1

Forum Non Conveniens

shopping, which originated as a concept in

international law, the principle of forum non-

First Philippine International Bank vs CA

On January 3, 2013252 SCRA 259
Conflict of Laws-Private International Law

conveniens was developed. The doctrine of

Origin of Forum Non ConveniensProducers Bank

(now called First Philippine International Bank),
which has been under conservatorship since
1984, is the owner of 6 parcels of land. The
Bank

had

an

agreement

with

Demetrio

Demetria and Jose Janolo for the two to

forum non conveniens provides that a court, in

conflicts of law cases, may refuse impositions
on its jurisdiction where it is not the most
convenient
parties are

or available

not

for um

precluded

and

from

the

seeking

remedies elsewhere.

purchase the parcels of land for a purchase

**Forum Shopping: occurs when a party

price of P5.5million pesos. The said agreement

attempts to have his action tried in a particular

was made by Demetria and Janolo with the

court or jurisdiction where he feels he will

Banks

Later

receive themost favorable judgment or verdict.

however, the Bank ,through its conservator,

Facts: The private respondent own several

Leonida Encarnacion, sought the repudiation of

parcels of land located in Quezon City for which

the agreement as it alleged that Rivera was not

he is the registered owner. He secured loans

authorized to enter intosuch an agreement,

from L and R corporations and executed deeds

hence there was no valid contract of sale.

of mortgage over the parcels of land for the

Subsequently,

security of the same. Upon the maturity of said

manager,

Mercurio

Demetria

Rivera.

and

Janolo

sued

Producers Bank. The regional trial court ruled in

loans,

favor of Demetria et al. The Bank filed an

foreclosure of the properties in question after

appeal with the Court of Appeals. Meanwhile,

private respondent failed to pay until maturity.

Henry Co, who holds 80% shares of stocks with

The private respondent filed a complaint for

the said Bank, filed a motion for intervention

injunction over the said foreclosure and for

with the trial court. The trial court denied the

redemption of the parcels of land. Two years

motion since the trial has been concluded

after

already and the case is now pending appeal.

respondent and L and R corporation entered

Subsequently, Co, assisted by ACCRA lawoffice,

into a compromise agreement that renders the

filed a separate civil case against Carlos Ejercito

former to be insured another year for the

as successor-in-interest (assignee) of Demetria

said properties. Included in the stipulations

and Janolo seeking to have the purported

were the attorneys fees amounting to Php

contract of sale be declared unenforceable

100,000.00. The private respondent however,

against the Bank. Ejercito et al argued that the

remained to be inturmoil when it came to

second case constitutes forum shopping.ISSUE:

finances and was apparently unable to pay and

Whether or not there is forum shopping.HELD:

secure

Yes. There is forum shopping because there is

redemption liability. Relief was discussed by

identity of interest and parties between the first

petitioner and private respondent executed a

case and the second case. There is identityof

document to redeem the parcels of land and to

interest because both cases sought to have the

register the same to his name.Allegations were

agreement, which involves the same property,

made by the private respondent claiming the

be

the

parcels of land to his name but without prior

Bank.There is identity of parties even though

notice, the properties were already registered

the first case is in the name of the bank as

under

defendant, and the second case is in the name

respondent calls for a review and for the court

of Henry Co as plaintiff. There is still forum

to act on the said adverse claim by petitioner

shopping here because

onsaid

declared

unenforceable

as

against

Henry Co essentially

the

the

the

the

firminitiated

filing

of

the

attorneys

petitioners

certificates

an

extrajudicial

petition,

fees,

more

name.

for

The

the

private

so

the

private

properties

represents the bank. Both cases aim to have

consolidated by the redemption price he paid

the bank escape liabilityfrom the agreement it

for said properties. The private respondent filed

entered into with Demetria et al.The Supreme

a suit for theannulment of judgment in the

Court also discussed that to combat forum

Court

of

appeals

which

ruled

over

the

2
same.Issue: whether the petitioner is on solid

In February 1990, Santos filed a complaint for

ground on the reacquisition over the said

illegal

properties. Ruling:By Atty. Canlas' own account,

Corporation

"due

of

International, Ltd. (MHIL). The Palace Hotel was

respondent Herrera, no financing entity was

impleaded but no summons were served upon

willing to extend him any loan withwhich to pay

it. MHC is a government owned and controlled

the

corporation.

