G.R. No. 122191 October 8, 1998

SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS, MILAGROS P. MORADA and HON. RODOLFO A. ORTIZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 89, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, respondents.

 

QUISUMBING, J.:

This petition for certiorari pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to annul and set aside the Resolution 1dated September 27, 1995 and the Decision 2 dated April 10, 1996 of the Court of Appeals 3 in CA-G.R. SP No. 36533, 4and the Orders 5 dated August 29, 1994 6 and February 2, 1995 7 that were issued by the trial court in Civil Case No. Q-93-18394. 8

The pertinent antecedent facts which gave rise to the instant petition, as stated in the questioned Decision  9, are as follows:

On January 21, 1988 defendant SAUDIA hired plaintiff as a Flight Attendant for its airlines based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. . . .

On April 27, 1990, while on a lay-over in Jakarta, Indonesia, plaintiff went to a disco dance with fellow crew members Thamer Al-Gazzawi and Allah Al-Gazzawi, both Saudi nationals. Because it was almost morning when they returned to their hotels, they agreed to have breakfast together at the room of Thamer. When they were in te (sic) room, Allah left on some pretext. Shortly after he did, Thamer attempted to rape plaintiff. Fortunately, a roomboy and several security personnel heard her cries for help and rescued her. Later, the Indonesian police came and arrested Thamer and Allah Al-Gazzawi, the latter as an accomplice.

When plaintiff returned to Jeddah a few days later, several SAUDIA officials interrogated her about the Jakarta incident. They then requested her to go back to Jakarta to help arrange the release of Thamer and Allah. In Jakarta, SAUDIA Legal Officer Sirah Akkad and base manager Baharini negotiated with the police for the immediate release of the detained crew members but did not succeed because plaintiff refused to cooperate. She was afraid that she might be tricked into something she did not want because of her inability to understand the local dialect. She also declined to sign a blank paper and a document written in the local dialect. Eventually, SAUDIA allowed plaintiff to return to Jeddah but barred her from the Jakarta flights.

Plaintiff learned that, through the intercession of the Saudi Arabian government, the Indonesian authorities agreed to deport Thamer and Allah after two weeks of detention. Eventually, they were again put in service by defendant SAUDI (sic). In September 1990, defendant SAUDIA transferred plaintiff to Manila.

On January 14, 1992, just when plaintiff thought that the Jakarta incident was already behind her, her superiors requested her to see Mr. Ali Meniewy, Chief Legal Officer of SAUDIA, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. When she saw him, he brought her to the police station where the police took her passport and questioned her about the Jakarta incident. Miniewy simply stood by as the police put pressure on her to make a statement dropping the case against Thamer and Allah. Not until she agreed to do so did the police return her passport and allowed her to catch the afternoon flight out of Jeddah.

One year and a half later or on lune 16, 1993, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, a few minutes before the departure of her flight to Manila, plaintiff was not allowed to board the plane and instead ordered to take a later flight to Jeddah to see Mr. Miniewy, the Chief Legal Officer of SAUDIA. When she did, a certain Khalid of the SAUDIA office brought her to a Saudi court where she was asked to sign a document written in Arabic. They told her that this was necessary to close the case against Thamer and Allah. As it turned out, plaintiff signed a notice to her to appear before the court on June 27, 1993. Plaintiff then returned to Manila.

Shortly afterwards, defendant SAUDIA summoned plaintiff to report to Jeddah once again and see Miniewy on June 27, 1993 for further investigation. Plaintiff did so after receiving assurance from SAUDIA's Manila manager, Aslam Saleemi, that the investigation was routinary and that it posed no danger to her.

In Jeddah, a SAUDIA legal officer brought plaintiff to the same Saudi court on June 27, 1993. Nothing happened then but on June 28, 1993, a Saudi judge interrogated plaintiff through an interpreter about the Jakarta incident. After one hour of interrogation, they let her go. At the airport, however, just as her plane was about to take off, a SAUDIA officer told her that the airline had forbidden her to take flight. At the Inflight Service Office where she was told to go, the secretary of Mr. Yahya Saddick took away her passport and told her to remain in Jeddah, at the crew quarters, until further orders.

On July 3, 1993 a SAUDIA legal officer again escorted plaintiff to the same court where the judge, to her astonishment and shock, rendered a decision, translated to her in English, sentencing her to five months imprisonment and to 286 lashes. Only then did she realize that the Saudi court had tried her, together with Thamer and Allah, for what happened in Jakarta. The court found plaintiff guilty of (1) adultery; (2) going to a disco, dancing and listening to the music in violation of Islamic laws; and (3) socializing with the male crew, in contravention of Islamic tradition. 10

Facing conviction, private respondent sought the help of her employer, petitioner SAUDIA. Unfortunately, she was denied any assistance. She then asked the Philippine Embassy in Jeddah to help her while her case is on appeal. Meanwhile, to pay for her upkeep, she worked on the domestic flight of SAUDIA, while Thamer and Allah continued to serve in the internationalflights. 11

Because she was wrongfully convicted, the Prince of Makkah dismissed the case against her and allowed her to leave Saudi Arabia. Shortly before her return to Manila, 12 she was terminated from the service by SAUDIA, without her being informed of the cause.

On November 23, 1993, Morada filed a Complaint 13 for damages against SAUDIA, and Khaled Al-Balawi ("Al-Balawi"), its country manager.

On January 19, 1994, SAUDIA filed an Omnibus Motion To Dismiss 14 which raised the following grounds, to wit: (1) that the Complaint states no cause of action against Saudia; (2) that defendant Al-Balawi is not a real party in interest; (3) that the claim or demand set forth in the Complaint has been waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished; and (4) that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case.

On February 10, 1994, Morada filed her Opposition (To Motion to Dismiss) 15. Saudia filed a reply 16 thereto on March 3, 1994.

On June 23, 1994, Morada filed an Amended Complaint 17 wherein Al-Balawi was dropped as party defendant. On August 11, 1994, Saudia filed its Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint 18.

The trial court issued an Order 19 dated August 29, 1994 denying the Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by Saudia.

From the Order of respondent Judge 20 denying the Motion to Dismiss, SAUDIA filed on September 20, 1994, its Motion for Reconsideration 21 of the Order dated August 29, 1994. It alleged that the trial court has no jurisdiction to hear and try the case on the basis of Article 21 of the Civil Code, since the proper law applicable is the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. On October 14, 1994, Morada filed her Opposition 22 (To Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration).

In the Reply 23 filed with the trial court on October 24, 1994, SAUDIA alleged that since its Motion for Reconsideration raised lack of jurisdiction as its cause of action, the Omnibus Motion Rule does not apply, even if that ground is raised for the first time on appeal. Additionally, SAUDIA alleged that the Philippines does not have any substantial interest in the prosecution of the instant case, and hence, without jurisdiction to adjudicate the same.

Respondent Judge subsequently issued another Order 24 dated February 2, 1995, denying SAUDIA's Motion for Reconsideration. The pertinent portion of the assailed Order reads as follows:

Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration of defendant Saudi Arabian Airlines filed, thru counsel, on September 20, 1994, and the Opposition thereto of the plaintiff filed, thru counsel, on October 14, 1994, as well as the Reply therewith of defendant Saudi Arabian Airlines filed, thru counsel, on October 24, 1994, considering that a perusal of the plaintiffs Amended Complaint, which is one for the recovery of actual, moral and exemplary damages plus attorney's fees, upon the basis of the applicable Philippine law, Article 21 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, is, clearly, within the jurisdiction of this Court as regards the subject matter, and there being nothing new of substance which might cause the reversal or modification of the order sought to be reconsidered, the motion for reconsideration of the defendant, is DENIED.

SO ORDERED. 25

Consequently, on February 20, 1995, SAUDIA filed its Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order 26 with the Court of Appeals.

Respondent Court of Appeals promulgated a Resolution with Temporary Restraining Order 27 dated February 23, 1995, prohibiting the respondent Judge from further conducting any proceeding, unless otherwise directed, in the interim.

In another Resolution 28 promulgated on September 27, 1995, now assailed, the appellate court denied SAUDIA's Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated February 18, 1995, to wit:

The Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction is hereby DENIED, after considering the Answer, with Prayer to Deny Writ of Preliminary Injunction (Rollo, p. 135) the Reply and Rejoinder, it appearing that herein petitioner is not clearly entitled thereto (Unciano Paramedical College, et. Al.,v. Court of Appeals, et. Al., 100335, April 7, 1993, Second Division).

SO ORDERED.

On October 20, 1995, SAUDIA filed with this Honorable Court the instant Petition 29 for Review with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order dated October 13, 1995.

However, during the pendency of the instant Petition, respondent Court of Appeals rendered the Decision 30 dated April 10, 1996, now also assailed. It ruled that the Philippines is an appropriate forum considering that the Amended Complaint's basis for recovery of damages is Article 21 of the Civil Code, and thus, clearly within the jurisdiction of respondent Court. It further held that certiorari is not the proper remedy in a denial of a Motion to Dismiss, inasmuch as the petitioner should have proceeded to trial, and in case of an adverse ruling, find recourse in an appeal.

On May 7, 1996, SAUDIA filed its Supplemental Petition for Review with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order 31dated April 30, 1996, given due course by this Court. After both parties submitted their Memoranda, 32 the instant case is now deemed submitted for decision.

Petitioner SAUDIA raised the following issues:

I

The trial court has no jurisdiction to hear and try Civil Case No. Q-93-18394 based on Article 21 of the New Civil Code since the proper law applicable is the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia inasmuch as this case involves what is known in private international law as a "conflicts problem". Otherwise, the Republic of the Philippines will sit in judgment of the acts done by another sovereign state which is abhorred.

II

Leave of court before filing a supplemental pleading is not a jurisdictional requirement. Besides, the matter as to absence of leave of court is now moot and academic when this Honorable Court required the respondents to comment on petitioner's April 30, 1996 Supplemental Petition For Review With Prayer For A Temporary Restraining Order Within Ten (10) Days From Notice Thereof. Further, the Revised Rules of Court should be construed with liberality pursuant to Section 2, Rule 1 thereof.

III

Petitioner received on April 22, 1996 the April 10, 1996 decision in CA-G.R. SP NO. 36533 entitled "Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Hon. Rodolfo A. Ortiz, et al." and filed its April 30, 1996 Supplemental Petition For Review With Prayer For A Temporary Restraining Order on May 7, 1996 at 10:29 a.m. or within the 15-day reglementary period as provided for under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. Therefore, the decision in CA-G.R. SP NO. 36533 has not yet become final and executory and this Honorable Court can take cognizance of this case. 33

From the foregoing factual and procedural antecedents, the following issues emerge for our resolution:

I.

WHETHER RESPONDENT APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND TRY CIVIL CASE NO. Q-93-18394 ENTITLED "MILAGROS P. MORADA V. SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES".

II.

WHETHER RESPONDENT APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT IN THIS CASE PHILIPPINE LAW SHOULD GOVERN.

Petitioner SAUDIA claims that before us is a conflict of laws that must be settled at the outset. It maintains that private respondent's claim for alleged abuse of rights occurred in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It alleges that the existence of a foreign element qualifies the instant case for the application of the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by virtue of the lex loci delicti commissi rule. 34

On the other hand, private respondent contends that since her Amended Complaint is based on Articles 19 35 and 21 36 of the Civil Code, then the instant case is properly a matter of domestic law. 37

Under the factual antecedents obtaining in this case, there is no dispute that the interplay of events occurred in two states, the Philippines and Saudi Arabia.

As stated by private respondent in her Amended Complaint 38 dated June 23, 1994:

2. Defendant SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES or SAUDIA is a foreign airlines corporation doing business in the Philippines. It may be served with summons and other court processes at Travel Wide Associated Sales (Phils.). Inc., 3rd Floor, Cougar Building, 114 Valero St., Salcedo Village, Makati, Metro Manila.

xxx xxx xxx

6. Plaintiff learned that, through the intercession of the Saudi Arabian government, the Indonesian authorities agreed to deport Thamer and Allah after two weeks of detention. Eventually, they were again put in service by defendant SAUDIA. In September 1990, defendant SAUDIA transferred plaintiff to Manila.

