Hasegawa and Nippon Eng. v. Kitamura; G.R. No.

149177; November 23, 2007

FACTS:

The petitioner Nippon Engineering Consultants Co. is a Japanese consultancy

firm which provides technical and management support in the infrastructure project of
foreign governments. It entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA) with
respondent Kitamura, a Japanese national permanently residing in the Philippines. In
2000, he was informed by the petitioner that it will no longer renew the ICA and that he
will be retained until its expiration. Kitamura filed a civil casefor specific performance
before the RTC of Lipa and damages. The lower court ruled that it has jurisdiction over
the dispute and denied the petitioner's motion to dismiss since accordingly, it is vested
by law with the power to entertain and hear the civil case filed by Kitamura. The Court of
Appeals upheld the lower court's decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case

HELD:

YES. The only issue is the jurisdiction, hence, choice-of-law rules as raised by
the petitioner is inapplicable and not yet called for (reference tolex loci, lexcontractus, or
state of most significant rule). The petitioner prematurely invoked the said rules before
pointing out any conflict between the laws of Japan and the Philippines.The doctrine on
forum non conveniens cannot be invoked to deprive the RTC of its jurisdiction.
Dismissing the case on this ground requires a factual determination hence the principle
is considered to be more a matter of defense.The assumption of jurisdiction by tribunals
does not ipso facto mean that it cannot apply and rule on the basis of the parties'
stipulation. While jurisdiction and the choice of the lexfori will often, coincide, the
"minimum contacts" for one do not always provide the necessary "significant contacts"
for the other.