Heine vs.

New York Insurance Company

Facts
New York Insurance Company
-incorporated in NY
-has statutory agents in Oregon, upon whom summons were made
-issued some 240 life insurance policies IN GERMANY, in German Marks,
for GERMAN CITIZENS
-as a condition to do business in Germany, they were compelled to
(1) accede to the supervision and control of German insurance officials
(2) invest the proceeds arising from German policies in German securities
(3) establish an office in Germany w/ an agent upon whom service can be
made.
-the German citizens insured who are in US and Germany sued NY
Insurance Company in US Court
-they are arguing that since the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter
+ parties, it HAS NO DISCRETION but should proceed w/ case
regardless where the COA arose
or law by which it is controlled
or difficulty the court would encounter in attempting to interpret and
enforce a foreign contract
or interference w/ other business of the court
ISSUE: WON US courts are compelled to take cognizance of the
dispute?
HELD: NO.
-both US and German are open and functioning and competent to take
jurisdiction of the controversies
-service can be made upon the defendants in either of such jurisdictions
BUT
*to require NY Insurance Company to defend the actions in this district
would impose upon them great and unnecessary inconvenience and
expense
>produce in US numerous records, books, and papers, all of which are in
daily use by it in taking care of current business (in GERMANY)
*It would also cause inconveniences in US Courts
>consume months of time of court to try and dispose of it
>disarrange calendar, resulting in delay, inconvenience, and expense to
other litigants
*Forum non conveniens
-The court has discretion to exercise jurisdiction. The courts have
repeatedly refused, in their discretion, to entertain jurisdiction in COA
arising in a foreign jurisdiction, WHERE BOTH PARTIES ARE NONRESIDENTS
OF THE FORUM
-The courts of this country are established and maintained primarily to
determine controversies between its own citizens and those having
business there, and manifestly the court may protect itself against a flood
of litigation over contracts made and to be performed in a foreign
country
In re: Union Carbide Corporation

-thousands of residents of Bhopal, India filed suit for damages in NY as a

result of a large scale accident in a Union Carbide Bhopal's chemical plant.
H: US Court dismissed case based on forum non conveniens doctrine
English and Scottish courts