7. On January 14, 1992, just when plaintiff thought that the Jakarta incident was already behind her, her superiors reauested her to see MR. Ali Meniewy, Chief Legal Officer of SAUDIA in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. When she saw him, he brought her to the police station where the police took her passport and questioned her about the Jakarta incident. Miniewy simply stood by as the police put pressure on her to make a statement dropping the case against Thamer and Allah. Not until she agreed to do so did the police return her passport and allowed her to catch the afternoon flight out of Jeddah.

8. One year and a half later or on June 16, 1993, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, a few minutes before the departure of her flight to Manila, plaintiff was not allowed to board the plane and instead ordered to take a later flight to Jeddah to see Mr. Meniewy, the Chief Legal Officer of SAUDIA. When she did, a certain Khalid of the SAUDIA office brought her to a Saudi court where she was asked to sigh a document written in Arabic. They told her that this was necessary to close the

case against Thamer and Allah. As it turned out, plaintiff signed a notice to her to appear before the court on June 27, 1993. Plaintiff then returned to Manila.

9. Shortly afterwards, defendant SAUDIA summoned plaintiff to report to Jeddah once again and see Miniewy on June 27, 1993 for further investigation. Plaintiff did so after receiving assurance from SAUDIA's Manila manger, Aslam Saleemi, that the investigation was routinary and that it posed no danger to her.

10. In Jeddah, a SAUDIA legal officer brought plaintiff to the same Saudi court on June 27, 1993. Nothing happened then but on June 28, 1993, a Saudi judge interrogated plaintiff through an interpreter about the Jakarta incident. After one hour of interrogation, they let her go. At the airport, however, just as her plane was about to take off, a SAUDIA officer told her that the airline had forbidden her to take that flight. At the Inflight Service Office where she was told to go, the secretary of Mr. Yahya Saddick took away her passport and told her to remain in Jeddah, at the crew quarters, until further orders.

11. On July 3, 1993 a SAUDIA legal officer again escorted plaintiff to the same court where the judge, to her astonishment and shock, rendered a decision, translated to her in English, sentencing her to five months imprisonment and to 286 lashes. Only then did she realize that the Saudi court had tried her, together with Thamer and Allah, for what happened in Jakarta. The court found plaintiff guilty of (1) adultery; (2) going to a disco, dancing, and listening to the music in violation of Islamic laws; (3) socializing with the male crew, in contravention of Islamic tradition.

12. Because SAUDIA refused to lend her a hand in the case, plaintiff sought the help of the Philippines Embassy in Jeddah. The latter helped her pursue an appeal from the decision of the court. To pay for her upkeep, she worked on the domestic flights of defendant SAUDIA while, ironically, Thamer and Allah freely served the international flights. 39

Where the factual antecedents satisfactorily establish the existence of a foreign element, we agree with petitioner that the problem herein could present a "conflicts" case.

A factual situation that cuts across territorial lines and is affected by the diverse laws of two or more states is said to contain a "foreign element". The presence of a foreign element is inevitable since social and economic affairs of individuals and associations are rarely confined to the geographic limits of their birth or conception. 40

The forms in which this foreign element may appear are many. 41 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. 42

In the instant case, the foreign element consisted in the fact that private respondent Morada is a resident Philippine national, and that petitioner SAUDIA is a resident foreign corporation. Also, by virtue of the employment of Morada with the petitioner Saudia as a flight stewardess, events did transpire during her many occasions of travel across national borders, particularly from Manila, Philippines to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and vice versa, that caused a "conflicts" situation to arise.

We thus find private respondent's assertion that the case is purely domestic, imprecise. A conflicts problem presents itself here, and the question of jurisdiction 43 confronts the court a quo.

After a careful study of the private respondent's Amended Complaint, 44 and the Comment thereon, we note that she aptly predicated her cause of action on Articles 19 and 21 of the New Civil Code.

On one hand, Article 19 of the New Civil Code provides:

Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith.

On the other hand, Article 21 of the New Civil Code provides:

Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for damages.

Thus, in Philippine National Bank (PNB) vs. Court of Appeals, 45 this Court held that:

The aforecited provisions on human relations were intended to expand the concept of torts in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically provide in the statutes.

Although Article 19 merely declares a principle of law, Article 21 gives flesh to its provisions. Thus, we agree with private respondent's assertion that violations of Articles 19 and 21 are actionable, with judicially enforceable remedies in the municipal forum.

Based on the allegations 46 in the Amended Complaint, read in the light of the Rules of Court on jurisdiction 47 we find that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City possesses jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. 48 Its authority to try and hear the case is provided for under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 7691, to wit:

Sec. 1. Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980", is hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction:

xxx xxx xxx

(8) In all other cases in which demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and cots or the value of the property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand, exclusive of the above-mentioned items exceeds Two hundred Thousand pesos (P200,000.00). (Emphasis ours)

xxx xxx xxx

And following Section 2 (b), Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court — the venue, Quezon City, is appropriate:

Sec. 2 Venue in Courts of First Instance. — [Now Regional Trial Court]

(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) Personal actions. — All other actions may be commenced and tried where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiff resides, at the election of the plaintiff.

Pragmatic considerations, including the convenience of the parties, also weigh heavily in favor of the RTC Quezon City assuming jurisdiction. Paramount is the private interest of the litigant. Enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained is quite obvious. Relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial are equally important. Plaintiff may not, by choice of an inconvenient forum, "vex", "harass", or "oppress" the defendant, e.g. by inflicting upon him needless expense or disturbance. But unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs choice of forum should rarely be disturbed. 49

Weighing the relative claims of the parties, the court a quo found it best to hear the case in the Philippines. Had it refused to take cognizance of the case, it would be forcing plaintiff (private respondent now) to seek remedial action elsewhere, i.e. in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia where she no longer maintains substantial connections. That would have caused a fundamental unfairness to her.

Moreover, by hearing the case in the Philippines no unnecessary difficulties and inconvenience have been shown by either of the parties. The choice of forum of the plaintiff (now private respondent) should be upheld.

Similarly, the trial court also possesses jurisdiction over the persons of the parties herein. By filing her Complaint and Amended Complaint with the trial court, private respondent has voluntary submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the court.

The records show that petitioner SAUDIA has filed several motions 50 praying for the dismissal of Morada's Amended Complaint. SAUDIA also filed an Answer In Ex Abundante Cautelam dated February 20, 1995. What is very

patent and explicit from the motions filed, is that SAUDIA prayed for other reliefs under the premises. Undeniably, petitioner SAUDIA has effectively submitted to the trial court's jurisdiction by praying for the dismissal of the Amended Complaint on grounds other than lack of jurisdiction.

As held by this Court in Republic vs. Ker and Company, Ltd.: 51

We observe that the motion to dismiss filed on April 14, 1962, aside from disputing the lower court's jurisdiction over defendant's person, prayed for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's cause of action has prescribed. By interposing such second ground in its motion to dismiss, Ker and Co., Ltd. availed of an affirmative defense on the basis of which it prayed the court to resolve controversy in its favor. For the court to validly decide the said plea of defendant Ker & Co., Ltd., it necessarily had to acquire jurisdiction upon the latter's person, who, being the proponent of the affirmative defense, should be deemed to have abandoned its special appearance and voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court.

Similarly, the case of De Midgely vs. Ferandos, held that;

When the appearance is by motion for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, it must be for the sole and separate purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court. If his motion is for any other purpose than to object to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, he thereby submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court. A special appearance by motion made for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person will be held to be a general appearance, if the party in said motion should, for example, ask for a dismissal of the action upon the further ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter. 52

Clearly, petitioner had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Thus, we find that the trial court has jurisdiction over the case and that its exercise thereof, justified.

As to the choice of applicable law, we note that choice-of-law problems seek to answer two important questions: (1) What legal system should control a given situation where some of the significant facts occurred in two or more states; and (2) to what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the situation. 53

Several theories have been propounded in order to identify the legal system that should ultimately control. Although ideally, all choice-of-law theories should intrinsically advance both notions of justice and predictability, they do not always do so. The forum is then faced with the problem of deciding which of these two important values should be stressed. 54

Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us to determine under what category a certain set of facts or rules fall. This process is known as "characterization", or the "doctrine of qualification". It is the "process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question specified in a conflicts rule." 55 The purpose of "characterization" is to enable the forum to select the proper law. 56

Our starting point of analysis here is not a legal relation, but a factual situation, event, or operative fact. 57 An essential element of conflict rules is the indication of a "test" or "connecting factor" or "point of contact". Choice-of-law rules invariably consist of a factual relationship (such as property right, contract claim) and a connecting factor or point of contact, such as the situs of the res, the place of celebration, the place of performance, or the place of wrongdoing. 58

Note that one or more circumstances may be present to serve as the possible test for the determination of the applicable law. 59 These "test factors" or "points of contact" or "connecting factors" could be any of the following:

(1) The nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, his place of sojourn, or his origin;

(2) the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation;

(3) the situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is deemed to be situated. In particular, the lex situs is decisive when real rights are involved;

(4) the place where an act has been done, the locus actus, such as the place where a contract has been made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort committed. The lex loci actus is particularly important in contracts and torts;

(5) the place where an act is intended to come into effect, e.g., the place of performance of contractual duties, or the place where a power of attorney is to be exercised;

(6) the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern their agreement, the lex loci intentionis;

(7) the place where judicial or administrative proceedings are instituted or done. The lex fori — the law of the forum — is particularly important because, as we have seen earlier, matters of "procedure" not going to the substance of the claim involved are governed by it; and because the lex fori applies whenever the content of the otherwise applicable foreign law is excluded from application in a given case for the reason that it falls under one of the exceptions to the applications of foreign law; and

(8) the flag of a ship, which in many cases is decisive of practically all legal relationships of the ship and of its master or owner as such. It also covers contractual relationships particularly contracts of affreightment. 60 (Emphasis ours.)

After a careful study of the pleadings on record, including allegations in the Amended Complaint deemed admitted for purposes of the motion to dismiss, we are convinced that there is reasonable basis for private respondent's assertion that although she was already working in Manila, petitioner brought her to Jeddah on the pretense that she would merely testify in an investigation of the charges she made against the two SAUDIA crew members for the attack on her person while they were in Jakarta. As it turned out, she was the one made to face trial for very serious charges, including adultery and violation of Islamic laws and tradition.

There is likewise logical basis on record for the claim that the "handing over" or "turning over" of the person of private respondent to Jeddah officials, petitioner may have acted beyond its duties as employer. Petitioner's purported act contributed to and amplified or even proximately caused additional humiliation, misery and suffering of private respondent. Petitioner thereby allegedly facilitated the arrest, detention and prosecution of private respondent under the guise of petitioner's authority as employer, taking advantage of the trust, confidence and faith she reposed upon it. As purportedly found by the Prince of Makkah, the alleged conviction and imprisonment of private respondent was wrongful. But these capped the injury or harm allegedly inflicted upon her person and reputation, for which petitioner could be liable as claimed, to provide compensation or redress for the wrongs done, once duly proven.

Considering that the complaint in the court a quo is one involving torts, the "connecting factor" or "point of contact" could be the place or places where the tortious conduct or lex loci actus occurred. And applying the torts principle in a conflicts case, we find that the Philippines could be said as a situs of the tort (the place where the alleged tortious conduct took place). This is because it is in the Philippines where petitioner allegedly deceived private respondent, a Filipina residing and working here. According to her, she had honestly believed that petitioner would, in the exercise of its rights and in the performance of its duties, "act with justice, give her due and observe honesty and good faith." Instead, petitioner failed to protect her, she claimed. That certain acts or parts of the injury allegedly occurred in another country is of no moment. For in our view what is important here is the place where the over-all harm or the totality of the alleged injury to the person, reputation, social standing and human rights of complainant, had lodged, according to the plaintiff below (herein private respondent). All told, it is not without basis to identify the Philippines as the situs of the alleged tort.

Moreover, with the widespread criticism of the traditional rule of lex loci delicti commissi, modern theories and rules on tort liability 61 have been advanced to offer fresh judicial approaches to arrive at just results. In keeping abreast with the modern theories on tort liability, we find here an occasion to apply the "State of the most significant relationship" rule, which in our view should be appropriate to apply now, given the factual context of this case.

In applying said principle to determine the State which has the most significant relationship, the following contacts are to be taken into account and evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue: (a) the place where the injury occurred; (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred; (c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. 62

As already discussed, there is basis for the claim that over-all injury occurred and lodged in the Philippines. There is likewise no question that private respondent is a resident Filipina national, working with petitioner, a resident foreign corporation engaged here in the business of international air carriage. Thus, the "relationship" between the parties was centered here, although it should be stressed that this suit is not based on mere labor law violations. From the record, the claim that the Philippines has the most significant contact with the matter in this dispute, 63 raised by private respondent as plaintiff below against defendant (herein petitioner), in our view, has been properly established.