to

lack

of

redemption

properties

paying

price

and

of

capacity

his

petitioner's

mortgaged

dismissal

against

Manila

Hotel

and

Manila

Hotel

(MHC)

It

owns

50%

of

MHIL, a

P100,000.00

foreign corporation (Hong Kong). MHIL manages

attorney's fees awarded in the Compromise

the affair of the Palace Hotel. The labor arbiter

Judgment," a development that should have

who handled the case ruled in favor of Santos.

tempered his demand for his fees. For obvious

The

reasons, he placed his interests over and above

(NLRC) affirmed the labor arbiter.

thoseof his client, in opposition to his oath to

National

ISSUE: Whether

"conduct himself as a lawyer ... with all good

Labor

or

Relations

not

the

Commission

NLRC

has

jurisdiction over the case.

fidelity ... to [his] clients." The Court finds the

occasion fit to stress that lawyering is not a

HELD: No. The NLRC is a very inconvenient

moneymaking venture and lawyers are not

forum for the following reasons:

merchants, a fundamental standard that has, as

a matter of judicial notice, eluded not a few law

1.

this case is the fact that Santos is a Filipino;

advocates. The petitioner's efforts partaking of

a

shakedown"

of

his

own

client

are

not

becoming of a lawyer and certainly, do not

2.

for

money.

condoning

the

shortcomings.

"We
private

In

are

not,

condemning

liable because it merely owns 50% of MHIL, it

however,

respondent's
Atty.

However, the Palace Hotel and MHIL are

foreign corporations MHC cannot be held

speak well of his fealty to his oath to "delay no

man

The only link that the Philippines has in

has no direct business in the affairs of the

own

Palace Hotel. The veil of corporate fiction cant

Canlas

be pierced because it was not shown that MHC

monetarily, we cannot overlook the fact that

is directly managing the affairs of MHIL. Hence,

the private respondent has not settled his

they are separate entities.

liability for payment of the properties. To hold

Atty. Canlas alone liable for damages is to 3.

Santos contract with the Palace Hotel
enrich said respondent at the expense of his
was not entered into in the Philippines;
lawyer. The parties must then set off their
obligations against the other

4.

Santos

contract

was

entered

into

Manila Hotel vs. NLRC - 343 SCRA 1

without the intervention of the POEA (had POEA

Private International Law Forum Non

intervened, NLRC still does not have jurisdiction

Conveniens

because it will be the POEA which will hear the

In May 1988, Marcelo Santos was an overseas

case);

worker in Oman. In June 1988, he was recruited 5.

MHIL and the Palace Hotel are not doing
by Palace Hotel in Beijing, China. Due to higher
business in the Philippines; their agents/officers
pay and benefits, Santos agreed to the hotels
are not residents of the Philippines;
job offer and so he started working there in
November 1988. The employment contract

Due to the foregoing, the NLRC cannot possibly

between him and Palace Hotel was however

determine all the relevant facts pertaining to

without

Philippine

the case. It is not competent to determine the

Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).

facts because the acts complained of happened

In August 1989, Palace Hotel notified Santos

outside our jurisdiction. It cannot determine

that he will be laid off due to business reverses.

which law is applicable. And in case a judgment

In

is rendered, it cannot be enforced against the

the

intervention

September

terminated.

1989,

of

he

the

was

officially

Palace Hotel (in the first place, it was not served

any summons).

3
The Supreme Court emphasized that under the
rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court
or agency may assume jurisdiction over the
case if it chooses to do so provided:
(1) that the Philippine court is one to which the
parties may conveniently resort to;
(2) that the Philippine court is in a position to
make an intelligent decision as to the law
and the facts; and
(3) that the Philippine court has or is likely to
have power to enforce its decision.
None of the above conditions are apparent in
the case at bar.

