CONFLICT OF LAWS

ON
TORTS AND DAMAGES

TORT
Is a wrongful act or legal wrong committed
upon the person or property independent
of contract.
It may be:
1. a direct invasion of some legal right of
an individual.
2. infarction of public duty by which
special damage accrues to the individual
3. Violation of some private obligation by
which like damage accrues to the
individual.

DAMAGES
A compensation or indemnity which may
be recovered in the court by any person
who has suffered loss or injury to the
person, property, or rights through the
unlawful act or omission or negligence of
another.

As distinguished from DAMAGE which refers

to the loss, injury or deterioration caused
by negligence, design or accident of one
person to another in respect to the latters
person or property.

DAMAGES ARISE FROM THE

FOLLOWING:
DELICT > wrong, injury, offense or
violation of private or public duty.
QUASI-DELICT > fault or negligence
with no pre-existing contractual
relationship between parties.
NEGLIGENCE > omission to do
something which a reasonable and
prudent man would ordinarily do.

LAW PROVISIONS ON DAMAGES

ARTICLE 100 OF THE RPC
Every person criminally liable for a felony is
also civilly liable.
ARTICLE 20 OF THE CIVIL CODE
Every person, who contrary to law, willfully
or negligently causes damage to another,
shall indemnify the latter for the same.

ARTICLE 2176 OF CIVIL CODE

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.

ARTICLE 19 OF THE CIVIL CODE

Every person must, in the exercise
of his rights and the performance
of his duties, act with justice, give
everyone his due and observe
honesty and good faith.

FOR THE ABUSE OF A RIGHT BE

ACTIONABLE, THE FOLLOWING
ELEMENTS MUST BE PRESENT:

There must be a legal right or

duty
The right is exercised in bad
faith
It is for the sole intent of
prejudicing or injuring another.

LIABILITY IN FOREIGN TORTS

ENFORCEABLE IN THE PHILIPPINES
WHEN:
The tort is not penal in nature.
If the enforcement of the
tortuous liability is not in
contravention to public policy.
If our judicial machinery is
adequate for such enforcement.

LAWS GOVERNING TORTS

PRINCIPLE OF LEX LOCI DELICTI
the law of the place where the wrong
doing takes place determines the liabilities
or whether a person sustained a legal
injury.
the general principle of law applied in
torts.
to maintain an action of tort, it is vital that
the cause of action is actionable by the
place where it is done.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES:
As between the place where the injury is
afflicted and the place where the
resulting death occurred, the general rule
is consistent that the law of the place
where the injury was afflicted governs.
Some courts however departs from this
general principle of law on torts by
adopting the CENTER OF GRAVITY
THEORY or GROUPING OF CONTACTS.
(thus abandons the lex loci delicti rule as
a general principle of law in torts)

LEX LOCI COMMISSII

The law of the place where the
injury or wrong took place.
the traditional governing rule where
2 states are involved where the
damage or injury occurred in one
country and the action is filed in
another country.
Example: WildValley Shipping Co.
vs CA.

Wildvalley Shipping Co. vs CA.

Facts:
A Philippine owned vessel, The President Roxas, was in
Puerto Ordaza in Venezuela. As it leaves the port, a
Venezuelan pilot who has better experience and knowledge
of the river was designated by the port authority to
navigate the vessel after the vessels own captain admitted
to have limited knowledge of the river. The vessel ran
aground thereby obstructing the ingress and egress of
vessels. As a result of the blockage, Wildvalley Shipping
was unable to sail out of the port. Claiming for damage as
a result, it filed an action for damages against the
President Roxas in the RTC of Mla. The RTC found Pres.
Roxas liable but the decision was reversed by the CA and
absolved the defendant from liability.

Issue: Whether or not Venezuelan law or Philippine law

should be applied to the case.
Held: The Venezuelan law requires extraordinary diligence
on the navigation of vessels by its captain while Philippine
law requires only ordinary diligence of a good father of a
family. The defendant was able to prove that it exercised the
degree of diligence as required by the Philippine law. Had
the plaintiff was able to properly pleaded the foreign law of
Venezuela, the defendant would have been guilty for
damages. However, under the rules of private international
law, a foreign law must be properly pleaded and proved as a
fact. Otherwise, the foreign law of another state will be
presumed to be the same as our domestic law applying the
DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION.
The plaintiff merely presented a xerox copy of the
Venezuelan law certified by the Asst. Harbor Master and
Chief of Pilots of Puerto Ordaza which is not the proper
pleading of a foreign law as contemplated by the rules of
private international law.

STATE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP

RULE
a.k.a. center of gravity doctrine or the grouping
of contacts rule.
applicable where the acts constituting the cause
of action occurred in 2 or more states which
ripens into a cause of action in another state.
GENERAL RULE
the rights and liabilities of the parties with
respect to the issue of tort are determined by
the local law of the state which has the most
significant relationship to the occurrence and the
parties.

CONTACTS CONSIDERED:
1. The place where the injury occurred
2. The place where the conduct causing
the injury occurred
3. The domicile, residence, nationality,
place of incorporation and place of
business of the parties
4. The place where the relationship, if
any, between parties is centered.

Saudi Arabian Airlines vs CA

- involves action for damages involving foreign elements where
the doctrine of the state of the most significant relationship was applied.

Facts:
Plaintiff Morada is a Filipino flight attendant of SAUDIA. While on a layover in Jakarta she went to a disco with fellow attendants Thamer
and Allah who are both Saudi nationals. She filed an attempted rape
against Thamer with Allah as an accomplice. When SAUDIA legal
officer negotiated for their release, plaintiff refused to cooperate.
Through the intercession of the Saudi govt. the two accused were
released after two weeks of detention. She was then requested by
her superior to meet with the legal officer of Saudia in Jeddah. She
was brought to the police where they took her passport and
questioned her about the Jakarta incident. She was pressured to
drop the case against the accused and not until she agreed that her
passport was returned to her. One and a half year later in Manila,
she was ordered to take a flight to Jeddah to meet with the same
legal officer of Saudia and was brought before a Saudia court to sign
papers in Arabic allegedly necessary to close the case. It turns out
she signed a notice to appear before a court.