Prescinding from this premise that the Philippines is the situs of the tort complained of and the place "having the most interest in the problem", we find, by way of recapitulation, that the Philippine law on tort liability should have paramount application to and control in the resolution of the legal issues arising out of this case. Further, we hold that the respondent Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the complaint; the appropriate venue is in Quezon City, which could properly apply Philippine law. Moreover, we find untenable petitioner's insistence that "[s]ince private respondent instituted this suit, she has the burden of pleading and proving the applicable Saudi law on the matter." 64 As aptly said by private respondent, she has "no obligation to plead and prove the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia since her cause of action is based on Articles 19 and 21" of the Civil Code of the Philippines. In her Amended Complaint and subsequent pleadings, she never alleged that Saudi law should govern this case. 65 And as correctly held by the respondent appellate court, "considering that it was the petitioner who was invoking the applicability of the law of Saudi Arabia, then the burden was on it [petitioner] to plead and to establish what the law of Saudi Arabia is". 66

Lastly, no error could be imputed to the respondent appellate court in upholding the trial court's denial of defendant's (herein petitioner's) motion to dismiss the case. Not only was jurisdiction in order and venue properly laid, but appeal after trial was obviously available, and expeditious trial itself indicated by the nature of the case at hand. Indubitably, the Philippines is the state intimately concerned with the ultimate outcome of the case below, not just for the benefit of all the litigants, but also for the vindication of the country's system of law and justice in a transnational setting. With these guidelines in mind, the trial court must proceed to try and adjudge the case in the light of relevant Philippine law, with due consideration of the foreign element or elements involved. Nothing said herein, of course, should be construed as prejudging the results of the case in any manner whatsoever.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED. Civil Case No. Q-93-18394 entitled "Milagros P. Morada vs. Saudi Arabia Airlines" is hereby REMANDED to Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 89 for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Vitug and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

G.R. No. 92013 July 25, 1990

SALVADOR H. LAUREL, petitioner, vs.RAMON GARCIA, as head of the Asset Privatization Trust, RAUL MANGLAPUS, as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and CATALINO MACARAIG, as Executive Secretary, respondents.

G.R. No. 92047 July 25, 1990

DIONISIO S. OJEDA, petitioner, vs.EXECUTIVE SECRETARY MACARAIG, JR., ASSETS PRIVATIZATION TRUST CHAIRMAN RAMON T. GARCIA, AMBASSADOR RAMON DEL ROSARIO, et al., as members of the PRINCIPAL AND BIDDING COMMITTEES ON THE UTILIZATION/DISPOSITION PETITION OF PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT PROPERTIES IN JAPAN,respondents.

Arturo M. Tolentino for petitioner in 92013.

 

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

These are two petitions for prohibition seeking to enjoin respondents, their representatives and agents from proceeding with the bidding for the sale of the 3,179 square meters of land at 306 Roppongi, 5-Chome Minato-ku Tokyo, Japan scheduled on February 21, 1990. We granted the prayer for a temporary restraining order effective February 20, 1990. One of the petitioners (in G.R. No. 92047) likewise prayes for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to fully disclose to the public the basis of their decision to push through with the sale of the Roppongi property inspire of strong public opposition and to explain the proceedings which effectively prevent the participation of Filipino citizens and entities in the bidding process.

The oral arguments in G.R. No. 92013, Laurel v. Garcia, et al. were heard by the Court on March 13, 1990. After G.R. No. 92047, Ojeda v. Secretary Macaraig, et al. was filed, the respondents were required to file a comment by the Court's resolution dated February 22, 1990. The two petitions were consolidated on March 27, 1990 when the memoranda of the parties in the Laurel case were deliberated upon.

The Court could not act on these cases immediately because the respondents filed a motion for an extension of thirty (30) days to file comment in G.R. No. 92047, followed by a second motion for an extension of another thirty (30) days which we granted on May 8, 1990, a third motion for extension of time granted on May 24, 1990 and a fourth motion for extension of time which we granted on June 5, 1990 but calling the attention of the respondents to the length of time the petitions have been pending. After the comment was filed, the petitioner in G.R. No. 92047 asked for thirty (30) days to file a reply. We noted his motion and resolved to decide the two (2) cases.

I

The subject property in this case is one of the four (4) properties in Japan acquired by the Philippine government under the Reparations Agreement entered into with Japan on May 9, 1956, the other lots being:

(1) The Nampeidai Property at 11-24 Nampeidai-machi, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo which has an area of approximately 2,489.96 square meters, and is at present the site of the Philippine Embassy Chancery;

(2) The Kobe Commercial Property at 63 Naniwa-cho, Kobe, with an area of around 764.72 square meters and categorized as a commercial lot now being used as a warehouse and parking lot for the consulate staff; and

(3) The Kobe Residential Property at 1-980-2 Obanoyama-cho, Shinohara, Nada-ku, Kobe, a residential lot which is now vacant.

The properties and the capital goods and services procured from the Japanese government for national development projects are part of the indemnification to the Filipino people for their losses in life and property and their suffering during World War II.

The Reparations Agreement provides that reparations valued at $550 million would be payable in twenty (20) years in accordance with annual schedules of procurements to be fixed by the Philippine and Japanese governments (Article 2, Reparations Agreement). Rep. Act No. 1789, the Reparations Law, prescribes the national policy on procurement and utilization of reparations and development loans. The procurements are divided into those for use by the government sector and those for private parties in projects as the then National Economic Council shall determine. Those intended for the private sector shall be made available by sale to Filipino citizens or to one hundred (100%) percent Filipino-owned entities in national development projects.

The Roppongi property was acquired from the Japanese government under the Second Year Schedule and listed under the heading "Government Sector", through Reparations Contract No. 300 dated June 27, 1958. The Roppongi property consists of the land and building "for the Chancery of the Philippine Embassy" (Annex M-D to Memorandum for Petitioner, p. 503). As intended, it became the site of the Philippine Embassy until the latter was transferred to Nampeidai on July 22, 1976 when the Roppongi building needed major repairs. Due to the failure of our government to provide necessary funds, the Roppongi property has remained undeveloped since that time.

A proposal was presented to President Corazon C. Aquino by former Philippine Ambassador to Japan, Carlos J. Valdez, to make the property the subject of a lease agreement with a Japanese firm - Kajima Corporation — which shall construct two (2) buildings in Roppongi and one (1) building in Nampeidai and renovate the present Philippine Chancery in Nampeidai. The consideration of the construction would be the lease to the foreign corporation of one (1) of the buildings to be constructed in Roppongi and the two (2) buildings in Nampeidai. The other building in Roppongi shall then be used as the Philippine Embassy Chancery. At the end of the lease period, all the three leased buildings shall be occupied and used by the Philippine government. No change of ownership or title shall occur. (See Annex "B" to Reply to Comment) The Philippine government retains the title all throughout the lease period and thereafter. However, the government has not acted favorably on this proposal which is pending approval and ratification between the parties. Instead, on August 11, 1986, President Aquino created a committee to study the disposition/utilization of Philippine government properties in Tokyo and Kobe, Japan through Administrative Order No. 3, followed by Administrative Orders Numbered 3-A, B, C and D.

On July 25, 1987, the President issued Executive Order No. 296 entitling non-Filipino citizens or entities to avail of separations' capital goods and services in the event of sale, lease or disposition. The four properties in Japan including the Roppongi were specifically mentioned in the first "Whereas" clause.

Amidst opposition by various sectors, the Executive branch of the government has been pushing, with great vigor, its decision to sell the reparations properties starting with the Roppongi lot. The property has twice been set for bidding at a minimum floor price of $225 million. The first bidding was a failure since only one bidder qualified. The second one, after postponements, has not yet materialized. The last scheduled bidding on February 21, 1990 was restrained by his Court. Later, the rules on bidding were changed such that the $225 million floor price became merely a suggested floor price.

The Court finds that each of the herein petitions raises distinct issues. The petitioner in G.R. No. 92013 objects to the alienation of the Roppongi property to anyone while the petitioner in G.R. No. 92047 adds as a principal objection the alleged unjustified bias of the Philippine government in favor of selling the property to non-Filipino citizens and entities. These petitions have been consolidated and are resolved at the same time for the objective is the same - to stop the sale of the Roppongi property.

The petitioner in G.R. No. 92013 raises the following issues:

(1) Can the Roppongi property and others of its kind be alienated by the Philippine Government?; and

(2) Does the Chief Executive, her officers and agents, have the authority and jurisdiction, to sell the Roppongi property?

Petitioner Dionisio Ojeda in G.R. No. 92047, apart from questioning the authority of the government to alienate the Roppongi property assails the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 296 in making the property available for sale to non-Filipino citizens and entities. He also questions the bidding procedures of the Committee on the Utilization or Disposition of Philippine Government Properties in Japan for being discriminatory against Filipino citizens and Filipino-owned entities by denying them the right to be informed about the bidding requirements.

II

In G.R. No. 92013, petitioner Laurel asserts that the Roppongi property and the related lots were acquired as part of the reparations from the Japanese government for diplomatic and consular use by the Philippine government. Vice-President Laurel states that the Roppongi property is classified as one of public dominion, and not of private ownership under Article 420 of the Civil Code (See infra).

The petitioner submits that the Roppongi property comes under "property intended for public service" in paragraph 2 of the above provision. He states that being one of public dominion, no ownership by any one can attach to it, not even by the State. The Roppongi and related properties were acquired for "sites for chancery, diplomatic, and consular quarters, buildings and other improvements" (Second Year Reparations Schedule). The petitioner states that they continue to be intended for a necessary service. They are held by the State in anticipation of an opportune use. (Citing 3 Manresa 65-66). Hence, it cannot be appropriated, is outside the commerce of man, or to put it in more simple terms, it cannot be alienated nor be the subject matter of contracts (Citing Municipality of Cavite v. Rojas, 30 Phil. 20 [1915]). Noting the non-use of the Roppongi property at the moment, the petitioner avers that the same remains property of public dominion so long as the government has not used it for other purposes nor adopted any measure constituting a removal of its original purpose or use.

The respondents, for their part, refute the petitioner's contention by saying that the subject property is not governed by our Civil Code but by the laws of Japan where the property is located. They rely upon the rule of lex situs which is used in determining the applicable law regarding the acquisition, transfer and devolution of the title to a property. They also invoke Opinion No. 21, Series of 1988, dated January 27, 1988 of the Secretary of Justice which used the lex situs in explaining the inapplicability of Philippine law regarding a property situated in Japan.

The respondents add that even assuming for the sake of argument that the Civil Code is applicable, the Roppongi property has ceased to become property of public dominion. It has become patrimonial property because it has not been used for public service or for diplomatic purposes for over thirteen (13) years now (Citing Article 422, Civil Code) and because the intention by the Executive Department and the Congress to convert it to private use has been manifested by overt acts, such as, among others: (1) the transfer of the Philippine Embassy to Nampeidai (2) the issuance of administrative orders for the possibility of alienating the four government properties in Japan; (3) the issuance of Executive Order No. 296; (4) the enactment by the Congress of Rep. Act No. 6657 [the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law] on June 10, 1988 which contains a provision stating that funds may be taken from the sale of Philippine properties in foreign countries; (5) the holding of the public bidding of the Roppongi property but which failed; (6) the deferment by the Senate in Resolution No. 55 of the bidding to a future date; thus an acknowledgment by the Senate of the government's intention to remove the Roppongi property from the public service purpose; and (7) the resolution of this Court dismissing the petition in Ojeda v. Bidding Committee, et al., G.R. No. 87478 which sought to enjoin the second bidding of the Roppongi property scheduled on March 30, 1989.