Where death has resulted from the injury, a

lump sum equal to forty five months earnings
or
fourteen
thousand
four
hundred
ringgit [RM], whichever is the less;
A local labor office in Malaysia then wrote a
letter to Hyundai advising the latter of the
computation it arrived at, to wit;
45 months x US $620.04 (monthly salary of
Eduardo) = US $27,902.02.
RM14,400 which is equivalent to US $5,393.29
is less than US $27,902.02, hence, Hyundai
deposited the lesser amount with the said labor
office.
The wife of Eduardo, Lora Felipe, does not agree
that Hyundai is liable for the lesser amount
hence she filed a labor case against Hyundais
agent, Omanfil. The labor arbiter ordered
Omanfil to pay $27,902.02 to Lora. This was
affirmed by the National Labor Relations
Commission. It was ruled that the Malaysian
labor law is susceptible to two interpretations
because it is vague; that in case of doubt of
labor laws, it must be construed in favor of the
laborer.
ISSUE: Whether or not the National Labor
Relations is correct.
HELD: No. The Malaysian Law in question is not
vague. Clearly what is due to Lora as death
benefit (for her dead husband) is 14,400
Malaysian Ringgit since that amount is less than
US $27,902.02. Further, it appears that the
Director General of Labor of Malaysia certified
that Eduardo is only entitled to a maximum of
RM14,000.00 pursuant to the labor law in
question. This certification is duly authenticated
by Mr. Bayani V. Mangibin, our Consul General
in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Such authentication
of the said Certification, which provides an
interpretation of said foreign labor law by none
other than the Director of Labor of Malaysia is
proof of the foreign law. Further still, this was
never contested by Lora.

Proof of foreign law

Omanfil vs. NLRC - 300 SCRA 213
Conflict of Laws Private International
Law Proof of Foreign Law
In February 1993, Hyundai Engineering and
Construction Co., Ltd., through its local agent,
Omanfil International Manpower Development
Corporation, engaged Eduardo Felipe to work as
a rigger in Malaysia. In June 1993, the ferry boat
in
which
Eduardo
was
assigned
met
an accident. His body was never found.
A provision in the Malaysia labor law provides:

WILDVALLEY vs. COURT OF APPEALS

342 SCRA 213 Conflict of Laws Private
International Law Proof of Foreign Law
In the Orinoco River in Venezuela, it is a rule
that ships passing through it must be piloted by
pilots familiar to the river. Hence, in 1988
Captain Nicandro Colon, master of Philippine
Roxas, a ship owned by Philippine President
Lines, Inc. (PPL), obtained the services of Ezzar
Vasquez, a duly accredited pilot in Venezuela to
pilot
the
ship
in
the
Orinoco
River.
Unfortunately, Philippine Roxas ran aground in
the Orinoco River while being piloted by
Vasquez. As a result, the stranded ship blocked
other vessels. One such vessel was owned

4
Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. (WSC). The
blockade caused $400k worth of losses to WSC
as its ship was not able to make its delivery.
Subsequently, WSC sued PPL in the RTC of
Manila. It averred that PPL is liable for the
losses it incurred under the laws of Venezuela,
to wit: Reglamento General de la Ley de
Pilotaje and Reglamento Para la Zona de
Pilotaje No 1 del Orinoco. These two laws
provide that the master and owner of the ship is
liable for the negligence of the pilot of the ship.
Vasquez was proven to be negligent when he
failed to check on certain vibrations that the
ship was experiencing while traversing the river.

1982 however, SAL was hit by recession and so

it had to lay off some employees. Laureano
was

one

of

them.

reconsideration

but

Laureano
it

was

asked

not

for

granted.

