Cases in Conflict of Laws (Prelims)

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)



Text of Cases in Conflict of Laws (Prelims)




The objective of the law was to subject the foreign corporation to the jurisdiction of our courts. The Corporation Law must be given a reasonable, not an unduly harsh, interpretation which does not hamper the development of trade relations and which fosters friendly commercial intercourse among countries.The Corporation Law is silent on whether or not the contract executed by a foreign corporation with no capacity to sue is null and void ab initio.

A Michigan statute provides: No foreign corporation subject to the provisions of this Act, shall maintain any action in this state upon any contract made by it in this state after the taking effect of this Act,until it shall have fully complied with the requirement of this Act, and procured a certificate to that effect from the Secretary of State. It was held that the above statute does not render contracts of a foreign corporation that fails to comply with the statute void, but they may be enforced only after compliance therewith.

There is no question that the contracts are enforceable. The requirement of registration affects only the remedy.

Significantly, Batas PambansaBlg. 68, the Corporation Code of the Philippines has corrected the ambiguity caused by the wording of Section 69 of the old Corporation Law. Section 133 of the present Corporation Code provides: SEC. 133.Doing business without a license.-No foreign corporation transacting business in the Philippines without a license, or its successors or assigns, shag be permitted to maintain or intervene in any action, suit or proceeding in any court or administrative agency in the Philippines; but such corporation may be sued or proceeded against before Philippine courts or administrative tribunals on any valid cause of action recognized under Philippine laws.

Our ruling that the lack of capacity at the time of the execution of the contracts was cured by the subsequent registration is also strengthened by the procedural aspects of these cases.


Black's Law Dictionary says that forum shopping "occurs when a party attempts to have his action tried in a particular court or jurisdiction where he feels he will receive the most favorable judgment or verdict." Hence, according to Words and Phrases, "a litigant is open to the charge of "forum shopping" whenever he chooses a forum with slight connection to factual circumstances surrounding his suit, and litigants should be encouraged to attempt to settle their differences without imposing undue expenses and vexatious situations on the courts".

There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. The principle applies not only with respect to suits filed in the courts but also in connection with litigations commenced in the courts while an administrative proceeding is pending, as in this case, in order to defeat administrative processes and in anticipation of an unfavorable administrative ruling and a favorable court ruling.

TEST: Buan vs. Lopez , also by Chief Justice Narvasa, and that is, forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.

Corporate veil cannot be used to shield an otherwise blatant violation of the prohibition against forum-shopping. Shareholders, whether suing as the majority in direct actions or as the minority in a derivative suit, cannot be allowed to trifle with court processes, particularly where, as in this case, the corporation itself has not been remiss in vigorously prosecuting or defending corporate causes and in using and applying remedies available to it. To rule otherwise would be to encourage corporate litigants to use their shareholders as fronts to circumvent the stringent rules against forum shopping.

McGee v Int'l Ins. Co

The Due Process Clause did not preclude the California court from entering a judgment binding on respondent, since the suit was based on a contract which had a substantial connection with California.In International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, the Court decided that "due process requires only that, in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

RATIONALE: In part, this is attributable to the fundamental transformation of our national economy over the years. Today, many commercial transactions touch two or more States, and may involve parties separated by the full continent. With this increasing nationalization of commerce has come a great increase in the amount of business conducted by mail across state lines. At the same time, modern transportation and communication have made it much less burdensome for a party sued to defend himself in a State where he engages in economic activity.

The contract was delivered in California, the premiums were mailed from there, and the insured was a resident of that State when he died. It cannot be denied that California has a manifest interest in providing effective means of redress for its residents when their insurers refuse to pay claims. These residents would be at a severe disadvantage if they were forced to follow the insurance company to a distant State in order to hold it legally accountable


the CA committed a reversible error when it dismissed the petition for failure to strictly follow the verification requirements. Stated otherwise, we do not consider the variance between the dates as fatal to the petitioners case because the variance did not necessarily lead to the conclusion that no verification was made, or that the verification was false. More importantly, the variance totally lost significance after the petitioners sent from the US and submitted to the CA the required Verification/Certification in compliance with their previously manifested intent. As this Court noted in a case where compliance with a certificate of non-forum shopping was at issue, the fact that the Rules require strict compliance merely underscores its mandatory nature; it cannot be dispensed with or its requirements altogether disregarded, but it does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances, as we find in this case.


Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) v. Arabian American Oil Co.

Title VII does not apply extraterritorially to regulate the employment practices of United States firms that employ American citizens abroad.

It is a longstanding principle of American law "that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. This canon of construction is a valid approach whereby unexpressed congressional intent may be ascertained. It serves to protect against unintended clashes between our laws and those of other nations which could result in international discord.

Absent clearer evidence of congressional intent, this Court is unwilling to ascribe to Congress a policy which would raise difficult international law issues by imposing this country's employment discrimination regime upon foreign corporations operating in foreign commerce. This conclusion is fortified by other factors suggesting a purely domestic focus, including Title VII's failure even to mention foreign nations or proceedings, despite a number of provisions indicating a concern that the sovereignty and laws of States not be unduly interfered with, and the Act's failure to provide any mechanisms for its overseas enforcement. It is also reasonable to conclude that, had Congress intended Title VII to apply overseas, it would have addressed the subject of conflicts with foreign laws and procedures, as it did in amending the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) to apply abroad.

Small vs United states

Section 922(g)(1)s phrase convicted in any court encompasses only domestic, not foreign, convictions.

In considering the scope of the phrase convicted in any court it is appropriate to assume that Congress had domestic concerns in mind. This assumption is similar to the legal presumption that Congress ordinarily intends its statutes to have domestic, not extraterritorial, application.

foreign convictions may include convictions for conduct that domestic laws would permit. In addition, it is difficult to read the statute as asking judges or prosecutors to refine its definitional distinctions where foreign convictions are at issue. To somehow weed out inappropriate foreign convictions that meet the statutory definition is not consistent with the statutes language; it is not easy for those not versed in foreign laws to accomplish; and it would leave those previously convicted in a foreign court (say of economic crimes) uncertain about their legal obligations. These considerations provide a convincing basis for applying the ordinary assumption about the reach of domestically oriented statutes here.


LA has extra-territorial jurisdiction.

Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Ov