III

In G.R. No. 94047, petitioner Ojeda once more asks this Court to rule on the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 296. He had earlier filed a petition in G.R. No. 87478 which the Court dismissed on August 1, 1989. He now avers that the executive order contravenes the constitutional mandate to conserve and develop the national patrimony stated in the Preamble of the 1987 Constitution. It also allegedly violates:

(1) The reservation of the ownership and acquisition of alienable lands of the public domain to Filipino citizens. (Sections 2 and 3, Article XII, Constitution; Sections 22 and 23 of Commonwealth Act 141). i•t•c-aüsl

(2) The preference for Filipino citizens in the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony (Section 10, Article VI, Constitution);

(3) The protection given to Filipino enterprises against unfair competition and trade practices;

(4) The guarantee of the right of the people to information on all matters of public concern (Section 7, Article III, Constitution);

(5) The prohibition against the sale to non-Filipino citizens or entities not wholly owned by Filipino citizens of capital goods received by the Philippines under the Reparations Act (Sections 2 and 12 of Rep. Act No. 1789); and

(6) The declaration of the state policy of full public disclosure of all transactions involving public interest (Section 28, Article III, Constitution).

Petitioner Ojeda warns that the use of public funds in the execution of an unconstitutional executive order is a misapplication of public funds He states that since the details of the bidding for the Roppongi property were never publicly disclosed until February 15, 1990 (or a few days before the scheduled bidding), the bidding guidelines are available only in Tokyo, and the accomplishment of requirements and the selection of qualified bidders should be done in Tokyo, interested Filipino citizens or entities owned by them did not have the chance to comply with Purchase Offer Requirements on the Roppongi. Worse, the Roppongi shall be sold for a minimum price of $225 million from which price capital gains tax under Japanese law of about 50 to 70% of the floor price would still be deducted.

IV

The petitioners and respondents in both cases do not dispute the fact that the Roppongi site and the three related properties were through reparations agreements, that these were assigned to the government sector and that the Roppongi property itself was specifically designated under the Reparations Agreement to house the Philippine Embassy.

The nature of the Roppongi lot as property for public service is expressly spelled out. It is dictated by the terms of the Reparations Agreement and the corresponding contract of procurement which bind both the Philippine government and the Japanese government.

There can be no doubt that it is of public dominion unless it is convincingly shown that the property has become patrimonial. This, the respondents have failed to do.

As property of public dominion, the Roppongi lot is outside the commerce of man. It cannot be alienated. Its ownership is a special collective ownership for general use and enjoyment, an application to the satisfaction of collective needs, and resides in the social group. The purpose is not to serve the State as a juridical person, but the citizens; it is intended for the common and public welfare and cannot be the object of appropration. (Taken from 3 Manresa, 66-69; cited in Tolentino, Commentaries on the Civil Code of the Philippines, 1963 Edition, Vol. II, p. 26).

The applicable provisions of the Civil Code are:

ART. 419. Property is either of public dominion or of private ownership.

ART. 420. The following things are property of public dominion

(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks shores roadsteads, and others of similar character;

(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth.

ART. 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the character stated in the preceding article, is patrimonial property.

The Roppongi property is correctly classified under paragraph 2 of Article 420 of the Civil Code as property belonging to the State and intended for some public service.

Has the intention of the government regarding the use of the property been changed because the lot has been Idle for some years? Has it become patrimonial?

The fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a long time for actual Embassy service does not automatically convert it to patrimonial property. Any such conversion happens only if the property is withdrawn from public use (Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co. v. Bercilles, 66 SCRA 481 [1975]). A property continues to be part of the public domain, not available for private appropriation or ownership until there is a formal declaration on the part of the government to withdraw it from being such (Ignacio v. Director of Lands, 108 Phil. 335 [1960]).

The respondents enumerate various pronouncements by concerned public officials insinuating a change of intention. We emphasize, however, that an abandonment of the intention to use the Roppongi property for public service and to make it patrimonial property under Article 422 of the Civil Code must be definite Abandonment cannot be inferred from the non-use alone specially if the non-use was attributable not to the government's own deliberate and indubitable will but to a lack of financial support to repair and improve the property (See Heirs of Felino Santiago v. Lazaro, 166 SCRA 368 [1988]). Abandonment must be a certain and positive act based on correct legal premises.

A mere transfer of the Philippine Embassy to Nampeidai in 1976 is not relinquishment of the Roppongi property's original purpose. Even the failure by the government to repair the building in Roppongi is not abandonment since as earlier stated, there simply was a shortage of government funds. The recent Administrative Orders authorizing a study of the status and conditions of government properties in Japan were merely directives for investigation but did not in any way signify a clear intention to dispose of the properties.

Executive Order No. 296, though its title declares an "authority to sell", does not have a provision in its text expressly authorizing the sale of the four properties procured from Japan for the government sector. The executive order does not declare that the properties lost their public character. It merely intends to make the properties available to foreigners and not to Filipinos alone in case of a sale, lease or other disposition. It merely eliminates the restriction under Rep. Act No. 1789 that reparations goods may be sold only to Filipino citizens and one hundred (100%) percent Filipino-owned entities. The text of Executive Order No. 296 provides:

Section 1. The provisions of Republic Act No. 1789, as amended, and of other laws to the contrary notwithstanding, the above-mentioned properties can be made available for sale, lease or any other manner of disposition to non-Filipino citizens or to entities owned by non-Filipino citizens.

Executive Order No. 296 is based on the wrong premise or assumption that the Roppongi and the three other properties were earlier converted into alienable real properties. As earlier stated, Rep. Act No. 1789 differentiates the procurements for the government sector and the private sector (Sections 2 and 12, Rep. Act No. 1789). Only the private sector properties can be sold to end-users who must be Filipinos or entities owned by Filipinos. It is this nationality provision which was amended by Executive Order No. 296.

Section 63 (c) of Rep. Act No. 6657 (the CARP Law) which provides as one of the sources of funds for its implementation, the proceeds of the disposition of the properties of the Government in foreign countries, did not withdraw the Roppongi property from being classified as one of public dominion when it mentions Philippine properties abroad. Section 63 (c) refers to properties which are alienable and not to those reserved for public use or service. Rep Act No. 6657, therefore, does not authorize the Executive Department to sell the Roppongi property. It merely enumerates possible sources of future funding to augment (as and when needed) the Agrarian Reform Fund created under Executive Order No. 299. Obviously any property outside of the commerce of man cannot be tapped as a source of funds.

The respondents try to get around the public dominion character of the Roppongi property by insisting that Japanese law and not our Civil Code should apply.

It is exceedingly strange why our top government officials, of all people, should be the ones to insist that in the sale of extremely valuable government property, Japanese law and not Philippine law should prevail. The Japanese law - its coverage and effects, when enacted, and exceptions to its provision — is not presented to the Court It is simply asserted that the lex loci rei sitae or Japanese law should apply without stating what that law provides. It is a ed on faith that Japanese law would allow the sale.

We see no reason why a conflict of law rule should apply when no conflict of law situation exists. A conflict of law situation arises only when: (1) There is a dispute over the title or ownership of an immovable, such that the capacity to take and transfer immovables, the formalities of conveyance, the essential validity and effect of the transfer, or the interpretation and effect of a conveyance, are to be determined (See Salonga, Private International Law, 1981 ed., pp. 377-383); and (2) A foreign law on land ownership and its conveyance is asserted to conflict with a domestic law on the same matters. Hence, the need to determine which law should apply.

In the instant case, none of the above elements exists.

The issues are not concerned with validity of ownership or title. There is no question that the property belongs to the Philippines. The issue is the authority of the respondent officials to validly dispose of property belonging to the State. And the validity of the procedures adopted to effect its sale. This is governed by Philippine Law. The rule of lex situs does not apply.

The assertion that the opinion of the Secretary of Justice sheds light on the relevance of the lex situsrule is misplaced. The opinion does not tackle the alienability of the real properties procured through reparations nor the existence in what body of the authority to sell them. In discussing who are capableof acquiring the lots, the Secretary merely explains that it is the foreign law which should determinewho can acquire the properties so that the constitutional limitation on acquisition of lands of the public domain to Filipino citizens and entities wholly owned by Filipinos is inapplicable. We see no point in belaboring whether or not this opinion is correct. Why should we discuss who can acquire the Roppongi lot when there is no showing that it can be sold?

The subsequent approval on October 4, 1988 by President Aquino of the recommendation by the investigating committee to sell the Roppongi property was premature or, at the very least, conditioned on a valid change in the public character of the Roppongi property. Moreover, the approval does not have the force and effect of law since the President already lost her legislative powers. The Congress had already convened for more than a year.

Assuming for the sake of argument, however, that the Roppongi property is no longer of public dominion, there is another obstacle to its sale by the respondents.

There is no law authorizing its conveyance.

Section 79 (f) of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 provides

Section 79 (f ) Conveyances and contracts to which the Government is a party. — In cases in which the Government of the Republic of the Philippines is a party to any deed or other instrument conveying the title to real estate or to any other property the value of which is in excess of one hundred thousand pesos, the respective Department Secretary shall prepare the necessary papers which, together with the proper recommendations, shall be submitted to the Congress of the Philippines for approval by the same. Such deed, instrument, or contract shall be executed and signed by the President of the Philippines on behalf of the Government of the Philippines unless the Government of the Philippines unless the authority therefor be expressly vested by law in another officer. (Emphasis supplied)

The requirement has been retained in Section 48, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292).

SEC. 48. Official Authorized to Convey Real Property. — Whenever real property of the Government is authorized by law to be conveyed, the deed of conveyance shall be executed in behalf of the government by the following:

(1) For property belonging to and titled in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, by the President, unless the authority therefor is expressly vested by law in another officer.

(2) For property belonging to the Republic of the Philippines but titled in the name of any political subdivision or of any corporate agency or instrumentality, by the executive head of the agency or instrumentality. (Emphasis supplied)

It is not for the President to convey valuable real property of the government on his or her own sole will. Any such conveyance must be authorized and approved by a law enacted by the Congress. It requires executive and legislative concurrence.

Resolution No. 55 of the Senate dated June 8, 1989, asking for the deferment of the sale of the Roppongi property does not withdraw the property from public domain much less authorize its sale. It is a mere resolution; it is not a formal declaration abandoning the public character of the Roppongi property. In fact, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is conducting hearings on Senate Resolution No. 734 which raises serious policy considerations and calls for a fact-finding investigation of the circumstances behind the decision to sell the Philippine government properties in Japan.

The resolution of this Court in Ojeda v. Bidding Committee, et al., supra, did not pass upon the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 296. Contrary to respondents' assertion, we did not uphold the authority of the President to sell the Roppongi property. The Court stated that the constitutionality of the executive order was not the real issue and that resolving the constitutional question was "neither necessary nor finally determinative of the case." The Court noted that "[W]hat petitioner ultimately questions is the use of the proceeds of the disposition of the Roppongi property." In emphasizing that "the decision of the Executive to dispose of the Roppongi property to finance the CARP ... cannot be questioned" in view of Section 63 (c) of Rep. Act No. 6657, the Court did not acknowledge the fact that the property became alienable nor did it indicate that the President was authorized to dispose of the Roppongi property. The resolution should be read to mean that in case the Roppongi property is re-classified to be patrimonial and alienable by authority of law, the proceeds of a sale may be used for national economic development projects including the CARP.

Moreover, the sale in 1989 did not materialize. The petitions before us question the proposed 1990 sale of the Roppongi property. We are resolving the issues raised in these petitions, not the issues raised in 1989.

Having declared a need for a law or formal declaration to withdraw the Roppongi property from public domain to make it alienable and a need for legislative authority to allow the sale of the property, we see no compelling reason to tackle the constitutional issues raised by petitioner Ojeda.

The Court does not ordinarily pass upon constitutional questions unless these questions are properly raised in appropriate cases and their resolution is necessary for the determination of the case (People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 [1937]). The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record if the case can be disposed of on some other ground such as the application of a statute or general law (Siler v. Louisville and Nashville R. Co., 213 U.S. 175, [1909], Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 [1941]).

The petitioner in G.R. No. 92013 states why the Roppongi property should not be sold:

The Roppongi property is not just like any piece of property. It was given to the Filipino people in reparation for the lives and blood of Filipinos who died and suffered during the Japanese military occupation, for the suffering of widows and orphans who lost their loved ones and kindred, for the homes and other properties lost by countless Filipinos during the war. The Tokyo properties are a monument to the bravery and sacrifice of the Filipino people in the face of an invader; like the monuments of Rizal, Quezon, and other Filipino heroes, we do not expect economic or financial benefits from them. But who would think of selling these monuments? Filipino honor and national dignity dictate that we keep our properties in Japan as memorials to the countless Filipinos who died and suffered. Even if we should become paupers we should not think of selling them. For it would be as if we sold the lives and blood and tears of our countrymen. (Rollo- G.R. No. 92013, p.147)

The petitioner in G.R. No. 92047 also states:

Roppongi is no ordinary property. It is one ceded by the Japanese government in atonement for its past belligerence for the valiant sacrifice of life and limb and for deaths, physical dislocation and economic devastation the whole Filipino people endured in World War II.

It is for what it stands for, and for what it could never bring back to life, that its significance today remains undimmed, inspire of the lapse of 45 years since the war ended, inspire of the passage of 32 years since the property passed on to the Philippine government.

Roppongi is a reminder that cannot — should not — be dissipated ... (Rollo-92047, p. 9)

It is indeed true that the Roppongi property is valuable not so much because of the inflated prices fetched by real property in Tokyo but more so because of its symbolic value to all Filipinos — veterans and civilians alike. Whether or not the Roppongi and related properties will eventually be sold is a policy determination where both the President and Congress must concur. Considering the properties' importance and value, the laws on conversion and disposition of property of public dominion must be faithfully followed.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petitions are GRANTED. A writ of prohibition is issued enjoining the respondents from proceeding with the sale of the Roppongi property in Tokyo, Japan. The February 20, 1990 Temporary Restraining Order is made PERMANENT.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Bidin, Griño-Aquino and Regalado, JJ., concur.

 

G.R. No. 149177               November 23, 2007

KAZUHIRO HASEGAWA and NIPPON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CO., LTD., Petitioners, vs.MINORU KITAMURA, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

NACHURA, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the April 18, 2001 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 60827, and the July 25, 2001 Resolution2 denying the motion for reconsideration thereof.

On March 30, 1999, petitioner Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd. (Nippon), a Japanese consultancy firm providing technical and management support in the infrastructure projects of foreign governments,3 entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA) with respondent Minoru Kitamura, a Japanese national permanently residing in the Philippines.4 The agreement provides that respondent was to extend professional services to Nippon for a year starting on April 1, 1999.5 Nippon then assigned respondent to work as the project manager of the Southern Tagalog Access Road (STAR) Project in the Philippines, following the company's consultancy contract with the Philippine Government.6

When the STAR Project was near completion, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) engaged the consultancy services of Nippon, on January 28, 2000, this time for the detailed engineering and construction supervision of the Bongabon-Baler Road Improvement (BBRI) Project.7 Respondent was named as the project manager in the contract's Appendix 3.1.8

On February 28, 2000, petitioner Kazuhiro Hasegawa, Nippon's general manager for its International Division, informed respondent that the company had no more intention of automatically renewing his ICA. His services would be engaged by the company only up to the substantial completion of the STAR Project on March 31, 2000, just in time for the ICA's expiry.9

Threatened with impending unemployment, respondent, through his lawyer, requested a negotiation conference and demanded that he be assigned to the BBRI project. Nippon insisted that respondent’s contract was for a fixed term that had already expired, and refused to negotiate for the renewal of the ICA.10

As he was not able to generate a positive response from the petitioners, respondent consequently initiated on June 1, 2000 Civil Case No. 00-0264 for specific performance and damages with the Regional Trial Court of Lipa City.11

For their part, petitioners, contending that the ICA had been perfected in Japan and executed by and between Japanese nationals, moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. They asserted that the claim for improper pre-termination of respondent's ICA could only be heard and ventilated in the proper courts of Japan following the principles of lex loci celebrationis and lex contractus.12

In the meantime, on June 20, 2000, the DPWH approved Nippon's request for the replacement of Kitamura by a certain Y. Kotake as project manager of the BBRI Project.13

On June 29, 2000, the RTC, invoking our ruling in Insular Government v. Frank14 that matters connected with the performance of contracts are regulated by the law prevailing at the place of performance,15 denied the motion to dismiss.16 The trial court subsequently denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration,17 prompting them to file with the appellate court, on August 14, 2000, their first Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 [docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 60205].18 On August 23, 2000, the CA resolved to dismiss the petition on procedural grounds—for lack of statement of material dates and for insufficient verification and certification against forum shopping.19 An Entry of Judgment was later issued by the appellate court on September 20, 2000.20

Aggrieved by this development, petitioners filed with the CA, on September 19, 2000, still within the reglementary period, a second Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 already stating therein the material dates and attaching thereto the proper verification and certification. This second petition, which substantially raised the same issues as those in the first, was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 60827.21

Ruling on the merits of the second petition, the appellate court rendered the assailed April 18, 2001 Decision22finding no grave abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss. The CA ruled, among others, that the principle of lex loci celebrationis was not applicable to the case, because nowhere in the pleadings was the validity of the written agreement put in issue. The CA thus declared that the trial court was correct in applying instead the principle of lex loci solutionis.23

Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied by the CA in the assailed July 25, 2001 Resolution.24

Remaining steadfast in their stance despite the series of denials, petitioners instituted the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari25 imputing the following errors to the appellate court:

A. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT VALIDLY EXERCISED JURISDICTION OVER THE INSTANT CONTROVERSY, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACT SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS A QUO WAS ENTERED INTO BY AND BETWEEN TWO JAPANESE NATIONALS, WRITTEN WHOLLY IN THE JAPANESE LANGUAGE AND EXECUTED IN TOKYO, JAPAN.

B. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN OVERLOOKING THE NEED TO REVIEW OUR ADHERENCE TO THE PRINCIPLE OF LEX LOCI SOLUTIONIS IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT DEVELOPMENT[S] IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAWS.26

The pivotal question that this Court is called upon to resolve is whether the subject matter jurisdiction of Philippine courts in civil cases for specific performance and damages involving contracts executed outside the country by foreign nationals may be assailed on the principles of lex loci celebrationis, lex contractus, the "state of the most significant relationship rule," or forum non conveniens.

However, before ruling on this issue, we must first dispose of the procedural matters raised by the respondent.

Kitamura contends that the finality of the appellate court's decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 60205 has already barred the filing of the second petition docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 60827 (fundamentally raising the same issues as those in the first one) and the instant petition for review thereof.

We do not agree. When the CA dismissed CA-G.R. SP No. 60205 on account of the petition's defective certification of non-forum shopping, it was a dismissal without prejudice.27 The same holds true in the CA's dismissal of the said case due to defects in the formal requirement of verification28 and in the other requirement in Rule 46 of the Rules of Court on the statement of the material dates.29 The dismissal being without prejudice, petitioners can re-file the petition, or file a second petition attaching thereto the appropriate verification and certification—as they, in fact did—and stating therein the material dates, within the prescribed period30 in Section 4, Rule 65 of the said Rules.31

The dismissal of a case without prejudice signifies the absence of a decision on the merits and leaves the parties free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action as though the dismissed action had not been commenced. In other words, the termination of a case not on the merits does not bar another action involving the same parties, on the same subject matter and theory.32

Necessarily, because the said dismissal is without prejudice and has no res judicata effect, and even if petitioners still indicated in the verification and certification of the second certiorari petition that the first had already been dismissed on procedural grounds,33 petitioners are no longer required by the Rules to indicate in their certification of non-forum shopping in the instant petition for review of the second certiorari petition, the status of the aforesaid first petition before the CA. In any case, an omission in the certificate of non-forum shopping about any event that will not constitute res judicata and litis pendentia, as in the present case, is not a fatal defect. It will not warrant the dismissal and nullification of the entire proceedings, considering that the evils sought to be prevented by the said certificate are no longer present.34

The Court also finds no merit in respondent's contention that petitioner Hasegawa is only authorized to verify and certify, on behalf of Nippon, the certiorari petition filed with the CA and not the instant petition. True, the Authorization35 dated September 4, 2000, which is attached to the second certiorari petition and which is also attached to the instant petition for review, is limited in scope—its wordings indicate that Hasegawa is given the authority to sign for and act on behalf of the company only in the petition filed with the appellate court, and that authority cannot extend to the instant petition for review.36 In a plethora of cases, however, this Court has liberally applied the Rules or even suspended its application whenever a satisfactory explanation and a subsequent fulfillment of the requirements have been made.37 Given that petitioners herein sufficiently explained their misgivings on this point and appended to their Reply38 an updated Authorization39 for Hasegawa to act on behalf of the company in the instant petition, the Court finds the same as sufficient compliance with the Rules.

However, the Court cannot extend the same liberal treatment to the defect in the verification and certification. As respondent pointed out, and to which we agree, Hasegawa is truly not authorized to act on behalf of Nippon in this case. The aforesaid September 4, 2000 Authorization and even the subsequent August 17, 2001 Authorization were issued only by Nippon's president and chief executive officer, not by the company's board of directors. In not a few cases, we have ruled that corporate powers are exercised by the board of directors; thus, no person, not even its officers, can bind the corporation, in the absence of authority from the board.40 Considering that Hasegawa verified and certified the petition only on his behalf and not on behalf of the other petitioner, the petition has to be denied pursuant to Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman.41 Substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter that demands strict observance of the Rules.42 While technical rules of procedure are designed not to frustrate the ends of justice, nonetheless, they are intended to effect the proper and orderly disposition of cases and effectively prevent the clogging of court dockets.43

Further, the Court has observed that petitioners incorrectly filed a Rule 65 petition to question the trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss. It is a well-established rule that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory, and cannot be the subject of the extraordinary petition for certiorari or mandamus. The appropriate recourse is to file an answer and to interpose as defenses the objections raised in the motion, to proceed to trial, and, in case of an adverse decision, to elevate the entire case by appeal in due course.44 While there are recognized exceptions to this rule,45 petitioners' case does not fall among them.

This brings us to the discussion of the substantive issue of the case.

Asserting that the RTC of Lipa City is an inconvenient forum, petitioners question its jurisdiction to hear and resolve the civil case for specific performance and damages filed by the respondent. The ICA subject of the litigation was entered into and perfected in Tokyo, Japan, by Japanese nationals, and written wholly in the Japanese language. Thus, petitioners posit that local courts have no substantial relationship to the parties46following the [state of the] most significant relationship rule in Private International Law.47

The Court notes that petitioners adopted an additional but different theory when they elevated the case to the appellate court. In the Motion to Dismiss48 filed with the trial court, petitioners never contended that the RTC is an inconvenient forum. They merely argued that the applicable law which will determine the validity or invalidity of respondent's claim is that of Japan, following the principles of lex loci celebrationis and lex contractus.49 While not abandoning this stance in their petition before the appellate court, petitioners on certiorari significantly invoked the defense of forum non conveniens.50 On petition for review before this Court, petitioners dropped their other arguments, maintained the forum non conveniens defense, and introduced their new argument that the applicable principle is the [state of the] most significant relationship rule.51

Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to deny this petition merely on the basis of the change in theory, as explained in Philippine Ports Authority v. City of Iloilo.52 We only pointed out petitioners' inconstancy in their arguments to emphasize their incorrect assertion of conflict of laws principles.

To elucidate, in the judicial resolution of conflicts problems, three consecutive phases are involved: jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement of judgments. Corresponding to these phases are the following questions: (1) Where can or should litigation be initiated? (2) Which law will the court apply? and (3) Where can the resulting judgment be enforced?53

Analytically, jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct concepts.54 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 power to exercise jurisdiction does not automatically give a state constitutional authority to apply forum law. While jurisdiction and the choice of the lex fori will often coincide, the "minimum contacts" for one do not always provide the necessary "significant contacts" for the other.55 The question of whether the law of a state can be applied to a transaction is different from the question of whether the courts of that state have jurisdiction to enter a judgment.56

In this case, only the first phase is at issue—jurisdiction.1âwphi1 Jurisdiction, however, has various aspects. For a court to validly exercise its power to adjudicate a controversy, it must have jurisdiction over the plaintiff or the petitioner, over the defendant or the respondent, over the subject matter, over the issues of the case and, in cases involving property, over the res or the thing which is the subject of the litigation.57 In assailing the trial court's jurisdiction herein, petitioners are actually referring to subject matter jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a judicial proceeding is conferred by the sovereign authority which establishes and organizes the court. It is given only by law and in the manner prescribed by law.58 It is further determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein.59 To succeed in its motion for the dismissal of an action for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the

claim,60 the movant must show that the court or tribunal cannot act on the matter submitted to it because no law grants it the power to adjudicate the claims.61

In the instant case, petitioners, in their motion to dismiss, do not claim that the trial court is not properly vested by law with jurisdiction to hear the subject controversy for, indeed, Civil Case No. 00-0264 for specific performance and damages is one not capable of pecuniary estimation and is properly cognizable by the RTC of Lipa City.62What they rather raise as grounds to question subject matter jurisdiction are the principles of lex loci celebrationisand lex contractus, and the "state of the most significant relationship rule."

The Court finds the invocation of these grounds unsound.

Lex loci celebrationis relates to the "law of the place of the ceremony"63 or the law of the place where a contract is made.64 The doctrine of lex contractus or lex loci contractus means the "law of the place where a contract is executed or to be performed."65 It controls the nature, construction, and validity of the contract66 and it may pertain to the law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties or the law intended by them either expressly or implicitly.67 Under the "state of the most significant relationship rule," to ascertain what state law to apply to a dispute, the court should determine which state has the most substantial connection to the occurrence and the parties. In a case involving a contract, the court should consider where the contract was made, was negotiated, was to be performed, and the domicile, place of business, or place of incorporation of the parties.68 This rule takes into account several contacts and evaluates them according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue to be resolved.69

Since these three principles in conflict of laws make reference to the law applicable to a dispute, they are rules proper for the second phase, the choice of law.70 They determine which state's law is to be applied in resolving the substantive issues of a conflicts problem.71 Necessarily, as the only issue in this case is that of jurisdiction, choice-of-law rules are not only inapplicable but also not yet called for.

Further, petitioners' premature invocation of choice-of-law rules is exposed by the fact that they have not yet pointed out any conflict between the laws of Japan and ours. Before determining which law should apply, first there should exist a conflict of laws situation requiring the application of the conflict of laws rules.72 Also, when the law of a foreign country is invoked to provide the proper rules for the solution of a case, the existence of such law must be pleaded and proved.73

It should be noted that when a conflicts case, one involving a foreign element, is brought before a court or administrative agency, there are three alternatives open to the latter in disposing of it: (1) dismiss the case, either because of lack of jurisdiction or refusal to assume jurisdiction over the case; (2) assume jurisdiction over the case and apply the internal law of the forum; or (3) assume jurisdiction over the case and take into account or apply the law of some other State or States.74 The court’s power to hear cases and controversies is derived from the Constitution and the laws. While it may choose to recognize laws of foreign nations, the court is not limited by foreign sovereign law short of treaties or other formal agreements, even in matters regarding rights provided by foreign sovereigns.75

Neither can the other ground raised, forum non conveniens,76 be used to deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction herein. First, it is not a proper basis for a motion to dismiss because Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court does not include it as a ground.77 Second, 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.78 In this case, the RTC decided to assume jurisdiction. Third, the propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle requires a factual determination; hence, this conflicts principle is more properly considered a matter of defense.79

Accordingly, since the RTC is vested by law with the power to entertain and hear the civil case filed by respondent and the grounds raised by petitioners to assail that jurisdiction are inappropriate, the trial and appellate courts correctly denied the petitioners’ motion to dismiss.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURAAssociate Justice

WE CONCUR:

G.R. No. L-41518 June 30, 1976

GUERRERO'S TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., petitioner, vs.BLAYLOCK TRANSPORTATION SERVICES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-KILUSAN (BTEA-KILUSAN), LABOR ARBITER FRANCISCO M. DE LOS REYES and JOSE CRUZ, respondents.

Eladio B. Samson petitioner.

Francisco Angeles for private respondents.

 

ANTONIO, J.:

Certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction to annul the Orders of the National Labor Relations Commission, of March 26, June 20 and September 25, 1975, as well as the Writ of Execution of September 26, 1975, issued in NLRC Case No. 214, and to restrain respondent Deputy Sheriff of Manila from implementing said writ.

On June 1, 1972, the United states Naval Base authorities at Subic, Zambales, conducted a public bidding for a five-year contract for the right to operate and/or manage the transportation services inside the naval base. This bidding was won by Santiago Guerrero, owner- operator of Guerrero's Transport Services, Inc., herein petitioner, over Concepcion F. Blaylock, the then incumbent concessionaire doing business under the name of "Blaylock Transport Services", whose 395 employees are members of respondent union BTEA-KILUSAN. When petitioner, after the commencement of its operation on January 1, 1973, refused to employ the members of the respondent union, the latter. On January, 12, 1975, filed a complaint 1 with the National Labor Relations Commission 2 docketed as NLRC Case No. 214, against Guerrero's Transport Services, Inc. and Santiago Guerrero, to compel them to employ its members pursuant to Article 1, Section 2 of the RP-US Base Agreement dated May 27, 1968. 3 This case was dismissed by the National Labor Relations Commission on March 13, 1973, upon petitioner's motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, there being no employer-employee relationship between the parties. 4

Respondent union then appealed said Order on March 26,1973 to the Secretary of the Department of Labor, who, instead of deciding the appeal, remanded the case for review to the NLRC which, subsequently, summoned both parties to a series of conferences. Thereafter, or on October .11, 1973, the NLRC issue a Resolution 5 ordering petitioner, among others, "to absorb all the complainants who filed their applications on or before the deadline" set by petitioner "on 15 November 1972 except those who may have derogatory records with the U.S. Naval Authorities in Subic, Zambales" and directing the Officer-in-charge of the provincial office of the Department of Labor in Olongapo City to "oversee the preparation of the list of those qualified for absorption in accordance with this resolution."

Petitioner appealed to Secretary of Labor Blas F. Ople who, in turn, rendered a Decision on December 27, 1973, affirming said Resolution. 6 On January 22, 1974, Santiago A. Guerrero) appealed the decision to the President of the Philippines, 7 but on July 9, 1974, the President, through Assistant Executive Secretary Ronaldo B. Zamora, returned the case to the Secretary of Labor for appropriate action on the appeal, it appearing, that the same does not involve national interest. 8

In the meantime, the Provincial Director of the Labor Office in Zambales furnished, on August 2, 1974, petitioner 9a list of forty-six (46) members of respondent union BTEA-KILUSAN and former drivers of the Blaylock Transport Service, 10who are within the coverage of the decision of the Secretary of Labor, and requesting petitioner to report its action on the matter directly to the Chairman, NLRC, Manila. Subsequently, Santiago A. Guerrero received a letter dated September 24, 1974 11 from Col. Levi L. Basilla, PC (GSC) Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga, requesting compliance with the Order dated July 19, 1974 of the NLRC in NLRC Case No. 214. In his reply letter dated October 4, 1974, Guerrero informed Col. Basilia that he had substantially complied with the decision of the Secretary of Labor affirming the NLRC Resolution of October 31, 1974 in NLRC Case No. 214, and that any apparent non-compliance therewith was attributable to the individual complainants who failed to submit themselves for

processing and examination as requested by the authorities of the U.S. Naval Base in Subic, Zambales, preparatory to their absorption by petitioner.

On January 18, 1975, Acting Executive Secretary Roberto V. Reyes, pursuant to Section 10 of Presidential Decree No. 21, directed the Chief of Constabulary to arrest the executive officers of petitioner. 12 On February 20, 1975, petitioner informed Secretary Reyes that it has substantially complied with the NLRC Resolution of October 31, 1975 as out of those listed by the Regional Labor Director, only a few passed the examination given and some of those who passed failed to comply with the final requirements of the U.S. Naval Base Authority; that only those who passed and complied with the requirements of the U.S. Naval Base Authority were extended appointments as early as December 16, 1974, but none of them, for evident lack of interest, has reported for work. 13 In his 1st endorsement dated March 26, 1975, Secretary Zamora required the Secretary of Labor to verify petitioner's allegations. 14 On the same date, respondent Labor Arbiter Francisco M. de los Reyes, upon a motion for execution filed by respondent union, issued an Order stating that "upon the finality thereof and by way of implementing any writ of execution that might be issued in this case, further hearings shall be held to determine the members of respondent union who are entitled to reinstatement in accordance with the basic guidelines finally determined in this case." 15

On June 20, 1975, respondent Labor Arbiter De los Reyes ordered the reinstatement of 129 individuals "to their former or substantially equivalent positions without loss of seniority and other rights and privileges". 16

On July 16,1975, respondent BTEA-KILUSAN filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution with respondent Labor Arbiter, 17 but this was objected to by petitioner contending that the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over NLRC Case No. 214 and, therefore, his proceedings and orders resulting therefrom are null and void. 18

On September 1, 1975, the Provincial Director of the Zambales Labor Office, pursuant to the directive of the Secretary of Labor, 19 and the NLRC Resolution dated October 21, 1975 20 submitted a detailed information to the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Labor on petitioner's compliance, "to enable the Department of Labor to formally close" NLRC Case No. 214. 21

On September 25, 1975, respondent Labor Arbiter, acting on the motion for execution filed by respondent union BTEA-KILUSAN, and finding that both the Orders, dated March 26 and June 20, 1975, have not been appealed pursuant to Article 223 of the Labor Code, declared said Orders final and executory and directed petitioner Guerrero's Transport Services, Inc. to reinstate the 129 complainants and to pay them the amount of P4,290.00 each, or a total of P592,110.00 as back wages covering the period from August 22, 1974 to September 20, 1975.22

On September 26, 1975, respondent Labor Arbiter issued a writ directing the respondent Deputy Sheriff of Manila levy on the moneys and/or properties of petitioner, 23 and on the same date respondent Sheriff immediately serve said writ on petitioner who was given a period of five (5) days within which to comply therewith.

It was on this factual environment that petitioner instituted the present petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction on October 6, 1975. Petitioner asserts that the afore-mentioned Orders were issued by respondent Labor Arbiter without jurisdiction.

As prayed for, this Court, on October 6, 1975, issued a temporary restraining order and required the respondents to file an answer within ten (10) days from notice.

On October 11, 1975, respondent Labor Arbiter De los Reyes and Sheriff Jose Cruz filed their Comment by way of answer to the petition, explaining the legal justifications of their action on the premises.

Upon motion filed on October 11, 1975 by respondent union BTEA-KILUSAN for reconsideration and to lift the temporary restraining order of October 6, 1975, this Court, on October 15, 1975, lifted said restraining order and set the case for hearing on Monday, October 20, 1975 at 3:00 p.m.

At the hearing of this case on October 20, 1975, a Compromise Agreement was arrived at by the parties wherein they agreed to submit to the Office of t he Secretary of Labor the determination of members of the respondent union BTEA-KILUSAN who shall be reinstated or absorbed by the herein petitioner in the transportation service inside the naval base, which determination shall be considered final. This Court approved this agreement and enjoined "all the parties to strictly observe the terms thereof." This agreement is deemed to have superseded the Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission of October 31, 1973, as affirmed by the Secretary of Labor on December 27, 1973.

Pursuant to this agreement which was embodied in the Resolution of this Court of October 24, 1975, Secretary of Labor Blas F. Ople issued an Order dated November 13, 1975, the pertinent portion of which reads as follows:

The issue submitted for resolution hinges on the credibility of the alleged applications. Considering that the employees are economically dependent on their jobs, they have all the reasons and zealousness to pursue their jobs within the legitimate framework of our laws. The applicant are no strangers to the pains and difficulties of unemployment. Because of these factors we cannot ignore the affidavits of proof presented by the employees concerned as against the declaration of the herein respondent. Firmly entrenched is the rule in this jurisdiction that doubts arising from labor disputes must be construed and interpreted in favor of the workers.

RESPONSIVE TO THE FOREGOING, the National Labor Relations Commission through Arbiter Francisco delos Reyes is hereby directed to implement the absorption of the 175 members of the Blaylock Transport Employees Association (BTEA-KILUSAN) into the Guerrero Transport Services, subject to the following terms and conditions:

1) that they were bona fide employees of the Blaybock Transportation Service at the time its concession expired:

2) that the appellants shall pass final screening and approval by the appropriate authorities of the U.S. Base concerned.

The applicants to be processed for absorption shall be those in the list of 46 submitted by OIC Liberator (Carino on 2 August 1974, and the list of 129 determined by Arbiter de los Reyes as embodied in the Writ of Execution issued on 25 September 1975.

The Regional Director of Regional Office No. II, San Fernando, Pampanga, shall make available to the parties the facilities of that Office in the implementation of the aforesaid absorption process. 24

On November 24, 1975, in compliance with the aforesaid directive of the Secretary of Labor, Labor Arbiter Francisco M. delos Reyes conducted a hearing to receive evidence as to who were the bona fide employees of the former concessionaire at the "time of its concession expire". Thereafter, Labor Arbiter De los Reyes issued an Order, dated November 25, 1975, listing in Annex "A" thereof, 174 employees who were bona fide employees of the private respondent, and transmitting a copy of said Order to the Base Commander, U.S. Naval Base, Olongapo City, with the request for the immediate screening and approval of their applications in accordance with applicable rules of said command. The pertinent portion of said Order reads as follows:

As far as this Labor Arbiter is concerned, his only participation in this case refers to that portion of the Secretary of Labor's Order directing him to implement "* * * the absorption of the 175 members of the Blaylock Transport Employees Association (BTEA-KILUSAN) into the Guerrero Transport Services," subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, any question of "prematurity" as espoused by respondent's counsel may not he entertained by this Labor Arbiter.

Going now to the applicants who should be entitled to absorption, the Honorable Secretary of Labor specified that the same should be composed of the 46 submitted by OIC Liberator Carino on 2 August 1974 and the 129 applicants determined by this Labor Arbiter. Of the latter, only 128 will be named. A perusal of said list show that the name "Renato Carriaga" has been doubly listed. For convenience, these two listings have now been consolidated and alphabetically arranged and as an integral part of this Order has been made as Annex "A" (pp 1 to 6).

For purposes of implementation, the initial step to be undertaken is for the submission of the name of the applicants to the U.S. Navy authorities concerned, which means the U. S. Naval Base at Olongapo City for the screening and approval by the appropriate authorities.

Regarding the determination of whether the applicants are bona fide employees of the Blaylock Transportation Service at the time its concession expired, the parties appear to be in agreement that the records of this case will eventually show whether the applicants are such employees. Further, we feel that such employment will likewise appear in the records of the U. S. Naval Base at Olongapo City since persons connected with the Base like the applicants, have to undergo processing by naval authority.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, copies of this Order together with Annex "A" hereof are hereby transmitted to the Base Commander, U. S. Naval Base , Olongapo City with the request for the immediate screening and approval of said applicants, in accordance with applicable rules of that command. 25

Pursuant to Section 6 of Article I of the Philippine-U S. Labor Agreement of May 27, 1968, the United States Armed Forces undertook, consistent with military requirements, "to provide security for employment, and, in the event certain services are contracted out, the United States Armed Forces shall require the contractor or concessionerto give priority consideration to affected employees for employment. (Emphasis supplied.)

A treaty has two (2) aspects — as an international agreement between states, and as municipal law for the people of each state to observe. As part of the municipal law, the aforesaid provision of the treaty enters into and forms part of the contract between petitioner and the U.S. Naval Base authorities. In view of said stipulation, the new contractor is, therefore, bound to give "priority" to the employment of the qualified employees of the previous contractor. It is obviously in recognition of such obligation that petitioner entered into the afore-mentioned Compromise Agreement.

As above indicated, under the Compromise Agreement as embodied in the Resolution of this Court dated October 24, 1975, the parties agreed to submit to the Secretary of Labor the determination as to who of the members of the respondent union BTEA-KILUSAN shall be absorbed or employed by the herein petitioner Guerrero's Transport Services, Inc., and that such determination shall be considered as final. In connection therewith, the Secretary of Labor issued an Order dated November 13, 1975, directing the National Labor Relations Commission, through Labor Arbiter Francisco de los Reyes, to implement the absorption of the 175 members 26into the Guerrero's Transport Services, subject to the following conditions, viz.: (a) that they were bona fide employees of the Blaylock Transport Service at the time its concession expired; and (b) that they should pass final screening and approval by the appropriate authorities of the U.S. Naval Base concerned. According to private respondent, however, Commander Vertplaetse of the U.S. Navy Exchange declined to implement the order of the Labor Arbiter, as it is the petitioner who should request for the screening and approval of the applicants.

Considering that the afore-mentioned Compromise-Agreement of the parties, as approved by this Court, is more than a mere contract and has the force and effect of any other judgment, it is, therefore, conclusive upon the [parties and their privies. 27 For it is settled that a compromise has, upon the parties, the effect and authority of res judicata and is enforceable by execution upon approval by the court. 28 Since the resolution of the NLRC of October 31, 1973 required the absorption of the applicants subject to the conditions therein contained, and there being no showing that such conditions were complied with, the Labor Arbiter exceeded his authority in awarding back wages to the 129 complainants.

ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered ordering petitioner to employ members of respondent labor union BTEA-KILUSAN referred to in the Order of the Secretary of Labor dated November 13, 1975 who satisfy the criteria enunciated viz.: (a) those who were bona fide employees of the Blaylock Transport Services at the time its concession expired; and (b) those who pass the final screening and approval by the appropriate authorities of the U.S. Naval Base. For this purpose, petitioner is hereby ordered to submit to and secure from the appropriate authorities of the U.S. naval Base at Subic, Zambales the requisite screening and approval, the names of the afore-mentioned members of respondent union.

The Order dated September 25, 1975 of respondent Labor Arbiter Francisco M. de los Reyes, awarding back wages to the 129 complainants in the total amount of P592,110.00, is hereby set aside. No pronouncement as to costs.

Barredo, Aquino and Martin, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, Jr., J., is on leave.

 

G.R. No. 128845               June 1, 2000

INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF EDUCATORS (ISAE), petitioner, vs.HON. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING in his capacity as the Secretary of Labor and Employment; HON. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO in his capacity as the Acting Secretary of Labor and Employment; DR. BRIAN MACCAULEY in his capacity as the Superintendent of International School-Manila; and INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, INC., respondents.

KAPUNAN, J.:

Receiving salaries less than their counterparts hired abroad, the local-hires of private respondent School, mostly Filipinos, cry discrimination. We agree. That the local-hires are paid more than their colleagues in other schools is, of course, beside the point. The point is that employees should be given equal pay for work of equal value. That is a principle long honored in this jurisdiction. That is a principle that rests on fundamental notions of justice. That is the principle we uphold today.1âwphi1.nêt

Private respondent International School, Inc. (the School, for short), pursuant to Presidential Decree 732, is a domestic educational institution established primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents.1 To enable the School to continue carrying out its educational program and improve its standard of instruction, Section 2(c) of the same decree authorizes the School to employ its own teaching and management personnel selected by it either locally or abroad, from Philippine or other nationalities, such personnel being exempt from otherwise applicable laws and regulations attending their employment, except laws that have been or will be enacted for the protection of employees.

Accordingly, the School hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty, classifying the same into two: (1) foreign-hires and (2) local-hires. The School employs four tests to determine whether a faculty member should be classified as a foreign-hire or a local hire:

a. What is one's domicile?

b. Where is one's home economy?

c. To which country does one owe economic allegiance?

d. Was the individual hired abroad specifically to work in the School and was the School responsible for bringing that individual to the Philippines?2

Should the answer to any of these queries point to the Philippines, the faculty member is classified as a local hire; otherwise, he or she is deemed a foreign-hire.

The School grants foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded local-hires.1avvphi1 These include housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes, and home leave travel allowance. Foreign-hires are also paid a salary rate twenty-five percent (25%) more than local-hires. The School justifies the difference on two "significant economic disadvantages" foreign-hires have to endure, namely: (a) the "dislocation factor" and (b) limited tenure. The School explains:

A foreign-hire would necessarily have to uproot himself from his home country, leave his family and friends, and take the risk of deviating from a promising career path — all for the purpose of pursuing his profession as an educator, but this time in a foreign land. The new foreign hire is faced with economic realities: decent abode for oneself and/or for one's family, effective means of transportation, allowance for the education of one's children, adequate insurance against illness and death, and of course the primary benefit of a basic salary/retirement compensation.

Because of a limited tenure, the foreign hire is confronted again with the same economic reality after his term: that he will eventually and inevitably return to his home country where he will have to confront the uncertainty of obtaining suitable employment after along period in a foreign land.

The compensation scheme is simply the School's adaptive measure to remain competitive on an international level in terms of attracting competent professionals in the field of international education.3

When negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement were held on June 1995, petitioner International School Alliance of Educators, "a legitimate labor union and the collective bargaining representative of all faculty members"4 of the School, contested the difference in salary rates between foreign and local-hires. This issue, as well as the question of whether foreign-hires should be included in the appropriate bargaining unit, eventually caused a deadlock between the parties.

On September 7, 1995, petitioner filed a notice of strike. The failure of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board to bring the parties to a compromise prompted the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to assume jurisdiction over the dispute. On June 10, 1996, the DOLE Acting Secretary, Crescenciano B. Trajano, issued an Order resolving the parity and representation issues in favor of the School. Then DOLE Secretary Leonardo A. Quisumbing subsequently denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration in an Order dated March 19, 1997. Petitioner now seeks relief in this Court.

Petitioner claims that the point-of-hire classification employed by the School is discriminatory to Filipinos and that the grant of higher salaries to foreign-hires constitutes racial discrimination.

The School disputes these claims and gives a breakdown of its faculty members, numbering 38 in all, with nationalities other than Filipino, who have been hired locally and classified as local hires.5 The Acting Secretary of Labor found that these non-Filipino local-hires received the same benefits as the Filipino local-hires.

The compensation package given to local-hires has been shown to apply to all, regardless of race. Truth to tell, there are foreigners who have been hired locally and who are paid equally as Filipino local hires.6

The Acting secretary upheld the point-of-hire classification for the distinction in salary rates:

The Principle "equal pay for equal work" does not find applications in the present case. The international character of the School requires the hiring of foreign personnel to deal with different nationalities and different cultures, among the student population.

We also take cognizance of the existence of a system of salaries and benefits accorded to foreign hired personnel which system is universally recognized. We agree that certain amenities have to be provided to these people in order to entice them to render their services in the Philippines and in the process remain competitive in the international market.

Furthermore, we took note of the fact that foreign hires have limited contract of employment unlike the local hires who enjoy security of tenure. To apply parity therefore, in wages and other benefits would also require parity in other terms and conditions of employment which include the employment which include the employment contract.

A perusal of the parties' 1992-1995 CBA points us to the conditions and provisions for salary and professional compensation wherein the parties agree as follows:

All members of the bargaining unit shall be compensated only in accordance with Appendix C hereof provided that the Superintendent of the School has the discretion to recruit and hire expatriate teachers from abroad, under terms and conditions that are consistent with accepted international practice.

Appendix C of said CBA further provides:

The new salary schedule is deemed at equity with the Overseas Recruited Staff (OSRS) salary schedule. The 25% differential is reflective of the agreed value of system displacement and contracted status of the OSRS as differentiated from the tenured status of Locally Recruited Staff (LRS).

To our mind, these provisions demonstrate the parties' recognition of the difference in the status of two types of employees, hence, the difference in their salaries.

The Union cannot also invoke the equal protection clause to justify its claim of parity. It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guarantee of equal protection of the laws is not violated by legislation or private covenants based on reasonable classification. A classification is reasonable if it is based on

substantial distinctions and apply to all members of the same class. Verily, there is a substantial distinction between foreign hires and local hires, the former enjoying only a limited tenure, having no amenities of their own in the Philippines and have to be given a good compensation package in order to attract them to join the teaching faculty of the School.7

We cannot agree.

That public policy abhors inequality and discrimination is beyond contention. Our Constitution and laws reflect the policy against these evils. The Constitution8 in the Article on Social Justice and Human Rights exhorts Congress to "give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities." The very broad Article 19 of the Civil Code requires every person, "in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, [to] act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

International law, which springs from general principles of law,9 likewise proscribes discrimination. General principles of law include principles of equity, 10 i.e., the general principles of fairness and justice, based on the test of what is reasonable. 11 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 12 the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, 13 the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 14 the Convention against Discrimination in Education, 15 the Convention (No. 111) Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation 16 — all embody the general principle against discrimination, the very antithesis of fairness and justice. The Philippines, through its Constitution, has incorporated this principle as part of its national laws.

In the workplace, where the relations between capital and labor are often skewed in favor of capital, inequality and discrimination by the employer are all the more reprehensible.

The Constitution 17 specifically provides that labor is entitled to "humane conditions of work." These conditions are not restricted to the physical workplace — the factory, the office or the field — but include as well the manner by which employers treat their employees.

The Constitution 18 also directs the State to promote "equality of employment opportunities for all." Similarly, the Labor Code 19 provides that the State shall "ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed." It would be an affront to both the spirit and letter of these provisions if the State, in spite of its primordial obligation to promote and ensure equal employment opportunities, closes its eyes to unequal and discriminatory terms and conditions of employment. 20

Discrimination, particularly in terms of wages, is frowned upon by the Labor Code. Article 135, for example, prohibits and penalizes 21 the payment of lesser compensation to a female employee as against a male employee for work of equal value. Article 248 declares it an unfair labor practice for an employer to discriminate in regard to wages in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization.

Notably, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, supra, in Article 7 thereof, provides:

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work, which ensure, in particular:

a. Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with:

(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;

x x x           x x x          x x x

The foregoing provisions impregnably institutionalize in this jurisdiction the long honored legal truism of "equal pay for equal work." Persons who work with substantially equal qualifications, skill, effort and responsibility, under similar conditions, should be paid similar salaries. 22 This rule applies to the School, its "international character" notwithstanding.

The School contends that petitioner has not adduced evidence that local-hires perform work equal to that of foreign-hires. 23 The Court finds this argument a little cavalier. If an employer accords employees the same position and rank, the presumption is that these employees perform equal work. This presumption is borne by logic and human experience. If the employer pays one employee less than the rest, it is not for that employee to explain why he

receives less or why the others receive more. That would be adding insult to injury. The employer has discriminated against that employee; it is for the employer to explain why the employee is treated unfairly.

The employer in this case has failed to discharge this burden. There is no evidence here that foreign-hires perform 25% more efficiently or effectively than the local-hires. Both groups have similar functions and responsibilities, which they perform under similar working conditions.

The School cannot invoke the need to entice foreign-hires to leave their domicile to rationalize the distinction in salary rates without violating the principle of equal work for equal pay.

"Salary" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed.) as "a reward or recompense for services performed." Similarly, the Philippine Legal Encyclopedia states that "salary" is the "[c]onsideration paid at regular intervals for the rendering of services." In Songco v. National Labor Relations Commission, 24 we said that:

"salary" means a recompense or consideration made to a person for his pains or industry in another man's business. Whether it be derived from "salarium," or more fancifully from "sal," the pay of the Roman soldier, it carries with it the fundamental idea of compensation for services rendered. (Emphasis supplied.)

While we recognize the need of the School to attract foreign-hires, salaries should not be used as an enticement to the prejudice of local-hires. The local-hires perform the same services as foreign-hires and they ought to be paid the same salaries as the latter. For the same reason, the "dislocation factor" and the foreign-hires' limited tenure also cannot serve as valid bases for the distinction in salary rates. The dislocation factor and limited tenure affecting foreign-hires are adequately compensated by certain benefits accorded them which are not enjoyed by local-hires, such as housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes and home leave travel allowances.

The Constitution enjoins the State to "protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare," 25 "to afford labor full protection." 26 The State, therefore, has the right and duty to regulate the relations between labor and capital.27 These relations are not merely contractual but are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts, collective bargaining agreements included, must yield to the common good. 28 Should such contracts contain stipulations that are contrary to public policy, courts will not hesitate to strike down these stipulations.

In this case, we find the point-of-hire classification employed by respondent School to justify the distinction in the salary rates of foreign-hires and local hires to be an invalid classification. There is no reasonable distinction between the services rendered by foreign-hires and local-hires. The practice of the School of according higher salaries to foreign-hires contravenes public policy and, certainly, does not deserve the sympathy of this Court.1avvphi1

We agree, however, that foreign-hires do not belong to the same bargaining unit as the local-hires.

A bargaining unit is "a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law." 29 The factors in determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit are (1) the will of the employees (Globe Doctrine); (2) affinity and unity of the employees' interest, such as substantial similarity of work and duties, or similarity of compensation and working conditions (Substantial Mutual Interests Rule); (3) prior collective bargaining history; and (4) similarity of employment status. 30 The basic test of an asserted bargaining unit's acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will best assure to all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights. 31

It does not appear that foreign-hires have indicated their intention to be grouped together with local-hires for purposes of collective bargaining. The collective bargaining history in the School also shows that these groups were always treated separately. Foreign-hires have limited tenure; local-hires enjoy security of tenure. Although foreign-hires perform similar functions under the same working conditions as the local-hires, foreign-hires are accorded certain benefits not granted to local-hires. These benefits, such as housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes, and home leave travel allowance, are reasonably related to their status as foreign-hires, and justify the exclusion of the former from the latter. To include foreign-hires in a bargaining unit with local-hires would not assure either group the exercise of their respective collective bargaining rights.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GIVEN DUE COURSE. The petition is hereby GRANTED IN PART. The Orders of the Secretary of Labor and Employment dated June 10, 1996 and March 19, 1997, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as they uphold the practice of respondent School of according foreign-hires higher salaries than local-hires.

SO ORDERED.

Puno and Pardo, JJ., concur.Davide, Jr., C.J., on official leave.Ynares-Santiago, J., is on leave.

G.R. No. L-11759            March 16, 1917

CAYETANO LIM and MARCIANO LIM, petitioners-appellants, vs.THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, respondent-appellee.

Williams, Ferrier and SyCip for appellants. Attorney-General Avanceña for appellee.

CARSON, J.:

The real question raised on this appeal is whether the Insular Collector of Customs may lawfully deny entry into the Philippine Islands to two children aged 8 and 14 years, respectively, under and by authority of the Chinese Immigration, Laws, it appearing that the children arrived at the Port of Manila accompanied by and in the custody of their mother, a Filipino woman; that they were born in China, out of lawful wedlock; and that their father was a Chinese person.

It is contended, on behalf of the Insular Collector of Customs, that these children being Chinese persons are denied the right of entrance into the Philippine Islands under the express terms of the Chinese immigration laws. On the other hand, it is urged on behalf of the children that they are entitled to enter, regardless of the provisions of the Chinese immigration laws, since the admitted facts, as it is said, disclose that they are citizens of the Philippine Islands; and for the further reason, that their mother, who is entitled to their custody and charged with their maintenance and education, is clearly entitled to take up her residence in the Philippine Islands and should not be required, to that end, to abandon her minor children.

Without discussing or deciding any of the contentions of the parties as to the rights of citizenship of these children, actual or inchoate, we are of opinion that by analogous reasoning to that upon which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the wives and minor children of Chinese merchants domiciled in the United States may enter that country without certificates, these children must be held to be entitled to enter the Philippine Islands with their mother, for the purpose of taking up their residence here with her, it appearing that she is natural guardian, entitled to their custody and charged with their maintenance and education. (U. S. vs. Gue Lim, 176 U. S. 459.)

In the case just cited the court said:

While the literal construction of the section would require a certificate, as therein stated, from every Chinese person, other than a laborer, who should come into the country, yet such a construction leads to what we think an absurd result, for it requires a certificate for a wife of a merchant, among others, in regard to whom its would be impossible to give the particulars which the statute requires shall be stated in such certificate.

"Nothing is better settled," says the present Chief Justice, in Lau Ow Bew vs. United States (144 U. S., 59) "than that statutes should receive a sensible construction, such as will effectuate the legislative intention, and, if possible, so as to avoid and unjust or an absurd conclusion.

The purposes of the sixth section, requiring the certificate, was not to prevent the persons named in the second article of the treaty from coming into the country, but to prevent Chinese laborers from entering under the guise of being one of the classes permitted by the treaty. It is the coming of Chinese laborers that the act is aimed against.

It was said in the opinion in the Lau Ow Bew case, in speaking of the provisions that the sole evidence permissible should be the certificate: "This rule of evidence was evidently prescribed by the amendment as a means of effectually preventing the violation or evasion of the prohibition against the coming of Chinese laborers. It was designed as a safeguard to prevent the unlawful entry of such laborers, under the pretense that they belong to the merchant class or to some other of the admitted classes."

It was also held in that case that although the literal wording of the statute of 1884, section six, would require a certificate in the case of a merchant already domiciled in the United States and who had left the country for temporary purposes, animo revertendi, yet its true and proper construction did not include his case, and the general terms used in the act were limited to those persons to whom Congress manifestly intended to apply them, which would be those who were about to come to the United States for the first time, and not to those Chinese merchants already domiciled in the United States who had gone to China for temporary purposes only, with the intention of returning. The case of Wan Shing vs. United States (140 U. S., 24), was referred to, and attention called to the fact that the appellant therein was not a merchant but a laborer, who had acquired no commercial domicile in this county, and was clearly within the exception requiring him to procure and produce the certificate specified in the act. The rule was approved, and the differences in the two cases pointed out by the Chief Justice.

To hold that a certificate is required in this case is to decide that the woman cannot come into this country at all, for it is not possible for her to comply with the act, because she cannot in any event procure the certificate even by returning to China. She must come in as the wife of her domiciled husband or not at all. The act was never meant to accomplish the result of permanently excluding the wife under the circumstances of this case, and we think that, properly and reasonably construed, it does not do so. If we hold that she is entitled to come in as the wife, because the true construction of the treaty and the act permits it, there is no provision which makes the certificate the only proof of the fact that she is such wife.

In the case of the minor children, the same result must follow as in that of the wife. All the reasons which favor the construction of the statute as exempting the wife from the necessity of procuring a certificate apply with equal force to the case of minor children of a member or members of the admitted classes. They come in by reason of their relationship to the father, and whether they accompany or follow him, a certificate is not necessary in either case. When the fact is established to the satisfaction of the authorities that the person claiming to enter, either as wife or minor child, is in fact the wife or minor child of one of the members of the class mentioned in the treaty as entitled to enter, them that person in entitled to admission without the certificate.

We are not advised of any provision of Chinese law which differentiates the status of infant children, born out of lawful wedlock, from that of similar children under the laws in force in the Philippine Islands. We assume, therefore, that in China as well as in the Philippine Islands such children have the right to look to their mother for their maintenance and education, and that she is entitled to their custody and control in fulfilling the obligations towards them which are imposed upon her, not only by the natural impulses of love and affection, but also by the express mandate of the law. And it having been held on the highest authority that the general terms of the Act were limited to those to whom Congress manifestly intended to apply them as set forth in the foregoing opinion, and that "nothing is better settled than that statutes should receive a sensible construction, such as will effectuate the legislative intention, and, if possible, so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion," we are of opinion that the Chinese Immigration Laws should not be construed so as to exclude infant children of a Filipino mother, born out of lawful wedlock, seeking entrance to the Philippine Islands for the purpose of taking up their residence with her in her native land.

It has been suggested that such a ruling opens the door to fraud and evasion, but we are not much impressed with the force of this suggestion, knowing as we do that the immigration authorities have been furnished by the law with peculiarly effective machinery for its enforcement, well calculated to defeat any attempt to make an unauthorized or improper use of so manifestly reasonable an exception from the literal construction and application of its general provisions.

Some confusion seems to have arisen in the court below as to the precise nature and effect of the somewhat inartificial pleadings upon which these proceedings were submitted. The case appears to have been submitted upon an answer to an order to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue upon the petition filed on behalf of the infant children. In the form in which the answer is couched, there is much in the contention of the appellee that the trial court should have treated the answer as in substance and effect a demurrer to the petition, admitting the truth of the facts alleged therein, but praying judgment as to whether it sets forth facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and to justify the issuance of the writ. We are inclined to think, however, that the understanding of the parties and of the court below was that the answer should be treated rather as in the nature of a return to a writ of habeas corpus, accepting as true the allegations of the petition but maintaining the legality of the detention upon the facts thus submitted. Without considering at this time whether in habeas corpus proceedings the respondent may, without consent of court, demur to, instead of answering an order to show cause why the writ should not issue, and without considering or deciding the course which should be pursued where a respondent attempts to file a demurrer to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in lieu of the return

prescribed by the statute to the writ when actually issued; we treat the answer to the order to show cause in the case at bar as we think the parties and the court below understood it should be treated, that is to say, as in substance and effect the return which the Insular Collector desired to make to the writ of habeas corpus issued or assumed to have been issued in response to the petition on behalf of the children held in custody by him.

We conclude, therefore, that, it appearing that the respondent Collector of Customs is detaining the petitioners under an erroneous construction of the immigration laws, and it appearing from the facts disclosed by the administrative proceedings that these children are entitled to admission into the Philippine Islands, the order entered in the court below should be reversed, and in lieu thereof an order should be entered directing the discharge of these children from the custody of the Insular Collector of Customs, with the costs in both instances,de officio. So ordered.

Torres, Moreland, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.