Aggrieved, Laureano filed a labor case for illegal

dismissal against SAL. But in 1987, he withdrew
the labor case and instead filed a civil case for
damages due to illegal termination of contract
against SAL. Laureano filed the case here in the
Philippines. SAL moved for the dismissal of the
case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The
motion was denied. On trial, SAL alleged that

ISSUE: Whether or not Philippine President

Lines, Inc. is liable under the said Venezuelan
laws.

the termination of Laureano is valid pursuant to

HELD: No. The two Venezuelan Laws were not

duly proven as fact before the court. Only mere
photocopies of the laws were presented as
evidence. For a copy of a foreign public
document to be admissible, the following
requisites are mandatory:

The trial court ruled in favor of Laureano. SAL

(1) It must be attested by the officer having

legal custody of the records or by his deputy;
and

ISSUE: Whether or not Singaporean Law is

(2) It must be accompanied by a certificate by a

secretary of the embassy or legation, consul
general, consul, vice consular or consular agent
or foreign service officer, and with the seal of
his office.
And in case of unwritten foreign laws, the oral
testimony of expert witnesses is admissible, as
are printed and published books of reports of
decisions of the courts of the country concerned
if proved to be commonly admitted in such
courts.
Failure to prove the foreign laws gives rise to
processual presumption where the foreign law
is deemed to be the same as Philippine laws.
Under Philippine laws, PPL nor Captain Colon
cannot be held liable for the negligence of
Vasquez. PPL and Colon had shown due
diligence in selecting Vasquez to pilot the
vessel. Vasquez is competent and was a duly
accredited pilot in Venezuela in good standing
when he was engaged.
LAUREANO VS. CA -324 SCRA 414
Conflict of Laws Private International
Law Proof of Foreign Law Applicability
of Foreign Laws
In 1978, Menandro Laureano was hired as a
pilot by the Singapore Airlines Limited (SAL). In

Singaporean law.

appealed the case raising the issue of lack of

jurisdiction, non-applicability of Philippine laws,
and estoppel, among others. The Court of
Appeals reversed the trial court.

applicable to this case.

HELD: No. The specific Singaporean Law which
holds valid the dismissal of Laureano is not
proved in court. As such, the trial court cannot
make a determination if the termination is
indeed valid under Singaporean Law. Philippine
courts do not take judicial notice of the laws of
Singapore. SAL has the burden of proof. SAL
failed to prove such law hence Philippine law
shall

apply.

However,

the

case

must

be

dismissed on the ground of estoppel. Under our

laws, all money claims arising from employeremployee relationships must be filed within
three years from the time the cause of action
accrued. Laureanos cause of action accrued in
1982 when he was terminated but he only filed
the money claim in 1987 or more than three
years from 1982. Hence he is already barred by
prescription.
EDI Staffbuilders Intl vs. NLRC
537 SCRA 409 Conflict of Laws Private
International Law Proof of Foreign Law
In

1993, EDI-Staffbuilders,

Inc.

(EDI),

upon

request of Omar Ahmed Ali Bin Bechr Est.

(OAB), a company in Saudi Arabia, sent to OAB

5
resumes

from

which

OAB

can

choose

prove otherwise. No proof of his incompetence

computer specialist. Eleazar Gran was selected.

was

It was agreed that his monthly salaryshall be

insubordination is likewise not proven. It was

$850.00. But five months into his service in

not proven that the submission of daily track

Saudi Arabia, Gran received a termination letter

records is part of his job as a computer

and right there and then was removed from his

specialist. There was also a lack of due process.

post. The termination letter states that he was

Under our laws, Gran is entitled to the two

incompetent because he does not know the

notice rule whereby prior to termination he

ACAD system which is required in his line of

should receive two notices. In the case at bar,

work; that he failed to enrich his knowledge

he only received one and he was immediately

during

terminated on the same day he received the

his

month

stay

to

prove

his

competence; that he is disobedient because he

ever

adduced

in

court.

His

alleged

notice.

failed to submit the required daily reports to

OAB. Gran then signed a quitclaim whereby he

Lastly, the quitclaim may not also release OAB

declared that he is releasing OAB from any

from liability. Philippine laws is again applied

liability in exchange of 2,948.00 Riyal.

here sans proof of Saudi laws. Under Philippine

Laws, a quitclaim is generally frowned upon and

When Gran returned, he filed a labor case for

are strictly examined. In this case, based on the

illegal dismissal against EDI and OAB.EDI in its

circumstances, Gran at that time has no option

defense averred that the dismissal is valid

but to sign the quitclaim. The quitclaim is also

because when Gran and OAB

void because his separation pay was merely

signed the

employment contract, both parties agreed that

2,948

Saudi labor laws shall govern all matters

$850.00 monthly salary (3,190 Riyal).

relating

to

the

termination

of

Riyal

which

is

lower

than

the

Grans

employment; that under Saudi labor laws,

Grans termination due to incompetence and
insubordination

is

valid;

that

Grans

insubordination and incompetence is outlined in

the termination letter Gran received. The labor
arbiter dismissed the labor case but on appeal,
the

National

Labor

Relations

Commission

(NLRC) reversed the decision of the arbiter. The

Court of Appeals likewise affirmed the NLRC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Saudi labor laws
should be applied.

Foreign judgments

HELD: No. The specific Saudi labor laws were

not proven in court. EDI did not present proof as

(a) Phil Alumininum Wheels vs. FASGI

GR 137378; 12 October 2000

to the existence and the specific provisions of

such

foreign

law.

Hence,

processual

presumption applies and Philippine labor laws

shall be used. Under our laws, an employee like
Gran shall only be terminated upon just cause.
The allegations against him, at worst, shall only
merit

suspension

not

dismissal.

His

incompetence is not proven because prior to

being sent to Saudi Arabia, he underwent the
required trade test to prove his competence.
The

presumption

therefore

is

that

he

is

competent and that it is upon OAB and EDI to

Conflict of Laws Private International Law Foreign

Judgments When May It Be Enforced

In

1978,

FASGI

Enterprises

Inc.

(FASGI), a

foreign corporation organized under the laws of

California, USA, entered into a contract with
Philippine Aluminum Wheels, Inc. (PAWI), a
Philippine

corporation,

whereby

the

latter

agrees to deliver 8,594 wheels to FASGI. FASGI

received the wheels and so it paid PAWI
$216,444.30. Later however, FASGI found out

6
that the wheels are defective and did not

foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and

comply with certain US standards. So in 1979,

binding in the country from which it comes,

FASGI sued PAWI in a California court. In 1980, a

until a contrary showing, on the basis of a

settlement was reached but PAWI failed to

presumption of regularity of proceedings and

comply with the terms of the agreement. A

the giving of due notice in the foreign forum.

second agreement was made but PAWI was

again remiss in its obligation. The agreement

In this case, PAWI was very well represented in

basically provides that PAWI shall return the

the California court. PAWIs insistence that its

purchase price in installment and conversely,

American lawyer colluded with FASGI; that he

FASGI shall return the wheel in installment.

entered

PAWI was only able to make two installments

without PAWIs authority is belied by the fact

(which

into

the

compromise

agreement

made

beyond

the

that PAWI initially complied with the agreement.

also

returned

the

It did not disclaim the agreement. It sent two

corresponding number of wheels. Eventually in

installments (though belatedly) but failed to

1982, FASGI sought the enforcement of the

comply on the rest. It cannot now aver that the

agreement

favorable

agreement is without its authority. Further, it is

judgment from the California court. PAWI is then

just but fair for the California court not to order

ordered to pay an equivalent of P252k plus

FASGI to return the remaining wheels because

damages but FASGI was not ordered to return

of PAWIs arrears.

were

scheduled

actually

date).

and

FASGI

it

received

the remaining wheels. PAWI was not able to

comply with the court order in the US. So in
1983,

FASGI

filed

complaint

for

the

enforcement of a foreign judgment with RTCMakati. Hearings were made and in 1990, the
trial judge ruled against FASGI on the ground
that the foreign judgment is tainted with fraud
because FASGI was not ordered to return the
remaining wheels (unjust enrichment) and that
PAWIs

American

lawyer

entered

into

the

agreements without the consent of PAWI. On

appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial
court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign judgment
may be enforced here in the Philippines.
HELD: Yes. The judgment is valid. A valid
judgment rendered by a foreign tribunal may be
recognized insofar as the immediate parties
and

the

underlying

cause

of

action

are

concerned so long as it is convincingly shown

that there has been an opportunity for a full and
fair

hearing

before

a court

of competent

jurisdiction; that trial upon regular proceedings

has been conducted, following due citation or
voluntary appearance of the defendant and
under a system of jurisprudence likely to secure
an impartial administration of justice; and that
there is nothing to indicate either a prejudice in
court and in the system of laws under which it
is sitting or fraud in procuring the judgment. A

