Cordillera Career Development College

College of Law
Poblacion, La Trinidad, 2601 Benguet

Law 316 (Conflict of Laws)

Instructions

The following questionnaire consists of only Five (6) Parts with fourteen (14) questions
(including the sub-questions), and contained three (3) pages.

Begin your answer to each numbered question on a separate page; an answer to a sub-
question/s under the same number may be written continuously on the same page and
succeeding pages until completed.

Answer the questions directly and concisely. DO NOT REPEAT THE QUESTION. Write legibly.

HAND IN YOUR NOTEBOOK WITH THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

GOD BLESS!!!

I.
Give at least two reasons why a court may assume jurisdiction over a conflict of laws case. What
are the requisites before a Philippine court in a conflict-of-laws case may assume jurisdiction if it
chooses to?

II.

Contented Corporation (Contented) is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the
laws of and domiciled in the United States of America (US). It is licensed to do business in the
Philippines. Mr. Pi Brad (Brad), the Vice President for South East Asia Operations of Contented,
while in Manila, offered to Bato, a US citizen, residing in the Philippines, the position of Branch
Manager of its Branch in Manila to which the latter accepted.

It was not until much later that Mr. Brad, who had since returned to the US, sent Bato the
employment contract which Mr. Brad had already signed. Bato then signed the employment
contract and returned it to Mr. Brad as instructed.

Few years later, Uncontented Incorporated (Uncontented Inc.) took over the Philippine operations
of Contented, with Bato retaining his position as Branch Manager.

Subsequently, Bato received a letter from Mr. Ralph White, who was then Uncontented Inc.’s Vice
President of Marketing and Sales, informing Bato that he has agreed to work in Uncontented as a
consultant on an "as needed basis" effective September 1, 1996 to January 31, 1996. The letter also
informed Bato that: (1) he will not receive any monetary compensation but will continue being
covered by the insurance provided by Uncontented; (2) he will enjoy travel privileges; and (3)
Uncontented will advance Php1,140,000.00 for the payment of housing lease for one (1) year.

In response, Bato wrote a counter-proposal to Mr. Schulz regarding his employment status in
Uncontented. Also, he wrote another letter addressed to Ms. Timy Woodard (Ms. Woodard) of
Uncontented’s Human Resources Department inquiring about the status of his employment. On
the same day, Ms. Woodard responded that pursuant to the employment contract, Bato could be
terminated at will upon a thirty-day notice. This notice was allegedly the letter Bato received from
Mr. White. Ms. Woodard also reminded Bato of the telephone conversation between him, Mr.
White and Ms. Wooward, where they informed him of the company’s decision to relieve him as
Branch Manager. Bato, instead, was offered the position of consultant to Uncontented. Ms.
Woodard also informed Bato that Uncontented rejected his counter-proposal and, thus,
terminated his employment effective January 31, 1996. Uncontented offered Bato a severance pay,
in consideration of the Php1,140,000.00 housing advance that it earlier promised him. Bato filed
a labor case for Illegal Dismissal with Damages against Unconted on December 19, 1996. Alleging
the presence of foreign elements, Uncontented filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over its person and the subject matter of the controversy. In an Order, the Labor
Arbiter granted the Motion to Dismiss. Applying the doctrine of lex loci contractus, the Labor
Arbiter held that the terms and provisions of the employment contract show that the parties did
not intend to apply Philippine Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 442). The Labor Arbiter also
held that no employer-employee relationship existed between Bato and the branch office of
Uncontented in the Philippines, but between Bato and the foreign corporation itself.

The Labor Arbiter in his Decision therefore dismissed the case for lack of merit and jurisdiction.

The Labor Arbiter agreed with Uncontented that the employment contract was executed in the
US since the letter-offer was under the Texas letterhead and the acceptance of complainant Bato
was returned there. Thus, applying the doctrine of lex loci celebrationis, US laws apply. Also,
applying lex loci contractus, the Labor Arbiter ruled that the parties did not intend to apply
Philippine laws,

On appeal, the NLRC promulgated its Decision reversing the ruling of the Labor Arbiter.

The NLRC did not agree with the pronouncement of the Labor Arbiter that his office has no
jurisdiction over the controversy. It ruled that the Labor Arbiter acquired jurisdiction over the
case when the respondent Uncontented Inc. voluntarily submitted to his office’s jurisdiction by
presenting evidence, advancing arguments in support of the legality of its acts, and praying for
reliefs on the merits of the case.

Both parties appealed the NLRC’s ruling to the Court of Appeals. The latter ruled that the Labor
Arbiter and the NLRC had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and over the parties.
The Court of Appeals explained that jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action is
determined by the allegations of the complaint and the law. Since the case filed by Bato is a
termination dispute that is "undoubtedly cognizable by the labor tribunals", the Labor Arbiter and
the NLRC had jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case. On the issue of jurisdiction over the
person of the parties, who are foreigners, the Court of Appeals ruled that jurisdiction over the
person of Bato was acquired when he filed the complaint for illegal dismissal, while jurisdiction
over the person of Uncontented was acquired through coercive process of service of summons to
its agent in the Philippines. The Court of Appeals also agreed that the active participation of
Uncontented in the case rendered moot the issue on jurisdiction.

Thereafter, the parties filed their respective Motions for Reconsideration. The Court of Appeals
denied Uncontented’s motion, while partially granting Bato’s as to the computation of backwages.

a. Distinguish lex loci contractus and lex loci celebrationis, as understood in Private
International Law;
b. Discuss the concept of “foreign element/s” in conflicts of laws cases.
c. Applying the general principles in conflicts of laws rule, decide the foregoing case.

III.

Why it is said that conflicts of laws presupposes two or more conflicting laws, between a local law
and a foreign law involving a foreign element or elements?

VI. Definition and Enumeration

a. Private International Law (PRIL)

b. Foreign element
c. Center of gravity doctrine/most significant relationship theory
d. Kilberg Doctrine
e. Characterization
f. The general rule is that foreign laws and judgments have no effect in the
Philippines. Give at least three (3) exceptions.

V.

Serena Sadagat (Serena) is a Bachelor of Science in Hotel and Restaurant Management fresh
graduate from a prime State university in the Philippines. After graduation, she applied in a royal
Somalian registered cruise ship, Audi, and was hired. While the said cruise ship was travelling
somewhere in Indochina, Serena was attempted raped by a Somalian national who was her
crewmember. She returned to Cebu City, her hometown and while there, she was convinced by
the Audi Branch Manager in the Philippines, Mr. Rhap Eist, to go to Mogadishu and sign some
papers, purporting to be release forms in favor of her fellow crewmember. It turned out that the
documents were court summons and orders, trying and finding her guilty of adultery and other
violations of Islamic tradition. She was detained and upon her release, she returned to the
Philippines. Immediately, she filed a case for torts and damages against Audi and her
crewmember. Will the action prosper?

- Nothing follows -