-applied forum non conveniens when there was another available and ore
appropriate forum, in which the ends of justice would be better served, by
eliminating the vexatious or oppressive character of the pending
proceedings and by removing any unfairness to either party which would
result from trial in the forum seized of the case
*Avoid global forum shopping: filing of repetitious suits in courts of
different jurisdiction over a case
-would result to different decisions by different courts
ThecourtholdsthatthedistrictcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionbygrantingUnionCarbide'smotionto
dismiss145consolidatedpersonalinjuryactionsarisingoutofthereleaseofmethylisocyanategasin
December1984fromUnionCarbide'sBhopalplantonthegroundsofforumnonconveniens.Soon
aftertheaccident,thefirstof145classactions,involvingapproximately200,000plaintiffs,wasfiledin
afederaldistrictcourt.ThecomplaintswereconsolidatedintheSouthernDistrictofNewYorkinJune
1985.Inthemeantime,IndiaenactedtheBhopalGasLeakDisaster(ProcessingofClaims)Actin
March1985,grantingtheUnionofIndia(UOI)theexclusiverighttorepresentthevictims.InApril
1985,theUOIfiledacomplaintintheSouthernDistrictofNewYorkonbehalfofallvictimsofthe
accident.InMay1986,thedistrictcourtdismissedtheconsolidatedcomplaintsonthegroundsof
forumnonconveniens,subjecttothreeconditions.Theappellatecourtfirstdeterminesthatplaintiffs'
choiceofaUnitedStatesforumisentitledtolittleornodeference,sinceallbutafewofthe200,000
plaintiffsareIndiancitizenswhohavereplacedtheirAmericancounselwiththeUOI,whichnow
wishestoproceedinIndiancourts.Thedistrictcourt'sfindingthatIndiancourtsprovideareasonably
adequatealternativeforumwasnotclearlyerroneous.Plaintiffs'contentionthatthedistrictcourtshould
retainjurisdictionbecauseUnionCarbidehasitsprincipalplaceofbusinessintheUnitedStatesisnot
persuasive,sinceUnionCarbidehasconsentedtoIndianjurisdiction.Plaintiffs'assertionthatthemost
probativeevidenceonnegligenceandcausationislocatedintheUnitedStatesisnotsupportedbythe
record.TheprincipalwitnessesanddocumentsarelocatedalmostentirelyinIndia.Thecourtrejects
plaintiffs'argumentthattransferofthecasestoIndiawilljeopardizea$350millionsettlementbeing
negotiatedbyplaintiffs'Americancounsel.ThesettlementhasneverbeenfinalizedandtheUOI,which
isitselfaplaintiffinadditiontorepresentingtheindividualplaintiffs,isfirmlyopposedtothe
settlement.
ThecourtholdsthatUnionCarbidemayseekappellatereviewoftheconditionsimposedbythedistrict
courtonitsforumnonconveniensdismissal,sinceitexpresslyreserveditsrighttoappealandithas
madeasufficientshowingofprejudicefromthesecondandthirdconditions.Thecourtupholdsthe
conditionrequiringUnionCarbidetoconsenttotheIndiancourt'spersonaljurisdictionoveritand
waivethestatuteoflimitationsasadefense.Thecourtholds,however,thatthedistrictcourterredin
conditioningitsdismissalonUnionCarbide'sconsenttotheenforceabilityintheUnitedStatesofan
Indianjudgment.Thedistrictcourterroneouslyassumedthatabsentthiscondition,plaintiffsmightnot
beabletoenforceanIndianjudgmentintheUnitedStates.TheNewYorkForeignCountryMoney
JudgmentsLawprovidesthataforeigncountryjudgmentwillgenerallyberecognizedasconclusive
betweentheparties,exceptincertainsituationsnotapplicablehere.ThecourtrejectsUnionCarbide's
argumentthatthecourtshouldprotectitagainstpotentialdenialsofdueprocessbytheIndiancourtsby
authorizingthedistrictcourttomonitortheIndianproceedingsandrectifyanyabuses.Thedistrict
courtlosesallfurtherjurisdictionoverthecaseswhenitdismissesonthegroundsofforumnon
conveniens.AnydenialofdueprocessbytheIndiancourtscanberaisedasadefensetoanyattempts
toenforceanIndianjudgmentinUnitedStatescourts.Further,thelanguageofthedistrictcourt's
condition,whichrequiresthatthejudgment"comportwithminimalrequirementsofdueprocess,"may
bemisconstruedasprovidingforalesserstandardthanAmericancourtswouldotherwiserequire.The
courtholdsthatthedistrictcourtalsoerredinrequiringUnionCarbidetoconsenttodiscoveryby
plaintiffsinaccordancewiththeFederalRulesofCivilProcedurewhenUnionCarbideisconfinedto
themorelimiteddiscoveryunderIndianlaw.Basicjusticerequiresthatbothsideshaveequalaccessto
evidence
FPIB vs. CA
ProducersBank(nowcalledFirstPhilippineInternationalBank),whichhasbeenunder
conservatorshipsince1984,istheownerof6parcelsofland.TheBankhadanagreementwith
DemetrioDemetriaandJoseJanoloforthetwotopurchasetheparcelsoflandforapurchasepriceof