She was later summoned to report to Jeddah once again and

she did so after the assurance of Saudias Manila manager
that it is just a routine investigation that will cause no harm to
her. She was interrogated in the Saudia court and was not
allowed to go back to Manila and took her passport. The
following month she was then brought to same court where to
her astonishment a decision was rendered against her for
being guilty of adultery, violating the Islamic law for going to
a disco and socializing with the male crew in contravention to
Islamic tradition. She was sentenced to 5 months
imprisonment and 286 lashes. SAUDIA refused to give her
assistance. The Prince of Makkah dismissed the case because
she was wrongfully convicted and shortly before her return to
Manila she was terminated from services by SAUDIA.
Plaintiff filed an action for damages before the RTC of Quezon
City. Defendant SAUDIA contends the court has no jurisdiction
and the law of Saudi Arabia should apply since the claims of
the plaintiff arose there which involves foreign elements.
Plaintiff asserts her claim is based on damages under Art. 19
of the Civil Code where a domestic law is applicable.

Issue: Whether or not foreign elements are involved

Held: The foreign element consisted in the fact that the plaintiff is
Philippine national and SAUDIA is a resident foreign corporation
(registered to do business in the Phils.). Events also transpired
during her many occasions of travel across national borders from
Manila, Jeddah and Saudi Arabia, causing conflicts of situations to
arise.
The court finds no necessary difficulties to SAUDIA if Phil. Court
takes cognizance of the case because plaintiff no longer maintains
substantial connection in Saudi Arabia and to refuse to hear the
case would cause fundamental unfairness to her. Applying the
doctrine on the state of the most significant relationship there is
basis to claim that the over-all injury occurred in the Phils. The
relationship between the plaintiff and respondent is centered in the
Philippines where the complainant is a resident of the Philippines
and the wrongdoer is doing business in the country. Thus, the acts
complained is actionable in the Philippines even if all acts
constituting the tort took place in Saudi Arabia.

AGREEMENT OF PARTIES AS TO
APPLICABLE LAW
General Rule:
- Parties may stipulate on what law
will govern in case of dispute
EXCEPTION:
- When the stipulation is against
public policy.

Other Principles Applied in Tort

Lex Loci Actus law of the place where the act
was done.
Lex Loci Delicti Commissii the law of the place
where the injury occurs.
Lex Loci Solutionis - the law of the place of
performance.
KILBERG DOCTRINE the law of the forum is
not bound by the limitation on damages for the
wrongful act by the law of the place where the
injury occurred bec. it is procedural and the law
of the forum governs the issue.

DAMAGE ARISING FROM CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY

THE SEA
CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT
resolves the conflict of law arising from contract for
shipment of goods where in the contract of carriage of
goods the goods are transferred from one port to
another before reaching its final destination and in the
course of travel the delivery of goods may be delayed or
collusion of vessels in foreign ports may result to
damage of the goods.
If an action for damages is brought before the Philippine
court, the court will simply adopt the Carriage of Goods
by Sea Act and apply it in the case in issue.

LAW OF THE FLAG

The Philippine adheres to the rule that Philippine
ship or airship is an extension of the territorial
jurisdiction of the country.
ARTICLE 2 OF THE RPC
except as provided in the treaties and laws of
preferential application, the provision of this Code
shall be enforced against those who should
commit an offense on a Philippine ship or
airship.

Foreign vessels entering Philippine ports or

waters are beyond the jurisdiction of Philippine
courts in matters concerning discipline and all
things in the foreign ship affecting only the
vessel and those belonging to her.
By entering the Philippine port or waters, foreign
vessel subjects herself to the jurisdiction of the
Philippines in matters involving the peace and
tranquility of the country such as the
commission
of a crime or of tortuous acts causing injuries.

FRENCH RULE
Crimes committed aboard a foreign merchant
vessel should not be prosecuted in the court of
the country within whose territorial jurisdiction
they were committed unless their commission
affects the peace and security of the territory.
ENGLISH RULE (applied in the Philippines)
Crimes committed aboard a foreign merchant
vessel are triable to the court of the country
within whose territory they were committed.

Application of the Rule:

Example
Mere possession of opium aboard a foreign vessel
is not triable by a foreign vessel in transit
because no crime is committed because mere
possession of opium does not bring the effects
that the Opium Law contemplates to avoid.
But smoking of opium within the Philippine territory
although aboard the foreign vessel constitutes a
breach of public order in contemplation of the
pernicious effects of the drugs that the Opium
law contemplates to prevent.

Application of the Law of Flag on

Maritime Matters
the law of the state of the flag the vessel flies
governs all maritime matters as to substantive
law:
on matters of discipline on board a vessel
to contracts made in a foreign port by the
master on behalf of the owner.
employment contract of a seaman with a
foreign vessel.
Law of the flag supersedes the lex loci
delicti
test of tort jurisdiction.

In case of collision of two ships carrying

different flags
When an American ship and a British
steamer collided on the high seas,
which law should be applied American
law or law of England?
Neither. The Law of the Sea should be
applied because it imposes a universal
obligation unlike a municipal law which
can be taken judicial notice by any
court.

Limited Liability Clause In Contract of

Carriage or Bill of Lading
General Rule:
the stipulation as to the amount of
liability for damage to cargo is binding
unless the shipper declares a greater
amount in their agreement. (article
1749 of the Civil Code).

END OF REPORT