(b) Philippine Aluminum Wheels vs FASGI

Enterprises
Facts:
On
01
June
1978,
FASGI
Enterprises
Incorporated (FASGI), a corporation organized
and existing under and by virtue of the laws of
the State of California, United States of
America,
entered
into
a
distributorship
arrangement with Philippine Aluminum Wheels,
Incorporated (PAWI), a Philippine corporation,
and Fratelli Pedrini Sarezzo S.P.A. (FPS), an
Italian corporation. The agreement provided for
the purchase, importation and distributorship in
the United States of aluminium wheels
manufactured by PAWI. FASGI then paid PAWI
the FOB value of the wheels. Unfortunately,
FASGI later found the shipment to be defective
and in non-compliance with the contract.
On 21 September 1979, FASGI instituted an
action against PAWI and FPS for breach of
contract and recovery of damages in the
amount of US$2,316,591.00 before the United
States District Court for the Central District of
California. In the interim, two agreements were
entered by the parties but PAWI kept on failing
to discharge its obligations therein. Irked by
PAWIs persistent default, FASGI filed with the
US District Court of the Central District of
California the agreements for judgment against
PAWI.
On 24 August 1982, FASGI filed a notice of entry
of judgment. Unable to obtain satisfaction of
the final judgment within the United States,
FASGI filed a complaint for enforcement of
foreign judgment, before RTC Makati. The
Makati court, however, dismissed the case, on

7
the ground that the decree was tainted with
collusion, fraud, and clear mistake of law and
fact. The lower court ruled that the foreign
judgment ignored the reciprocal obligations of
the parties. While the assailed foreign judgment
ordered the return by PAWI of the purchase
amount, no similar order was made requiring
FASGI to return to PAWI the third and fourth
containers of wheels. This situation amounted
to an unjust enrichment on the part of FASGI.
Furthermore, the RTC said, agreements which
the California court had based its judgment
were a nullity for having been entered into by
Mr. Thomas Ready, counsel for PAWI, without
the latters authorization. However, the Court of
Appeals reversed this decision.
Issue: WON the Philippine Court may enforce
the said foreign judgment.
Held:

defense. In fine, intrinsic fraud, that is, fraud

which goes to the very existence of the cause
of action such as fraud in obtaining the
consent to a contract is deemed already
adjudged, and it, therefore, cannot militate
against the recognition or enforcement of the
foreign judgment.
Asiavest Merchant Bangkers vs. CA
295 SCRA 469 Conflict of Laws Private
International Law Service of Summons to a
Non Resident Processual Presumption
In 1984, a Hong Kong court ordered Antonio
Heras to pay US$1.8 million or its equivalent,
with interest, to Asiavest Ltd. Apparently, Heras
guaranteed a certain loan in Hong Kong and the
debtor

in

said

loan

defaulted

hence,

the

In this jurisdiction, a valid judgment rendered

by a foreign tribunal may be recognized insofar
as the immediate parties and the underlying
cause of action are concerned so long as it is
convincingly shown that there has been an
opportunity for a full and fair hearing before a
court of competent jurisdiction; that trial upon
regular proceedings has been conducted,
following due citation or voluntary appearance
of the defendant and under a system of
jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial
administration of justice; and that there is
nothing to indicate either a prejudice in court
and in the system of laws under which it is
sitting or fraud in procuring the judgment. PAWI
claims that its counsel, Mr. Ready, has acted
without its authority. Verily, in this jurisdiction, it
is clear that an attorney cannot, without a
clients authorization, settle the action or
subject matter of the litigation even when he
honestly believes that such a settlement will
best serve his clients interest. However, PAWI
failed to substantiate this complain with
sufficient
evidence.
Hence,
the
foreign
judgment must be enforced.