P5.5millionpesos.ThesaidagreementwasmadebyDemetriaandJanolowiththeBanksmanager,
MercurioRivera.Laterhowever,theBank,throughitsconservator,LeonidaEncarnacion,soughtthe
repudiationoftheagreementasitallegedthatRiverawasnotauthorizedtoenterintosuchan
agreement,hencetherewasnovalidcontractofsale.Subsequently,DemetriaandJanolosued
ProducersBank.TheregionaltrialcourtruledinfavorofDemetriaetal.TheBankfiledanappealwith
theCourtofAppeals.
Meanwhile,HenryCo,whoholds80%sharesofstockswiththesaidBank,filedamotionfor
interventionwiththetrialcourt.Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotionsincethetrialhasbeenconcluded
alreadyandthecaseisnowpendingappeal.Subsequently,Co,assistedbyACCRAlawoffice,fileda
separatecivilcaseagainstCarlosEjercitoassuccessorininterest(assignee)ofDemetriaandJanolo
seekingtohavethepurportedcontractofsalebedeclaredunenforceableagainsttheBank.Ejercitoetal
arguedthatthesecondcaseconstitutesforumshopping.
ISSUE:Whetherornotthereisforumshopping.
HELD:Yes.Thereisforumshoppingbecausethereisidentityofinterestandpartiesbetweenthefirst
caseandthesecondcase.Thereisidentityofinterestbecausebothcasessoughttohavetheagreement,
whichinvolvesthesameproperty,bedeclaredunenforceableasagainsttheBank.Thereisidentityof
partieseventhoughthefirstcaseisinthenameofthebankasdefendant,andthesecondcaseisinthe
nameofHenryCoasplaintiff.ThereisstillforumshoppingherebecauseHenryCoessentially
representsthebank.Bothcasesaimtohavethebankescapeliabilityfromtheagreementitenteredinto
withDemetriaetal.
TheSupremeCourtalsodiscussedthattocombatforumshopping,whichoriginatedasaconceptin
internationallaw,theprincipleofforumnonconvenienswasdeveloped.Thedoctrineofforumnon
conveniensprovidesthatacourt,inconflictsoflawcases,mayrefuseimpositionsonitsjurisdiction
whereitisnotthemostconvenientoravailableforumandthepartiesarenotprecludedfromseeking
remedieselsewhere.

**ForumShopping:occurswhenapartyattemptstohavehisactiontriedinaparticularcourtor
jurisdictionwherehefeelshewillreceivethemostfavorablejudgmentorverdict.
ManilaHotelCorpvs.NLRC
TheNLRCwasaseriouslyinconvenientforum.
Wenotethatthemainaspectsofthecasetranspiredintwoforeignjurisdictionsandthecaseinvolves
purelyforeignelements.TheonlylinkthatthePhilippineshaswiththecaseisthatrespondentSantos
isaFilipinocitizen.ThePalaceHotelandMHICLareforeigncorporations.Notallcasesinvolvingour
citizenscanbetriedhere.
Theemploymentcontract.RespondentSantoswashireddirectlybythePalaceHotel,aforeign
employer,throughcorrespondencesenttotheSultanateofOman,whererespondentSantoswasthen
employed.HewashiredwithouttheinterventionofthePOEAoranyauthorizedrecruitmentagencyof
thegovernment.36
Undertheruleofforumnonconveniens,aPhilippinecourtoragencymayassumejurisdictionoverthe
caseifitchoosestodosoprovided:(1)thatthePhilippinecourtisonetowhichthepartiesmay
convenientlyresortto;(2)thatthePhilippinecourtisinapositiontomakeanintelligentdecisionasto
thelawandthefacts;and(3)thatthePhilippinecourthasorislikelytohavepowertoenforceits
decision.37Theconditionsareunavailinginthecaseatbar.

NotConvenient.WefailtoseehowtheNLRCisaconvenientforumgiventhatalltheincidentsof
thecasefromthetimeofrecruitment,toemploymenttodismissaloccurredoutsidethePhilippines.
Theinconvenienceiscompoundedbythefactthattheproperdefendants,thePalaceHotelandMHICL
arenotnationalsofthePhilippines.Neither.arethey"doingbusinessinthePhilippines."Likewise,the
mainwitnesses,Mr.ShmidtandMr.HenkarenonresidentsofthePhilippines.
Nopowertodetermineapplicablelaw.Neithercananintelligentdecisionbemadeastothelaw
governingtheemploymentcontractassuchwasperfectedinforeignsoil.Thiscallstoforethe
applicationoftheprincipleoflexlocicontractus(thelawoftheplacewherethecontractwasmade). 38
TheemploymentcontractwasnotperfectedinthePhilippines.RespondentSantossignifiedhis
acceptancebywritingaletterwhilehewasintheRepublicofOman.ThisletterwassenttothePalace
HotelinthePeople'sRepublicofChina.
Nopowertodeterminethefacts.NeithercantheNLRCdeterminethefactssurroundingthealleged
illegaldismissalasallactscomplainedoftookplaceinBeijing,People'sRepublicofChina.The
NLRCwasnotinapositiontodeterminewhethertheTiannamenSquareincidenttrulyadversely
affectedoperationsofthePalaceHotelastojustifyrespondentSantos'retrenchment.
Principleofeffectiveness,nopowertoexecutedecision.Evenassumingthataproperdecisioncould
bereachedbytheNLRC,suchwouldnothaveanybindingeffectagainsttheemployer,thePalace
Hotel.ThePalaceHotelisacorporationincorporatedunderthelawsofChinaandwasnotevenserved
withsummons.Jurisdictionoveritspersonwasnotacquired.
ThisisnottosaythatPhilippinecourtsandagencieshavenopowertosolvecontroversiesinvolving
foreignemployers.Neitherarewesayingthatwedonothavepoweroveranemploymentcontract
executedinaforeigncountry.IfSantoswerean"overseascontractworker",aPhilippineforum,
specificallythePOEA,nottheNLRC,wouldprotecthim.39Heisnotan"overseascontractworker"a
factwhichheadmitswithconviction.40
EvenassumingthattheNLRCwastheproperforum,evenonthemerits,theNLRC'sdecisioncannot
besustained.
Fleumer vs. Hix

FACTS:
-Fleumer, the special administrator of Hix, presented the latter's will for
probate in the Philippines
-the will did not show the following:
*acknowledgment by Hix in the presence of 2 competent witnesses
*W subscribed to will in presence of testator, and of each other
-Fleumer wanted to present the said will, executed in West Virginia by Hix
who was residing at the time there, in RP
(not sure): Fleumer alleges that under W. Virginia law, will is duly executed
TO PROVE W. Virginia law: submitted a copy of Section 3868 of Act
1882 as found in West Virginia Code + Certified by the Director of our
National Library
HELD: Should prove foreign law first before courts of RP take
cognizance
-no judicial notice, foreign laws must be proved as facts
HERE:
-no showing that the book from which an extract was taken was printed or
published under the authority of the State of West Virginia

-No attestation by the certificate of the officer having charge of the

original, under the seal of the State of West Virginia (Section 301, Code of
Civil Procedure back then? Now R132.24-25)
-no evidence to show that the extract from the laws of West Virginia was in
force at the time the alleged will was executed
+
Due execution of the will was not established: only showed testimony of
the petitioner
Phil Trust Co. vs. Bohanan

FACTS
-C.O. Bohanan, citizen of Nevada, died with a Will.
-Philippine Trust Co. was named executer of the will
-Will gave to *a grandson: P90,819.67 of the P211,639 + 1/2 of all shares
of stock of several mining companies
*brother and sister: 1/2 of all shares of stock of several mining companies
*Only P6k was left to each of his children
-widow and 2 children of C.O. Bohanan questioned the validity of the will in
the hearing for the project of partition (will already admitted)
HELD: Even if Nevada law not proved in this stage of the proceeding, it
was taken judicial notice of because Philippine Trust Co. already produced
Section 9905 of the Compiled Nevada laws twice before the courts below.
As Nevada law does not impose compulsory heirs, project partition valid
Discussion
-Old Civil Law applicable: died 1944 while NCC applied 1945
Old civil code provides that the ff would be governed by the national law of
the person whose succession is in order:
*order of succession
*extent of successional rights
*intrinsic validity of provisions of the will
-Here, CO Bohanan was a NEVADAn citizen.
-Nevada laws allow a testator to dispose of all his properties by will.
-to prove foreign law:
Section 41: an official record/entrymay be evidenced by
*official publication
*copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the record, or by his
deputy + (if not kept in RP) certificate that such officer has custody
-HOW NEVADA LAW recognized
>During the October 1954 hearing of the Motion of Magdalena Bohanan
for withdrawal of ther P20k share, Nevada Law was introduced as Exhibit 2
>During the January 1950 hearing, law was presented as Exhibit B
>Children and widow did not dispute the provisions of the laws of State of
Nevada
>>>SO HERE, court decided to take judicial notice of the Nevada law, as
presented in the earlier stages of the case
The case falls under any of the exceptions to the application of
foreign law:
...when foreign law is
(1) contrary to an important public policy of the forum
(2) penal in nature
(3) procedural in nature
(4) purely fiscal/administrative in nature
(5) (will) work undeniable injustice to the citizens of the forum

(6) case involves real/personal property situated in theforum

(7) application of foreign law might endanger vital interest of the state
(forum)
(8) contrary to good morals