FACTS
Brand
Marine Services, Inc. (BMSI), a corporation duly organized & existing under
the laws of Connecticut, &Stockton Rouzie, Jr., an American citizen,
entered into a contract
BMSI
hired Rouzie as its representative to negotiate the sale of services in several
government projects in thePhilippines for an agreed remuneration of 10% of the
gross receipts.
Rouzie
secured a service contract w/ the Rep. of Phil. on behalf of BMSI for the
dredging of rivers affected by the Mt.Pinatubo eruption & mudflows.
Rouzie
filed before the NLRC a suit against BMSI and Rust International (Rust) for
alleged nonpayment of commissions, illegal termination, & breach of
employment contract.
The
Labor Arbiter order
ed
BMSI & Rust to pay Rouzie’s money claims.
Upon
appeal, the NLRC reversed & dismissed Rouzie’s complaint on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction.
Rouzie
filed an action for damages before the RTC of La Union (where he was a
resident) against Raytheon International. He reiterated that he was not paid
the commissions due him from the Pinatubo dredging project w/c hesecured on
behalf of BMSI. The complaint also averred that BMSI, RUST and Raytheon had
combined & functioned as 1 company.
RAYTHEON
SOUGHT THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUNDS OF FAILURE TO STATE ACAUSE
OF ACTION & FORUM NON CONVENIENS & PRAYED FOR DAMAGES BY WAY OF
COMPULSORY
COUNTERCLAIM.
THE RTC DENIED RAYTHEON’S MOTION. THE CA AFFIRMED.
Raytheon’s
contention: The written contract between Rouzie & BMSI included a valid
choice of law clause, that is, that the contract shall be governed by the laws
of the State of Connecticut. It also mentions the presence of foreign elements
in the dispute, namely that the parties & witnesses involved are American
corporations & citizens & the evidence to be presented is located
outside the Philippines, that renders our local courts inconvenient forums. The
foreign elements of the dispute necessitate the immediate application of the
doctrine of forum non conveniens.
ISSUES(a)
W/N the RTC had jurisdiction.(b) W/N the complaint should be dismissed on the
ground of forum non conveniens.
RULING
(a)
YES.
On
the matter of jurisdiction over a conflicts-of-laws problem where the case is
filed in a Philippine court and where the court has jurisdiction over the
subject matter, the parties and the res, it may or can proceed to try the case
even if the rules of conflict-of-laws or the convenience of the parties point
to a foreign forum. This is an exercise of sovereign prerogative of the country
where the case is filed.
Jurisdiction
over the nature and subject matter of an action is conferred by the
Constitution and the law & by the material allegations in the complaint,
irrespective of w/n the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the
claims or reliefs sought therein. The case file was an action for damages
arising from an alleged breach of contract. Undoubtedly, the nature of the
action and the amount of damages prayed are w/in the jurisdiction of the RTC.
As
regards jurisdiction over the parties, the RTC acquired jurisdiction over
Rouzi upon the filing of the complaint. On the other hand,
jurisdiction over the person of Raytheon was acquired by its voluntary
appearance in court.
That
THE SUBJECT CONTRACT INCLUDED A STIPULATION THAT THE SAME SHALL BE GOVERNED
BYTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT THE PHILIPPINE
COURTS, OR ANY OTHER FOREIGN TRIBUNAL FOR THAT MATTER, ARE PRECLUDED FROM HEARING THE CIVIL ACTION.
JURISDICTION
& CHOICE OF LAW ARE 2 DISTINCT CONCEPTS. Jurisdiction considers whether it
is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state; choice of law asks the
further question whether the application of a substantive law which will
determine the merits of the case is fair to both parties. The choice of law
stipulation will be come relevant only when the substantive issues of the
instant case develop, that is, after hearing on the merits proceeds before the
trial court.
(b)
NO.
UNDER
THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, A COURT, IN CONFLICTS-OF-LAWS CASES, MAY
REFUSE
IMPOSITIONS ON ITS JURISDICTION WHERE IT IS NOT THE MOST “CONVENIENT” OR
AVAILABLE
FORUM AND THE PARTIES ARE NOT PRECLUDED FROM SEEKING REMEDIES
ELSEWHERE.
Raytheon’s
averments of the foreign elements are not sufficient to oust the RTC of its
jurisdiction over the case and the parties involved.
Moreover,
the propriety of dismissing a case based on the principle of forum non
conveniens requires a factual determination; hence, it is more properly
considered as a matter of defense. While it is w/c 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.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento