Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
DAMAGES
(CONFLICTS OF LAW)
BY:
GROUP III
ARAO, Michael Thomas S.
BEHIGA, Sarah Jane F.
DATUDACULA, Boy Omar G.
DIANAL, Reezah M.
MAGALLANES, Krystel Hypa C.
SENO, Stephanie Hariette U.
TAHANLANGIT, Maxi Dominick D.
VILLARUBIA, Freila May B. Villarubia
I.
INTRODUCTION
The law of torts and the law of conflict of laws, intersect whenever the
particular tort or the parties have significant contacts with more than one
state or country. These torts would include cases in which the tortious
conduct occurs in one state and the resulting injury in another (cross-border
torts), or in which the conduct and the injury both occur in one state but
either the tortfeasor or the victim, or both, are domiciled in, or have another
significant connection with, another state.
In conflict of laws, the choice of law rules for tort is used to select the
lex causae by which to determine the nature and scope of judicial remedy to
claim damages for loss or damage suffered. Because of territorial
sovereignty, the forum courts usually claim their right to apply their laws to
determine whether any lawsuit initiated in their jurisdiction allowed a
remedy. However, it is the commission of a tort that vest a right of action on
the claimant thus it is also argued that it is the law of the place where the
right is created that will determine the extent of remedy flowing from it. The
principle of lex loci delicti as the first point of reference serves a compromise
for these conflicting concepts.
The enforceability of any judgment is perhaps one of the most
important considerations in selecting the choice of law since it would be
unfair to the parties and a waste of time for the courts to hear a case if it is
not going to be enforceable. Thus, while the principle of lex loci delicti
generally governs the liability and damages for torts, there are instances
wherein such principle does not apply such as when it is contrary to public
policy of the forum state wherein the principle of lex fori applies.
Knowing the conflict rules on torts is essential for Filipinos, since labor
migration has been a phenomenon among Filipinos. Also, with the Philippines
being tagged as the Ship Manning Capital, the demand for Filipino seafarers
continues to grow and more Filipino seafarers are being deployed to different
foreign countries by different foreign employers everyday. Since budget
airlines were introduced to the Filipinos in 2005, the number of Filipino tourist
traveling abroad, have been growing by leaps and bounds. Low fares to
different international destinations enabled Filipinos to easily travel abroad.
In the same way, the number of foreign tourists coming into the Philippines
has significantly increased. Because of these factors, the conflict rules on
torts plays a very important part for Filipinos to be able to seek judicial
remedy for loss, damages or injury suffered within the Philippines and
abroad.
In discussing conflict of laws in relation to torts and damages, this
paper covers essentially the concept of tort in general including its historical
development and modern theories; and the point of contact which is the
place of commission of torts and its characterization. Philippine conflict rules
on torts are discussed in length, and where these rules wont apply
particularly in special cases, then conflict rules used in these instances are
elaborated. Furthermore, pertaining to torts rendered outside the forum
known as foreign torts, deliberation as to its enforcement in the Philippines is
also given emphasis. Lastly, this paper includes particular tort problems
which pointed out the conflict of law issue as well as the proposed choice of
law.
A.
In general, civil liability of persons may arise from any of the following
sourcescontracts, crimes or torts.
The word tort is taken directly from the French and is derivation from
of the Latin word torquere meaning to twist. However, it has no definite
definition and its concept is quite different in each country.
In common law, tort is an unlawful violation of private right, created by
contract, and which give rise to an action for damages. It is an act or
omission producing an injury to another, without any previous existing lawful
relation of which the said act or omission may be used to be a natural
outgrowth or incident (Robles vs Castillo, 61 O.G. 1220, 5 C.A.R.)
Furthermore, the term quasi-delict to cover cases where, although there
was no intention nor fault, liability was imposed on grounds of expediency
(Paton, Jurisprudence).
