averred that under this principle, since all the transaction involved in this
case occurred in California, he being a foreigner, and the California law was
not properly determined, the trial court had no jurisdiction. He also assailed
the validity of the trial court’s act in granting the motion for summary
judgment filed by Zabarte.
ISSUE: Whether or not Puyat
is correct.
HELD: No. The
allowance of summary judgment is proper. In this case, Puyat’s Answer did not
really tender an issue. Summary judgment is resorted to in order to avoid
long drawn out litigations and useless delays. When affidavits,
depositions and admissions on file show that there are no genuine issues of
fact to be tried, the Rules allow a party to pierce the allegations in the
pleadings and to obtain immediate relief by way of summary judgment. In
short, since the facts are not in dispute, the court is allowed to decide the
case summarily by applying the law to the material facts. In this case, Puyat’s
Answer merely alleged that the California court, a civil court, had no
jurisdiction because the case involved was a partnership issue. He however
admitted that the issue involved is the payment of money upon promissory notes
with damages. Puyat also did not attach a copy of the complaint filed by
Zabarte with the California court. As such, the trial court properly presumed,
applying the principle of processual presumption, that the California law is
the same as Philippine law – that cases involving collection of money is
cognizable by civil courts. And by applying the principle of processual
presumption, there’s no longer a need to try the facts in this case, hence, a
summary judgment was in order.
Anent the issue of forum non
conveniens, such does not exist in this case. Under the
principle of forum non conveniens, even if the exercise of
jurisdiction is authorized by law, courts may nonetheless refuse to entertain a
case for any of the following practical reasons:
1.
The belief that the
matter can be better tried and decided elsewhere, either because the main aspects
of the case transpired in a foreign jurisdiction or the material witnesses have
their residence there;
2.
The belief that the non-resident plaintiff
sought the forum[,] a practice known as forum shopping[,] merely to secure
procedural advantages or to convey or harass the defendant;
3.
The unwillingness to extend local judicial
facilities to non-residents or aliens when the docket may already be
overcrowded;
4.
The inadequacy of the
local judicial machinery for effectuating the right sought to be maintained;
and The difficulty of ascertaining foreign law.”
None of the above existed in this case, hence, the
trial court properly took cognizance of the case.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento