>When the parties are non-residents and there was a severe backlog of cases when it
perceived that jury duty, when compulsory, should not be foisted on a community with no
link with or interest in the litigation
>when the court's local machinery was inadequate to effectuate a right, such as when it
had no way of securing evidence and the attendance of willing witnesses
Union Carbide Case (short summary, as mentioned)
-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
First Philippine International Bank vs. Court of Appeals(short summary, as
mentioned)
-forum-shopping originated from PRIL, where non-resident litigants are given the option to
choose the forum or place wherein to bring the suit
-why:
*to secure procedural advantages
*to annoy and harass defendant
*to avoid overcrowded dockets
*select a more friendly venue
Wing On Company v. Syyap
-plaintiff's choice of forum should not be disturbed "unless the balance is strongly in favor
of the defendant"
HEINE V. NY 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
1ST CONDITION: UCC must consent to the jurisdiction of the Indian courts and
waive defenses based on the Statute of Limitations
-not unusual and has been imposed in numerous cases (to enable foreign court to provide
adequate alternative)
2ND CONDITION: agree to satisfy the Indian Court judgment, which comport with
the minimal requirements of due process
-proceeded on the erroneous assumption that absent such requirement, the plaintiffs might
not be able to enforce a favorable judgment vs. UCC in US
NY Law, however, provides that it would render a "conclusive judgment" as final, conclusive
and enforeceable, unless
(1) there's a violation of due process, partial tribunals
(2) no personal jurisdiction over defendant
-the NY DC cannot exercise authority over Indian courts (UCC alleged that there might be
violation of its right to due process by Indian courts so US DC should retain authority to
monitor the Indian court proceedings and be available on call to rectify in some undefined
way any abuses of UCC's right to due process):
"ONCE IT DISMISSES THOSE PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUND OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS,
IT CEASES TO HAVE ANY FURTHER JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER UNLESS AND UNTIL A
PROCEEDING MAY SOME DAY BE BROUGHT TO ENFORCE HERE A FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE
INDIAN MONEY JUDGMENT"
3RD CONDITION: be subject to discover, under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure in US
-unfair: should afford both parties (defendant UCC and plaintiff UOI) equal access to both
evidence, treat both sides equally
WING ON COMPANY V. SYYAP
-Wing On Company incorporated in NY
-Syyap Co., Inc. incorporated in RP
-contract entered in NY:
for the purchase of clothing material, w/ verbal agreement that Syyap would pay Wing On
the value of the clothing material, then after the sale, the profits would be divided between
them
-clothing materials worth $22,246.04 shipped from NY to RP
-only $3,530.04 paid. Syyap failed to settle debt and account for profits.
-Wing On Company sued Syyap in RP.
TC: for Wing On
Arguments of Syyap:
(1) no jurisdiction: Wing On is not licensed to do business in RP, no legal capacity to sue
(2) should have declined jurisdiction: forum non conveniens
HELD
Affirm!
On Forum non Conveniens
WHEN COURT WOULD DECLINE JURISDICTION BASED ON FOUM NON CONVENIENS
-Unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum
should rarely be disturbed
-Consideration of inadequacy to enforce the judgment
HERE: Defendant in the Philippines. So for the court to assume jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant, RP Court is the convenient forum.
-the present suit is a PERSONAL ACTION, the case may be commenced and tried where the
defendant resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff resides, at the election of the
plaintif.
Summary: should consider both public and private interests
Private interests:
*relative ease of access to source of proof
*Availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses
*cost of obtaining and attendance off willing witnesses
1
1
-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
creation of the Inter-American Council of Jurists byOAS in 1948 - but has not achieved anything
concrete
every nation is sovereign and independent; another statecant force our courts to apply their laws
X : W h e n o u r o w n l a w p r o v i d e s t h a t l a w s o f o t h e r s t a t e s a r e applicable
COMITY
-neither a matter of absolute obligation nor mere courtesy and good will
-RECOGNITION WHICH ONE NATION ALLOWS WITHIN ITS TERRITORYOF THE
LEGISLATIVEEXECUTIVEOR JUDICIAL ACTSOF ANOTHER NATION,HAVING DUE REGARD BOTH
TO...INTERNATIONAL DUTYAND CONVENIENCEAND TO THE RIGHTS OF ITS OWN CITIZENS OR OF
OTHERP E R S O N S W H O A R E U N D E R T H E P R O T E C T I O N O F I T S
LAW