Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Judicial Resolution of Conflict of Laws Problems, It cannot be acquired…

- - - - Determination of Choice of Law
        Characterization / Doctrine of Qualification
        (Alcala Vda. de Alcañeses v. Alcañeses, 2017)
        
        Before a choice of law can be made, a certain set of facts
        or rules must be categorized; this is the process known as characterization or doctrine of qualification. The purpose of characterization is to enable the forum to select the proper law.
        
        To begin analysis, look at the factual situation, event, or
        operative fact. There must be a “test” or ”connecting
        factor” or “point of contact” before conflict rules apply.
        There may be one or more circumstances present to
        serve as the possible test for determining applicable
        law. They include but are not limited to:
        (Salonga, Private International Law, 1995)
        
        The seat of a legal/juridical person, such as a corporation
        
        The situs of a thing (lex situs)
        
        The person’s nationality, domicile, residence,
        place of sojourn or origin
        
        The place where an act has been done (locus actus), like where a contract is made (lex loci celebrationis)
        
        The place where an act is intended to come into effect, such as such as the place of performance of contractual duties or where a SPOA is exercised (lex loci contractus)
        
        The intention of the contracting parties
        as to the governing law (lex loci intentionis)
        
        The place where judicial or administrative
        proceedings are instituted or done (lex fori)
        
        The flag of a ship
        
        State of the most significant relationship rule: Which state has the most substantial connection to the occurrence and the parties?
        (Hasegawa, et al. v. Kitamura, 2007)
        
        There is no specifically prescribed means to resolve a conflict of laws problem; choice of law varies depending on the circumstances. Courts may employ the "state with the most significant relationship" test in determining choice of law in tort liability. (Alcala Vda. de Alcañeses v. Alcañeses, 2017)
        
        Example: In Alcala Vda. de Alcañeses v. Alcañeses, 2017, Kenya had “the most significant relationship” to the conflict. It must be Kenyan law that applies. Kenya Air is a foreign corporation with a principal place of business in Kenya. The tort was committed aboard one of its planes. It granted the disputed settlement to the petitioner.
        Additionally, the contract stipulated that “it shall be subject to the laws of Kenya”. The only point of contact with Philippine law is that all the parties happened to be Filipino.
        
        Minimum Contacts Theory
        Due process requires that a defendant have certain minimum contacts such that the maintenance of the suit does not affect traditional notions of fair play and justice
        (International Shoe Co v. Washington)
      - General Pointers
        
        Choice-of-law problems resolve the following questions:
        (Alcala Vda. de Alcañeses v. Alcañeses, 2017)
        
        B. To what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the situation?
        
        A. What legal system should control a given situation where
        some of the significant facts occurred in two or more states?
        
        Choice of law asks the question whether the application of a substantive law which will determine the merits of the case is fair to both parties. (Hasegawa, et al. v. Kitamura, 2007)
    - - Kinds
        
        B. Jurisdiction over the Res
        
        How is it acquired?
        
        i. Through custodia legis: The seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law
        
        ii. Through institution of legal proceedings: As a result of which the power of the court is recognized and made effective
        
        C. Subject-matter Jurisdiction
        
        Subject-matter jurisdiction is defined as the authority to
        hear and determine a cause or the right to act in a case.
        
        How is subject-matter
        jurisdiction conferred
        
        By the Constitution or by law; and
        
        By the allegations in the complaint
        
        A. Jurisdiction over the Person
        
        How is it acquired?
        (Continental Micronesia, Inc. v. Joseph Basso, 2015)
        
        Defendant
        
        By voluntary appearance in court: "CMI never denied that it was served with summons. In fact, it voluntarily appeared and participated in the proceedings before the courts."
        
        Through coercive process (proper service of summons):
        "Jurisdiction over the person of CMI was acquired through the coercive process of service of summons. Though a foreign corporation, CMI is licensed to do business in the Philippines and has a local business address here. The purpose of the law in requiring that foreign corporations doing business in the country be licensed to do so, is to subject the foreign corporations to the jurisdiction of our courts."
        
        Personal service of summons
        (Sec. 5, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court)
        
        Substituted service of summons
        (Sec. 6, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court)
        
        Plaintiff
        
        By filing a complaint: “As regards jurisdiction over the parties, LA acquired jurisdiction over the person of Basso, notwithstanding his citizenship, when he filed his complaint against CMI.”
      - Definition
        
        Jurisdiction is distinct from choice of law. Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state. The power to exercise jurisdiction does not automatically give a state constitutional authority to apply forum law.
        (Hasegawa, et al. v. Kitamura, 2007)
        
        Jurisdiction is the right of the State under International Law to regulate conduct in matters not exclusively of domestic concern (Mann, the Doctrine of Jurisdiction in International Law, 1964)
  - - - Exceptions to the application of foreign law
        Coquia, A Restatement of Conflict of Laws
        (Private International Law) for the Philippines, 1992
        
        When the application of the foreign law might
        endanger the vital interest of the state
        
        When the case involves real or personal
        property situated in the forum
        
        when the application of the foreign law will work
        undeniable injustice to the citizens of the forum
        
        When the foreign law is purely
        fiscal or administrative law;
        
        When the foreign law
        invoked is procedural in nature
        
        When the foreign law invoked
        is penal in character;
        
        When the foreign law invoked is
        contrary to good morals (contra bonus mores);
        
        When the foreign law invoked
        is contrary to public policy;
- - - - A. Lack of Jurisdiction
      - B. Refusal to Assume Jurisdiction
        (Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens)
        
        Definition
        
        Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens,
        a court, in conflicts of law 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. (Bank of America v. Court of Appeals,
        2003; Raytheon v. Rouzie, Jr., 2008)
        
        When Applicable
        
        It is based on the sound
        discretion of the court.
        (Hasegawa, et. al. v. Kitamura, 2007)
        
        Whether a suit should be entertained or
        dismissed on the basis of the said doctrine
        depends largely upon the facts of the particular
        case and is addressed to the sound
        discretion of the trial court.
        
        Before deciding on whether to abstain
        from assuming jurisdiction on this
        ground, the court should do so
        only after vital facts are established
        (Raytheon v. Rouzie, Jr., 2008)
        
        It cannot be used
        as a ground for a
        motion to dismiss.
        (Bank of America v.
        Court of Appeals, 2003)
        
        The doctrine of forum non conveniens should
        not be used as a ground for a MTD because
        Sec. 12, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court does
        not include said doctrine as a ground.
        
        The propriety of dismissing a case based on this
        principle of forum non conveniens requires a factual determination, hence it is more properly considered
        a matter of defense.
        
        When may the court assume jurisdiction?
        (Bank of America v. Court of Appeals, 2003)
  - - - i. That the Philippine Court is one to which
        the parties may conveniently resort to;
      - ii. That the Philippine Court is in a
        position to make an intelligent decision
        as to the law and the facts; and
      - ii. That the Philippine Court has or is likely
        to have power to enforce its decision.
    - - B. Take into account or apply law of other state/s
      - A. Apply internal forum law; or
      - 1 more item...