creditor, Asiavest, ran after Heras. But before

Even if PAWI assailed that fraud tainted the

agreements which the US Court based its
judgment, this cannot prevent the enforcement
of said judgment. PAWI claimed that there was
collusion and fraud in the signing of the
agreements. Although the US Court already
adjudicated on this matter, PAWI insisted on
raising it again in this Court. Fraud, to hinder
the enforcement within this jurisdiction of a
foreign judgment, must be extrinsic, i.e., fraud
based on facts not controverted or resolved in
the case where judgment is rendered, or that
which would go to the jurisdiction of the court
or would deprive the party against whom
judgment is rendered a chance to defend the
action to which he has a meritorious case or

duly

said judgment was issued and even during trial,

Heras already left for good Hong Kong and he
returned to the Philippines. So when in 1987,
when Asiavest filed a complaint in court seeking
to enforce the foreign judgment against Heras,
the latter claim that he never received any
summons, not in Hong Kong and not in the
Philippines. He also claimed that he never
received a copy of the foreign judgment.
Asiavest however contends that Heras was
actually given service of summons when a
messenger from the Sycip Salazar Law Firm
served said summons by leaving a copy to one
Dionisio Lopez who was Heras son in law.
ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign judgment
can

be

enforced

against

Heras

in

the

Philippines.
HELD: No. Although the foreign judgment was
authenticated

(Asiavest

was

able

to

adduce evidence in support thereto) and Heras

was never able to overcome the validity of it, it
cannot be enforced against Heras here in the
Philippines because Heras was not properly
served summons. Hence, as far as Philippine
law is concerned, the Hong Kong court has
never acquired jurisdiction over Heras. This
means then that Philippine courts cannot act to
enforce the said foreign judgment.
The action against Heras is an action in
personam

and

as

far

as

Hong

Kong

is

8
concerned, Heras is a non resident. He is a non
resident because prior to the judgment, he
already abandoned Hong Kong. The Hong Kong
law

on

service

of

personam cases against

summons
non

in in

residents

was

never presented in court hence processual

presumption

is

applied

where

it

is

now

presumed that Hong Kong law in as far as this

case is concerned is the same as Philippine
laws. And under our laws, in an action in
personam wherein
resident who

the

does

not

defendant

is

voluntarily

a nonsubmit

himself to the authority of the court, personal

service of summons within the state is essential
to the acquisition of jurisdiction over her
person. This method of service is possible if

have lost their Philippine citizenship under the

conditions of this Act.
Section 3. Retention of Philippine
Citizenship - Any provision of law to the contrary
notwithstanding, natural-born citizenship by reason
of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country
are hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine
citizenship upon taking the following oath of
allegiance to the Republic:
"I _____________________, solemny swear (or
affrim) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated
by the duly constituted authorities of the
Philippines; and I hereby declare that I
recognize and accept the supreme authority of
the Philippines and will maintain true faith and
allegiance thereto; and that I imposed this
obligation upon myself voluntarily without
mental reservation or purpose of evasion."

such defendant is physically present in the

country. If he is not found therein, the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his
person and therefore cannot validly try
and decide the case against him. Without a
personal service of summons, the Hong Kong
court never acquired jurisdiction. Needless to
say, the summons tendered to Lopez was an
invalid service because the same does not
satisfy the requirement of personal service.

Natural born citizens of the Philippines who, after

the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a
foreign country shall retain their Philippine
citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.
Section 4. Derivative Citizenship - The unmarried
child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted,
below eighteen (18) years of age, of those who reacquire Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of this
Act shall be deemed citizenship of the Philippines.
Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and
Liabilities - Those who retain or re-acquire
Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full
civil and political rights and be subject to all
attendant liabilities and responsibilities under
existing laws of the Philippines and the
following conditions:
(1) Those intending to exercise their right of
surffrage must Meet the requirements under
Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, Republic
Act No. 9189, otherwise known as "The Overseas
Absentee Voting Act of 2003" and other existing
laws;

Republic Act No. 9225

August 29, 2003

AN ACT MAKING THE CITIZENSHIP OF

PHILIPPINE CITIZENS WHO ACQUIRE FOREIGN
CITIZENSHIP PERMANENT AMENDING FOR
THE PURPOSE COMMONWEALTH ACT. NO. 63,
AS AMENDED AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:
Section 1. Short Title this act shall be known as
the "Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition
Act of 2003."
Section 2. Declaration of Policy - It is hereby
declared the policy of the State that all Philippine
citizens of another country shall be deemed not to

(2) Those seeking elective public in the

Philippines shall meet the qualification for holding
such public office as required by the Constitution
and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of
the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and
sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship before any public officer authorized to
administer an oath;
(3) Those appointed to any public office shall
subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines and its duly
constituted authorities prior to their assumption of
office: Provided, That they renounce their oath of
allegiance to the country where they took that
oath;
(4) Those intending to practice their
profession in the Philippines shall apply with

9
the proper authority for a license or permit to
engage in such practice; and
(5) That right to vote or be elected or appointed to
any public office in the Philippines cannot be
exercised by, or extended to, those who:
(a) are candidates for or are occupying any
public office in the country of which they are
naturalized citizens; and/or
(b) are in active service as commissioned or
non-commissioned officers in the armed
forces of the country which they are
naturalized citizens.

him to take advantage of Canadas free

medical aid program he became a
Canadian citizen in 2004. In 2006 however,
he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship
pursuant to Republic Act 9225 of the
Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition
Act of 2003. In the same year, he returned
to the Philippines and he now intends to
resume his practice of law.
ISSUE: Whether or not Benjamin Dacanay may
still resume his practice of law.

HELD: Yes. As a rule, the practice of law

and other professions in the Philippines are
Section 6. Separability Clause - If any section or
reserved and limited only to Filipino
provision of this Act is held unconstitutional or
citizens.
Philippine
citizenship
is
a
invalid, any other section or provision not affected
requirement for admission to the bar. So
thereby shall remain valid and effective.
when Dacanay became a Canadian citizen
in 2004, he ceased to have the privilege to
Section 7. Repealing Clause - All laws, decrees,
practice law in the Philippines. However,
orders, rules and regulations inconsistent with the
under RA 9225, a Filipino lawyer who
provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or
becomes a citizen of another country is
modified accordingly.
deemed never to have lost his Philippine
citizenship if he reacquires his Filipino
Section 8. Effectivity Clause This Act shall take
citizenship in accordance with RA
effect after fifteen (15) days following its publication
9225. Hence, when Dacanay reacquires
in theOfficial Gazette or two (2) newspaper of
his Filipino citizenship in 2006, his
general circulation.
membership to the Philippine bar was
deemed to have never been terminated.
Approved,
But does this also mean that he can
automatically resume his practice of law
right after reacquisition?
FRANKLIN DRILON
JOSE DE VENECIA JR.
No. Dacanay must still comply with several
President of the Senate
Speaker of the House of Representatives
conditions before he can resume his
practice of law, to wit:
(a) the updating and payment in full of the
This Act, which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2130 and House
Bill No. 4720 was finally passed by the the House of
annual membership dues in the IBP;
Representatives and Senate on August 25, 2003 and August 26,
(b)
the payment of professional tax;
2003, respectively.
(c) the completion of at least 36 credit
hours of mandatory continuing legal
education; this is especially significant
OSCAR G. YABES
ROBERTO P. NAZARENO
to refresh the applicant/petitioners
Secretary of Senate
Secretary General
House of Represenatives
knowledge of Philippine laws and
update him of legal developments and
(d) the retaking
of
the
lawyers
Approved: August 29, 2003
oath which will not only remind him of
his duties and responsibilities as a
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
lawyer and as an officer of the Court,
President of the Philippines
but also renew his pledge to maintain
allegiance to the Republic of the
Petition for Leave to Reclaim Practice Of
Philippines.
Law 540 SCRA 424 Civil Law Private
International Law Nationality Theory
Practice of Law is Reserved for Filipinos

In 1998, Atty. Benjamin Dacanay went to

Canada to seek medical help. In order for

Compliance with these conditions will

restore his good standing as a member of
the Philippine bar.