In many civil law countries, the term delict is usually confined to
intentional injuries, it is equated with a wrong or crime whose punishment
was subject to the laws of the place where it was committed. Hence, in
most European codes, including that of Spain, delict is confined to intentional
injury, quasi-delict refers to injury caused by negligence.
In Anglo-American, however, there is no such distinction. The term
tort covers both (1) intentional and negligent injury; and (2) strict liability
serves to distribute losses caused unavoidably by the complexities of life in a
modern society (Salonga).
In Philippine setting, how is tort defined? Although its foundation is
found mainly in the civil law concept of quasi-delict, Philippine law on torts as
may be gleaned from the decisions of our Supreme Court, represents the
blending of civil law and Anglo-American concepts. The key provision is
embodied in Article 2176 of the Civil Code which states:
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage
to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to
pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if
there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties is called a quasi-delict
Liability under Article 2176 arises from either fault or negligence, that
is, either by an act or omission. Fault requires the execution of an act which
causes damage to another, while negligence consists in the omission to do
acts which also results in damage to another. Hence, fault referred herein
gives rise to an obligation between persons not bound by a contractual
obligation known as culpa aquiliana. Where there is intent to cause damage
to another, the act or omission becomes a crime (dolo) and civil liability will
be governed by the Revised Penal Code. On the other hand, if fault is
connected with the performance of contract, then is it known as culpa
contractual.
A.1 Purposes of Tort Law
The major purposes of tort law include the following: (1) to provide a
peaceful means for adjusting the rights of the parties who might otherwise
take the law into their hands; (2) deter wrongful conduct; (3) to encourage
socially responsible behavior; and (4) to restore injured parties to their
original condition, insofar as the law can do this, by compensating them for
their injury (Prosser, Wade and Schwartz, 1988). Hence, every tort rule has a
two-fold purpose: to deter other wrongdoers, and to compensate the injured
person. In one case, the Supreme Court observed that the governing law
(Article 2176 of the Civil Code) seeks to reduce the risks and burden of living
in the society and to allocate to them among the members of society
(Phoenix Construction, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 148 SCRA 353).
A.2 Kinds of Tort Liabilities
According to Aquino (2013), legal or civil wrong as contemplated by
the definition of tort is not equivalent of a moral wrong. Tort Liability includes
liability for legal wrongs encompassing three types of conduct, namely:
intentional torts, negligence and strict liability.
Intentional torts include conduct where the actor desires to cause the
consequences of his act or believe the consequences are substantially
certain to result from it. Torts of this kind include assault, battery, false
imprisonment, defamation, invasion of privacy and interference of property.
Negligence, on the other hand, involves voluntary acts or omissions
that result injury to others, without intending to cause the same. The actor
fails to exercise due care in performing such acts or omissions.
There is strict liability in tort where the person is made liable
independent of fault or negligence upon submission of proof of certain facts.
When strict liability is imposed, the conduct is generally not wrongful in
itself but the wrong consists in causing harm by engaging in certain types of
risky activities. Article 2187 of the New Civil Code and Article 100 of the
Consumer Act are examples of provisions imposing strict liability.
A.3 Requisites of Quasi-Delict (Tort)
The requisites of quasi-delict both under the Spanish Civil Code and
New Civil Code, as well as in the United States at the start of the American
colonial regime in this country, are enumerated as follows:
1) There must be an act or omission constituting fault or negligence;
2) Damage caused by the said act or omission; and
3) Causal relation between the damage and the act or omission (Taylor
v. Manila Electric Company, 16 Phil 8)
According to Aquino (2013), it should be noted, however, that the
Supreme Court added a fourth requisite in some cases the absence of
contractual relation between the plaintiff and the defendant. Although the
fourth requirement appears to be consistent with the language of Article
2176 of the Civil Code, it is no longer cited in majority of cases because it is
now well-settled that an action based on quasi-delict can be maintained even
if there is an existing contractual relation between the parties.
The approach in American Express International v. Cordero (GR No.
