OUR legislators make laws that apply to all citizens of the Philippines and those who are in our territory. These laws are different from other countries and are called domestic laws.
There is also a law which is international in character – it is either public or private. Public international law applies between different countries and to international organizations. On the other hand, private international law applies between citizens of different countries.
Recently, I came across a 2015 case with the title Continental Micronesia, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Joseph Basso, Respondent (G.R. Nos. 178382-83, Sept. 23, 2015). This case was also used as basis for analysis by the students of the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law during the Junior Scholars Symposium in Private International Law.
The case presents a conflict of laws issue because the facts presented the existence of foreign elements.
In the case of Saudi Arabian Airlines, Petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., Respondents (G.R. No. 121191, Oct. 8, 1998), the Supreme Court (SC) held that a foreign element exists when a factual situation cuts across territorial lines and affected by the diverse laws of two or more states.
There are many forms of foreign element. In the same case, “the foreign element may simply consist in the fact that one of the parties to a contract is an alien or has a foreign domicile, or that a contract between nationals of one State involves properties situated in another state. In other cases, the foreign element may assume a complex form.”
A careful study of the facts and issues are needed to know if a foreign judgment should be recognized in our country or not.
In the case of Continental Micronesia vs. Basso, the SC held that conflict of laws must be resolved first.
Petitioner is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws and domiciled in the United States of America (USA). It is licensed to do business in the Philippines. Respondent here is a US citizen residing in the Philippines. He accepted the offer to be a General Manager. In 1992, petitioner took over the Philippine operations of the company, with respondent retaining his position. Thereafter, respondent received a letter from the company’s Vice President informing him that he has agreed to work in the company as a consultant on an “as needed basis.” The respondent wrote a counter-proposal but was rejected by the company.
The respondent then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the petitioner corporation. The company alleged that foreign elements are present. Thus, it filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the company and the subject matter of the controversy.
The issue is whether the labor tribunal has jurisdiction over the case. The SC held that in resolving the conflict problem, the courts should ask the following questions:
1) Under the law, do I have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this case?
2) If the answer is yes, is this a convenient forum to the parties, in light of the facts?
3) If the answer is yes, what is the conflicts rule for this particular problem?
4) If the conflicts rule points to a foreign law, has said law been properly pleaded and proved by the one invoking it?
5) If so, is the application or enforcement of the foreign law in the forum one of the basic exceptions to the application of foreign law? In short, is there any strong policy or vital interest of the forum that is at stake in this case and which should preclude the application of foreign law?
The Court ruled that the labor tribunals had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the case because all requisites are present.
Obviously, the courts have the choices to what law should be applied. However, it must first determine whether or not they have jurisdiction over the case. It should also determine whether or not it will exercise this jurisdiction. Even if the court has jurisdiction, it is not required in its part to exercise it due to reasons of judicial principles that may affect such exercise./PN