138550, 2005) is to treat a case when the tort breaches the contract as an
exception. The Supreme Court explained that in order that an obligation
based on quasi-delict may arise, there must be no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties. But there are exceptions. There may be an
action for quasi-delict notwithstanding that there is a subsisting contract
between the parties. A liability for tort may arise even under a contract,
where tort is that which breaches the contract. Stated differently, when an
act which constitutes a breach of contract would have itself constituted the
source of a quasi-delictual liability, the contract can be said to have been
breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.
B.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
determine the legal effects of the injury. As stated by Prof. Rabel: The
primary object of the law of torts is to regulate the social order and prevent
its infringement; the secondary concern is to compensate the victims of
violations of this order. The State cannot fulfill this duty without including
foreigners in its commands.
Up to the 1960s, the prevailing rule in most legal systems, particularly
in Continental Europe and the United States, had been that the lex loci
delicti commissi, the law of the place of wrong, governs the nature and
extent of tort liability. This shall be discussed in length in the next chapter.
C.
statutory directive as to the law that should govern the conflicts problem, are
the following.
The first step is to separate false or spurious conflicts from true
conflicts. There is a false or spurious conflict when two or more States
having some connection with the event or the parties have tort rules
pointing to different results, but upon analysis of the purposes underlying the
divergent rules, it become apparent that the purpose of only one of them
would be advanced by its application in the case. In other cases, the conflict
may be found false, because the internal laws of the two or more States
would yield the same result. Hence, a court should carefully evaluate the
facts, consider the purposes and policies underlying the laws of the contact
States, and if it finds that only the law of the State would legitimately
advance its own policies if its rule were applied, there is a clear case of false
conflict. In other words, only one law is rationally applicable to the case in
issue. In the case of Barbara v. Jackson, there was no real conflict of interests
between New York and Ontario. Only New York has an interest in the
application of its law. Ontario has no interest or policy to advance its law
cannot rationally apply. It was a case of false conflict. (Salonga)
What if the given problem poses a real conflict between the interest of
two or more States having some connection with the event or the parties?
Prof. Currie makes a distinction between an interested forum and a
disinterested forum.
Where the forum can reasonably assert an interest in the application of
its law and policy, as against the interest of another State, the forum should
apply its own internal law. An interested forum should take account of the
law of the other State and its interest in having it applied in order to properly
decide the reach of the forums own law. Conceivably, if the interested forum
finds that the other State has a greater claim in the application of its law to a
given case, the forum should graciously yield and apply the law of the other
State. (supra)
Where the forum is a disinterested forum an occurrence Prof. Currie
describes as extremely rare in the United States the court, confronted by
a conflict between the laws of the two other States, should generally dismiss
the case on the ground of forum non conveniens. In short, the conflict is, in
many cases, an avoidable conflict, and the plaintiff should be allowed to
select a more appropriate forum of his choice. But where the conflict is
unavoidable in the sense that it must discharge its duty to decide the case
before it, the disinterested forum should reach a decision that it thinks
Congress would reach if it were to consider the matter.
The 1964 case of Griffith v. United Airlines, 416 Pa. 1 203 A. 2d 796;
1964), furnish some insight into the merit of the state-interest analysis:
A Pennsylvania domiciliary purchased a round trip ticket
from the airline in Pennsylvania for a flight between
Pennsylvania and Arizona. On the trip to Arizona, in the course of
landing at Denver, Colorado, an intermediate stop, the airplane
crashed causing the immediate death of the Pennsylvania
domiciliary. The decedents executor sued the airline in
Pennsylvania.
The immediate issue was whether the law of Colorado (the
place of injury) or the law of Pennsylvania should apply to the
case. The Colorado survival act bars recovery in case of
instantaneous death. The Pennsylvania survival act permits
recovery.
II.
POINT OF CONTACT
A.
The law of the place where the action causing injury, wrong or death
took place should govern. Most authorities consider this as the
traditional rule on the determination of the applicable law involving tort
or damages in the Philippines.
Lex loci delicti is applied with respect to the substantive phases of torts
or the actions thereof, and determines the question of whether or not an act
or omission gives rise to a right of action or civil liability for tort. For
instance, where an act of omission or commission occurs at one place and
resulting death, personal injury, or damage takes place at another, the situs
of the actionable wrong is the place at which the death, personal injury or
property damage takes place.
Under the traditional choice-of-law rule of lex loci delicti, the forum
court will apply the law of the place of the tort to determine the plaintiffs
right to recover in an action for fraud or deceit, abuse of process, malicious
prosecution, or false imprisonment.
A.1 REASONS FOR THE RULE
1) The state where social disturbance occurred has the primary duty
to redress the wrong, and to determine the effects of injury.
2) The law of the state must be presumed to have been foremost in the
mid of the parties concerned, thus they acted with knowledge of the
resultant consequences under the said law.
It is to be noted, however, that the liability for foreign torts may be
enforced in the Philippines if: (1) the tort is not penal in character; (2) if the
enforcement of the tortious liability wont contravene our public policy; (3) if
our judicial machinery is adequate for such enforcement; and (4) where the
foreign law is fiscal or administrative in nature.
B.
There are at least three (three) theories as to where the locus delicti in
tort is:
1) Civil Law Theory provides that the locus delicti is where the act began.
This is because rules on tort are intended to regulate human conduct;
hence a person who willfully or negligently acts contrary to social
norms must be held liable for any injury caused. (See Rabel, Conflict of
Laws, Vol. II, p. 303). Rules on tort are intended to regulate human
conduct, hence a person who acts contrary to social norms must be
held liable.
2) Common Law Theory provides that the locus delicti is where the
tortious act first became effective. The reason is evident: until there is
produced some effect, some result, no injury or wrong has really been
committed, despite the disregard of human norms. The law on torts
seeks to give protection and redress; without injury, there is no
necessity for judicial intervention and relief. (See Sec. 377, American
Restatement).
3) The Theory of Dr. Rabel provides that the locus delicti is the place
which has the most substantial or essential connection with the act.
(example: the situs of the radio station that broadcasts a libelous or
slanderous remark).(See Rabel, Conflict of Laws, Vol. II, p. 334-335).
The Philippines does not really have any codal or statutory provision
regarding tort liability which is affected by the laws of two or more States.
But now that the Philippines has been drawn into the mainstream of the
international system due to numerous foreign companies doing business in
the country and the rise of our tourism industry, our courts have adopted the
following conflict rules on tort liability.
A.
FORUM INTEREST
This rule provides that the law of the place where the alleged tort was
committed will govern. It is based on the theory that the state where social
disturbance occurred has the primary duty to redress the wrong and to
determine the effects of injury. Also, the law of the state must be presumed
to have been foremost in the mind of the parties concerned, thus they acted
with knowledge of the resultant consequences under the said law.
Wildvalley Shipping Co. LTD vs CA
G.R. No. 119602 Oct 6, 2000
(Case)
The President Roxas, a Philippine registered vessel,
navigated by a Venezuelan pilot designated by port authorities ,
obstructed and damaged the vessel of Wildvalley Shipping Co.
Wildvalley file an action for damages in RTC of Manila
Issue: Whether or not Venezuelan law is applicable since the
facts constituting tort giving rise to damages occurred in
Venezuela.
Ruling: No. Venezuelan law was not pleaded and invoked in the
complaint filed. Foreign laws must be alleged and proved. In the
absence of proof, laws of a foreign country will be presumed as
the same as our domestic law. And assuming that Venezuelan
law is proved, it cannot be applied as it is in conflict with
Philippine Law. Philippine law prevails because the countrys
giving effect to another countrys law is merely a matter of
comity except if there is a treaty or a borrowing statute.
C.
The rule arose because of the opinion of some that the rule on
lex loci delicti has become inadequate to meet the modern complexities of
life today.This is also known as State of the Most Significant Relationship
Rule, Center of Gravity Rule and Grouping of Contracts Rule ( Conflicts of Laws
by Agpalo pg. 206).
This rule applies where the tortuous acts occurred in two (2) or more
states and ripens into a cause of action in another State. An action may be
maintained wherever the wrongdoer can be found provided that ( 1) The law
of the nationality of the wrongdoer and the law of the forum (Philippines)
make the wrongful act actionable. In this case, action can be maintained
wherever the wrongdoer can be found and (2)The two countries have similar
statutes on the matter.
This rule also applies when the attendant facts occurred in two or
more States, not one of which constitutes an actionable wrong by itself.
The factors to be evaluated in the application of this rule includes (1)
the place where the injury occurred , (2)the place where the act causing the
injury occurred, (3)the domicile , residence, place of incorporation and place
of business of parties and (4)the place where the relationship of the parties is
centered (supra, pg 215).
Saudi Arabia Airlines vs. CA
297 SCRA 469
(Case)
Morada, a Filipina flight attendant of Saudia Airlines was
wrongfully convicted of adultery and immoral acts in Saudi
Arabia. She was handed to the authorities by her employer
Saudia Airlines and was unjustly terminated afterwards. She filed
a complaint for damages in RTC of Quezon Cityc. Saudia
contends that since the claim of abuse of rights occurred in
Saudi Arabia , the applicable law is that of Saudi Arabia. On the
other hand, Morida contends that since her compliant s for
recovery of damages under the Civil Code, domestic law must
apply.
Issue: Whether or not Philippine law is applicable.
(Case)
Filipino crewmen executed an agreement with Japanese
shipowners fixing the rates of their compensation. The contract
was executed in Japan. While the vessel was in Canada, the
crewmen secured rate increases over and above what had been
agreed. Employer subsequently claimed that the special
agreement done in Canada was obtained by force and undue
influence.
Issue: Whether or not the special agreement executed in
Canada was binding between the Japanese employer and Filipino
crew.
Ruling: Yes, the parties can validly amend their contract during
its effectivity in accordance with the rules prescribed by the
National Seamen Board of the Philippines even if they are in a
foreign country like Canada as long as such agreement was not
made thru fraud, intimidation and undue influence.
IV.
A.
The traditional rule of conflict of laws is that the law of country where
physical injury or death of a person occurred governs the liability of the
person responsible thereof or of the employer of the injured or deceased
person, as well as the amount of compensation which the injured or the heirs
would be entitled. If the claim for injury or death is based on tort, principles,
like Lex loci actus or the law of the place where the act was done or lex lici
delicti commissi or the law of the place where the injury occurred or the
liabilities of the parties are fixed, have been applied. If the claim for injuries
or death is based on contract, the doctrine of Lex loci solutionis or the law of
benefits during the term of the contract, in case of total and permanent
disability or death of the seamen. Such law, irrespective of where the injury
or death occurred, or whether it secured an insurance to cover its risks and
the seaman who was injured or died failed to avail or receive the insurance
benefits, binds the foreign employer and wherever the vessel is registered. In
a case involving a claim of a Filipino seamen, the Court ruled that the
"underlying regulatory policy, as we see it, is that Filipino seamen working on
ocean-going vessels should receive the same wages and benefits, without
regard to the nationality or nationalities of the vessels on which they serve. 5
This is a rule applied in suits involving conflicts of law that provides
that the forum is not bound by the law of the place of injury or death as to
the limitation on damages for wrongful death action. The rationale behind
the doctrine is that laws that set limitations on damages are procedural.
Hence the law of the forum should govern the issue. In the case of Kilberg v.
Northeast Airlines, the doctrine was elaborated:
On August 15, 1958, a passenger for hire, traveling in the
defendant's plane from New York to Nantucket, Massachusetts,
was killed when the plane crashed on Nantucket Island. The
cause of action under consideration, predicated upon the breach
of a contract made in New York, seeks to recover for loss of
accumulation on behalf of the estate, pursuant to the New York
Decedent Estate Law. The plaintiff alleges substantially that the
defendant breached its implied contract of safe carriage by the
negligent operation of its plane, culminating in its destruction
and the death of the passenger. The plaintiff does not question
the general rule that the right to recover in a death action is
governed by the law of the place where the wrong occurred.
However, he contends that the cause of action is not one for
wrongful death, or for damages for loss suffered by the
decedent's survivors by reason of his death, but that "It merely
asserts a statutory codification of a common law cause of action
for breach of contract, and seeks on behalf of the decedent's
Estate to recover for such Estate the amount the deceased
would have accumulated had he lived out his normal life
expectancy." The short answer is that the cause of action alleges
a breach of duty through negligence. The fact that it has been
seductively clothed in form ex contractu does not control. Relief,
if any, may be obtained only upon proof of the defendant's
negligence. It follows, therefore, that the laws of Massachusetts,
where the injuries were inflicted, govern the extent of the
damages, which may be recovered. The court also held that a
contract action for wrongful death is known as common law. In
any case, the statutory limit of $15,000 limit is not applicable. In
airplane flights, the place of injury becomes entirely fortuitous.
Our courts should if possible, provide protection for our own
States people against unfair and anachronistic treatment of the
lawsuits which result from these disasters. In any event, the
imposition of the limit is contrary to New Yorks policy. Moreover,
the question of limit on damages is procedural and should be
controlled by the law of the forum. New York law was held
applicable.6
In another case applying the Kilberg doctrine, the death of an Overseas
Filipino Worker caused his wife to file a case against the employer.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Salonga, Jovito R., Private International Law, Central Lawbook Pub. Co., 1967
Art. 1753, New Civil Code of the Philippines
Art. 1766, New Civil Code of the Philippines
Chua Kuy v. Everett Steamship Corporation, G.R. No. L-5554, May 27, 1953
14
In the case of Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. IAC (150 SCRA 463, 473474), the Supreme Court held that the Civil Code does not of itself limit the
liability of the common carrier to a fixed amount per package although the
Code expressly permits a stipulation limiting such liability (Art. 1749); thus,
the COGSA, which is suppletory to the provisions of the Civil Code, steps in
and supplements the Code by establishing a statutory provision limiting the
carrier's liability in the absence of a declaration of a higher value of the
goods by the shipper in the bill of lading. The provisions of the Carriage
of Goods by Sea Act on limited liability are as much a part of a bill of
lading as though physically in it and as much a part thereof as
though placed therein by agreement of the parties.
Since there is no stipulation in the respective bills of lading, limiting the
carriers liability for the loss or destruction of the goods, nor is there a
declaration of a higher value of the goods, then the provisions of the Civil
Code (Arts. 1739 & 1750) do not apply. Hence, the carriers liability will be
under the COGSA, as suppletory law, and will not exceed US$500 per
package or its peso equivalent, at the time of payment of the value of goods
lost, but in no case more than the amount of damage actually sustained.
The rule was explained by the Philippine jurisprudence as held by the
Supreme Court:
Private respondent, Hernandez Trading Co., imported three
crates of bus spare parts from its supplier, Maruman Trading
Co., a foreign corporation based in Inazawa, Aichi, Japan. The
crates were shipped to Manila on board a vessel owned by
petitioners principal, Everett Orient Lines. Upon arrival in
Manila, one of the crates went missing, prompting Hernandez
Trading to file a formal claim in an amount equivalent to that
stated in the invoice. But Everett offered to pay only the
amount stipulated in the limited liability clause contained in the
bill of lading, which amount is lower than that stated in the
invoice. The query now is whether or not the limited liability
clause in the bill of lading is valid. The Supreme Court held in
the affirmative. The questioned stipulation is reasonable and
just. In the bill of lading, the carrier made it clear that its
liability would only be up to Y100, 000. However, the shipper
Maruman Trading had the option to declare a higher valuation if
the value of its cargo was higher than the limited liability of the
carrier. Considering that the shipper did not declare a higher
valuation, it had itself to blame for not complying with the
stipulation. On the issue that the bill of lading is a contract of
adhesion, SC ruled that such contract is not invalid per se. SC
held that Maruma Trading, having been extensively engaged in
trade, cannot be said to be ignorant. Everett, even if only a
consignee and thus not a signatory to the contract, is bound by
it. SC likened the contract of carriage to that of a contract
entered in favor of a stranger (contract pour atrui). Moreover,
by seeking recovery for the loss of the goods, Everett is
necessarily trying to enforce the contract. So it cannot now
reject the stipulation. Lastly, the higher valuation in the invoice
is irrelevant. For the shipper to recover a higher valuation, the
declaration must be in writing and inserted in the bill of lading.
Thus, the higher valuation in the invoice is of no moment since
the same was not made a part of the bill of lading. 15
Under also the C.O.G.S.A provision, it states that:
15
18
Mitsui O.S.K. Lines LTD v. CA, G.R. No. 119571, March 11, 1998
concerning discipline and all things in the foreign ship affecting only the
vessel and those belonging to her.
Following the law of the flag, for which the Philippines adhere to,
foreign vessels entering Philippine ports or waters are beyond the jurisdiction
of the courts of this country, in matters concerning discipline and all things in
the foreign ship affecting only the vessel and those belonging to her.
However, by enetering Philippine ports or waters, such vessel subjects
herself to the jurisdiction of the Philippines in matters, which involve the
peace and tranquility of the country, such as the commission of a crime
therein, or of the tortuous acts causing injuries. 19
The Law of the Flag generally supercedes the lex loci delicti test for
tort jurisdiction.The law of the flag, however, will not be applied where
considerations against its application outweigh those in its favor. An example
would be where the wrongful act or omission caused injury to the countrys
citizen or where the local law is designed to protect seamen in Philippine
ports. 20
The following are the exceptions to the general rule:
1) Matters, which affect the peace and tranquility of the country
(e.g. crime or torts)
2) Acts committed on board the vessel produce pernicious effects
within the territory
3) Offense against the law of nations (e.g. piracy)
4) Wrongful act or omission caused injury to the countrys citizen
5) Local law is designed to protect seamen in Philippine ports
One of the exceptions may be explained in the following case:
Wong Cheng is a Chinese national on board a merchant
vessel of English nationality anchored in Manila Bay, two and a
half miles from the shores of the city. He was caught illegally
smoking opium, an act violative of the Opium Law of the
Philippines. The defense was that since he was on board a vessel
registered in England, the Philippines has no jurisdiction over the
crime. The query raised was whether or not the courts of the
Philippines have jurisdiction over crime committed aboard
merchant vessels anchored in our jurisdiction waters. Mere
possession of opium aboard a foreign vessel in transit was held
by this court not triable by or courts, because it being the
primary object of our Opium Law to protect the inhabitants of the
Philippines against the disastrous effects entailed by the use of
this drug, its mere possession in such a ship, without being used
in our territory, does not being about in the said territory those
effects that our statute contemplates avoiding. Hence such a
mere possession is not considered a disturbance of the public
order. But to smoke opium within our territorial limits, even
though aboard a foreign merchant ship, is certainly a breach of
the public order here established, because it causes such drug to
produce its pernicious effects within our territory. It seriously
contravenes the purpose that our Legislature has in mind in
enacting the aforesaid repressive statute. 21
19
20
21
When a foreign vessel ship enters territorial waters, the ship's officers
and crew are subject to the jurisdiction of the territorial courts, subject to
such limitations only as have been conceded by the territorial severing
through the proper political agencies. The offense of failing to provide
suitable means as se- curing animals while transporting them on a ship from
a foreign port to a port of the Philippine Islands is within in the jurisdiction of
the courts of the Philip- pines when the forbidden conditions existed during
the time the ship was within territorial waters, regardless of the fat that the
same conditions existed when the ship sailed from the foreign port and while
it was on the high seas. 22
In the law of piracy, the attack or seizure of any vessel or its cargo, on
the high seas or on Philippine waters, by any per- son or persons is a crime
against the whole and the perpetra- tors can be prosecuted and convicted in
the country. The fact that the vessel is of foreign registry or the perpetrators
are not citi- zens or nationals of the Philippines does not preclude Philippine
courts from acquiring jurisdiction over the offense, as the offense is an
offense against the law of nations. The fact that the vessel is brought to
another country and its cargo unloaded therein does not prevent Philippine
courts from acquiring jurisdiction over the persons of the accused who, by
their arrest, may be brought to Philippine jurisdiction and enable the
Philippine courts to acquire jurisdiction over their persons. 23
As per American jurisprudence, certain maritime matters are
determined pursuant to the law of the state whose flag the vessel flies. The
ship is constructively a floating part of the state, based on the pragmatic
view that there must be some law on shipboard that cannot change with
every change of wa- ters. The law of the flag is generally applied in matters
of sub- stantive law, to matters of discipline on board a vessel, to contracts
made in a foreign port by the master on behalf of the owner, and to
employment contract of a seaman with a foreign vessel. The law of the flag
usually supersedes the lex loc delicti test of tort jurisdiction. 24
The law of the flag is not, however, controlling and will not be applied
where considerations against its application outweigh those in its favor, as
where the wrongful act or omission caused injury to the country's citizen or
where the local law is designed to protect seamen in Philippine ports. 25
V.
A.
22
23
24
25
C.
VI.
A.
B.
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
C.2 Modern approach - The courts emphasize the interest in protecting the
consumer or user of any product in the stream of commerce of commerce,
and thus tend to look to the injured partys domicile as the state having the
most significant contacts and interests (at least where this facilitates
recovery).
Example: A New Hampshire court applied its own law to allow recovery
by a local resident for injuries caused by a defective power saw
manufactured by a Michigan defendant, purchased from a dealer in Georgia,
and delivered in Florida to plaintiff, who later brought it to his home in New
Hampshire.
C.3 Product liability of the foreign manufacturer (Basis of Conflicts
Tort):
1) The Negligence Theory- A manufacturer is liable for harm caused
by a defective product if he has failed to exercise reasonable care in its
manufacture, thus creating an unreasonable risk of harm to those
lawfully using it for the purpose for which it was manufactured. The
manufacturer is also liable to those whom the supplier should expect to
be in the vicinity of its probable use.
2) Strict Liability Theory - In some jurisdictions, courts have
abandoned classical bases of liability-tort (negligence) and contract
(breach of warranty)-in favor of a strict liability theory. Under this
theory, the plaintiff must prove that he has suffered injury due to the
normal use of a product that was defective when it left the
manufacturer's hands; he need not prove specific acts of negligence on
the part of the manufacturer. However, while there is agreement on
this general theory, differences exist in its application. For example,
courts differ as to the categories of persons who can be held strictly
liable: in New Jersey and California, vendors of realty have been held
strictly liable, whereas other jurisdictions' have rejected the extension
of strict liability to this class.
STATUTORY LIABILITY
with the car, then the cyclist must pay the damages (or his parents in the
case of a minor.)
Liability without fault in certain cases
Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted
from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles,
the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the
vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect
of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this
section.
VII.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A.
BOOKS
INTERNET SOURCES
http://www.uberdigests.info/2012/11/saudi-arabian-airlines-vs-court-ofappeals/
http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/2015/02/mijares-v-ranada.html
Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj