FNC A court's discretionary power to decline to exercise its jurisdiction where another court may more conveniently hear

a case. OVERV E! Forum non conveniens is a discretionary power that allows courts to dismiss a case where another court" or #orum" is much $etter suited to hear the case. %his dismissal does not prevent a plainti## #rom re#ilin& his or her case in the more appropriate #orum. See Res 'udicata. %his doctrine may $e invo(ed $y either the de#endant" or $y the court. See sua sponte. !hen determinin& whether or not to exercise #orum non conveniens" courts consider several #actors" includin&)

%he residence o# the parties %he location o# evidence and witnesses *u$lic policy %he relative $urdens on the court systems %he plainti##'s choice o# #orum +ow chan&in& the #orum would a##ect each party's case Even i# a plainti## $rin&s a case in an inconvenient #orum" a court will not &rant a #orum non conveniens dismissal i# there is no other #orum that could hear the case" or i# the other #orum would not award the plainti## any money even i# he or she won. ,imilarly" courts will not &rant a #orum non conveniens dismissal where the alternative #orum's judicial system is &rossly inade-uate. For example" an American court would not &rant a #orum non conveniens dismissal where the alternative #orum was Cu$a. ,ometimes" courts attach conditions to #orum non conveniens dismissals. For example" the court mi&ht re-uire the de#endant to waive de#enses that would prevent the plainti###rom re.#ilin& the suit in the alternative #orum. Or the court mi&ht dismiss the case in #avor o# a #orei&n court" $ut only on the condition that the de#endant allow American.stylediscovery. On appeal" #orum non conveniens decisions are evaluated usin& an a$use o# discretionstandard. %he ,upreme Court most recently considered #orum non conveniens in Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno" /0/ 1.,. 230 456758. n that case" the Court held that so lon& as there was aremedy availa$le in the alternate #orum" it did not matter i# the remedy was clearly insu##icient. +owever" lower courts do not strictly #ollow this rule. nstead" they usually consider the ade-uacy o# the alternative #orum's remedy as another #actor to $e $alanced when decidin& whether or not to &rant a #orum non conveniens dismissal.

Forum non conveniens is a 9atin phrase that translates to mean a #orum or jurisdiction that is not convenient. t is a le&al doctrine that is most o#ten used when the jurisdiction chosen $y the plainti## is not convenient #or witnesses or creates an undue hardship on the de#endant. !hen the doctrine o# forum non conveniens is invo(ed" the de#endant mustpetition the court to move the case to another" more convenient" jurisdiction. One o# the $est ways to $etter understand the doctrine o# forum non conveniens is to loo( at several examples o# how it is most o#ten used durin& le&al proceedin&s. For example" the doctrine o# forum non conveniens can $e used i# a person has a car collision while on vacation. # the plainti## #iles her lawsuit in the place where she actually resides instead o# where the accident occurred" all the witnesses and the de#endants will $e #orced to travel #or depositions and court dates. n that case" the de#endant may as( the court i# the jurisdiction can $e moved to the place where the accident occurred. # &ranted" it will there$y release the witnesses and the de#endant #rom travelin& lon& distances to attend court and will ma(e the location more convenient. Forum non conveniens is 9atin #or :inconvenient #orum.: Althou&h there are rules which &overn where a lawsuit must $e #iled" sometimes the location is inconvenient #or the witnesses or parties. # a party ma(es an ade-uate showin& o# inconvenience" the principle o# #orum non conveniens allows a jud&e to decline to hear" or to tran#er" a case even thou&h the court is an appropriate court #or the case. *rotective principle is a rule o# international law that allows a soverei&n state to assert jurisdiction over a person whose conduct outside its $oundaries threatens the states security or inter#eres with the operation o# its &overnment #unctions. %he #ollowin& is an example o# a case law on protective principle) 1nder international law" the :protective principle: &ives a country the jurisdiction to prescri$e a rule o# law attachin& le&al conse-uences to conduct outside its territory that threatens its security as a state or the operation o# its &overnmental #unctions" provided the conduct is &enerally reco&ni;ed as a crime under the law o# states that have reasona$ly developed le&al systems. <1nited ,tates v. =ehe" >?5 F. ,upp. 56> 4@. Aass. 56708B Protective Principle

n this situation" the crime was committed a$road and neither the person who committed the crime" nor the victims" were nationals o# that ,tate. n this case" jurisdiction is asserted on the $asis that the security or the interests o# the ,tate is a##ected $y an act committed a$road. n Eichmanns case" the sraeli Court $ased its jurisdiction on the protective principle and said that the crimes committed $y Eichmann a&ainst the 'ewish people a##ected the Cvital interestsD o# srael. Eoth passive personality and protective principles are amon& the less accepted $asis o# jurisdictionF althou&h" they are increasin&ly used to &et jurisdiction over acts o# terrorism committed a$road a&ainst nationals 4passive personality principle8 and a&ainst the interests o# the ,tate 4protective principle8.

UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION n this case" the crime was committed a$road" neither the person who committed the crime" nor the victims" were nationals o# that ,tate. 1niversal jurisdiction ena$les a person to $e tried $e#ore a national court even when there is no lin( to the ,tate. 1nder this principle" jurisdiction is exercised on the $asis that the crime committed is so serious and o# universal concern that each ,tate has an interest to prosecute. n other words" these crimes are punisha$le $y any ,tate. 1niversal jurisdiction is a developin& concept in international law and its scope" method o# application and extend o# application is controversial. 1niversal jurisdiction was exercised in)

the Eichmann Case where srael used universal jurisdiction as a $asis to prosecute Eichmann #or his involvement in or&ani;in& the deaths o# 'ews" in Germany" durin& the Nat;i era 4remem$er that we said that the protective principle was also used8. +ere" 1niversal 'urisdiction was used on the $asis that Eichmann committed war crimes and crimes a&ainst humanity.

the Pinochet Case, +ouse o# 9ords in 1H exercised universal jurisdiction on the $asis that *inochet was responsi$le #or acts o# torture at the time he was the head o# ,tate in Chile.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION ,ee also the #ollowin& situations in which arrest warrants or indictments were made in the exercise o# universal jurisdiction $y national courts)

n 2???" a Eel&ium Aa&istrate issued an international arrest warrant #or @RCDs Forei&n Ainister on char&es o# war crimes and crimes a&ainst humanity.

n 2??2" French Courts exercised universal jurisdiction and issued arrest warrants #or the *resident o# Con&o and some senior Ainsters. n 2??7" RwandaDs Chie# o# *rotocol was arrested in Germany $y German o##icials and handed to the French. %he French courts had issued a warrant #or his arrest and was tryin& him on the $asis o# universal jurisdiction on char&es o# Ccomplicity to murder in relation to terrorismD.

n the same year ,panish Courts indicted #ormer and current military o##icials o# Rwanda over &enocide" war crimes and crimes a&ainst humanity.

As you can see there is no direct lin( $etween ,pain" Eel&ium and France and the atrocities that happened durin& the Con&o or Rwanda con#licts. Iou may have noticed that in the situations that universal jurisdiction was exercised in situations o# torture" war crimes" crimes a&ainst humanity and &enocide. t can also $e used to assert jurisdiction over pirates 4provided that the pirate was cau&ht in the hi&h seas or within the territorial jurisdiction o# a ,tate8" hijac(ers and terrorists 4Yunis case8. ,ome ar&ue that universal jurisdiction is availa$le under customary international law to prosecute all international crimesF others #eel its limited to crimes that are prohi$ited under 'us Co&ens norms 4,ee Pinochet case and the Bel ium Arrest !arrant Case8.

Passive Personality Principle n this situation" the crime was committed a$road and the person who committed the o##ense was not a national o# that ,tate. n this situation" only the victim is a national o# the ,tate which claims jurisdiction. n the Yunis case, 1, courts decided that they had jurisdiction over Iunis 4a 9e$anese national8 $ased on the passive personality principle $ecause two 1, nationals were a$road the 'ordanian airline that Iunis hijac(ed.

SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES (SAUDIA) vs. COURT OF APPEALS, MILAGROS P. MORADA and HON. RODOLFO A. ORTIZ, in his a!a i"# as P$%sidin& '(d&% )* B$an h +,, RTC )* -(%.)n Ci"# G.R. N). /00/,/ O ")1%$ +, /,,+

QUISUMBING, J.:
FACTS: Petitioner SAUDIA hired private respondent MORADA as a flight attendant in 19 ! "ased in #eddah$ On 199%! &hile on a la'(over in #a)arta! Indonesia! she &ent to part' &ith * +ale attendants! and on the follo&ing +orning in their hotel! one of the +ale attendants atte+pted to rape her$ She &as res,-ed "' hotel attendants &ho heard her ,r' for help$ The Indonesian poli,e arrested the *$ MORADA ret-rned to #eddah! "-t &as as)ed "' the ,o+pan' to go "a,) to #a)arta and help arrange the release of the * +ale attendants$ MORADA did not ,ooperate &hen she got to #a)arta$

.hat follo&ed &as a series of interrogations fro+ the Sa-di Co-rts &hi,h she did not -nderstand as this &as in their lang-age$ In 199/! she &as s-rprised! -pon "eing ordered "' SAUDIA to go to the Sa-di ,o-rt! that she &as "eing ,onvi,ted of 011 ad-lter'2 0*1 going to a dis,o! dan,ing and listening to the +-si, in violation of Isla+i, la&s2 and 0/1 so,iali3ing &ith the +ale ,re&! in ,ontravention of Isla+i, tradition! senten,ing her to five +onths i+prison+ent and to * 4 lashes$ Onl' then did she reali3e that the Sa-di ,o-rt had tried her! together &ith the *! for &hat happened in #a)arta$ SAUDIA denied her the assistan,e she re5-ested! 6-t "e,a-se she &as &rongf-ll' ,onvi,ted! Prin,e of Ma))ah dis+issed the ,ase against her and allo&ed her to leave Sa-di Ara"ia$ Shortl' "efore her ret-rn to Manila! she &as ter+inated fro+ the servi,e "' SAUDIA! &itho-t her "eing infor+ed of the ,a-se$ On 7ove+"er */! 199/! Morada filed a Co+plaint for da+ages against SAUDIA! and 8haled Al(6ala&i 09Al(6ala&i:1! its ,o-ntr' +anager$ SAUDIA A;;<=<S: Private respondent>s ,lai+ for alleged a"-se of rights o,,-rred in the 8ingdo+ of Sa-di Ara"ia$ It alleges that the e?isten,e of a foreign ele+ent 5-alifies the instant ,ase for the appli,ation of the la& of the 8ingdo+ of Sa-di Ara"ia! "' virt-e of the le? lo,i deli,ti ,o++issi r-le$ MORADA A;;<=<S: Sin,e her A+ended Co+plaint is "ased on Arti,les 19 and *1 of the Civil Code! then the instant ,ase is properl' a +atter of do+esti, la&$

ISSUE: .O7 the Philippine ,o-rts have @-risdi,tion to tr' the ,ase

HELD: A<S$ On the presen,e of a 9Foreign <le+ent: in the ,ase: A fa,t-al sit-ation that ,-ts a,ross territorial lines and is affe,ted "' the diverse la&s of t&o or +ore states is said to ,ontain a 9foreign ele+ent:$ The presen,e of a foreign ele+ent is inevita"le sin,e so,ial and e,ono+i, affairs of individ-als and asso,iations are rarel' ,onfined to the geographi, li+its of their "irth or ,on,eption$ The for+s in &hi,h this foreign ele+ent +a' appear are +an'$ The foreign ele+ent +a' si+pl' ,onsist in the fa,t that one of the parties to a ,ontra,t is an alien or has a foreign do+i,ile! or that a ,ontra,t "et&een nationals of one State involves properties sit-ated in another State$ In other ,ases! the foreign ele+ent +a' ass-+e a ,o+ple? for+$ In the instant ,ase! the foreign ele+ent ,onsisted in the fa,t that private respondent Morada is a resident Philippine national! and that petitioner SAUDIA is a resident foreign ,orporation$ Also! "' virt-e of the e+plo'+ent of Morada &ith the petitioner Sa-dia as a flight ste&ardess! events did transpire d-ring her +an' o,,asions of travel a,ross national

"orders! parti,-larl' fro+ Manila! Philippines to #eddah! Sa-di Ara"ia! and vi,e versa! that ,a-sed a 9,onfli,ts: sit-ation to arise$ COURT disagrees &ith MORADA that his is p-rel' a do+esti, ,ase$ Bo&ever! the ,o-rt finds that the RTC of C-e3on Cit' possesses @-risdi,tion over the s-"@e,t +atter of the s-it$ Its a-thorit' to tr' and hear the ,ase is provided for -nder Se,tion 1 of Rep-"li, A,t 7o$ D491! to &it: 6P1*9 Se,$ 19$ #-risdi,tion in Civil Cases$ E Regional Trial Co-rts shall e?er,ise e?,l-sive @-risdi,tion: ??? ??? ??? 0 1 In all other ,ases in &hi,h de+and! e?,l-sive of interest! da+ages of &hatever )ind! attorne'F'>s fees! litigation e?penses! and ,ots or the val-e of the propert' in ,ontrovers' e?,eeds One h-ndred tho-sand pesos 0P1%%!%%%$%%1 or! in s-,h other ,ases in Metro Manila! &here the de+and! e?,l-sive of the a"ove(+entioned ite+s e?,eeds T&o h-ndred Tho-sand pesos 0P*%%!%%%$%%1$ 0<+phasis o-rs1 ??? ??? ??? Se,tion * 0"1! R-le G of the Revised R-les of Co-rt E the ven-e! C-e3on Cit'! is appropriate: Se,$ * Hen-e in Co-rts of First Instan,e$ E I7o& Regional Trial Co-rtJ 0a1 ??? ??? ??? 0"1 Personal a,tions$ E All other a,tions +a' "e ,o++en,ed and tried &here the defendant or an' of the defendants resides or +a' "e fo-nd! or &here the plaintiff or an' of the plaintiff resides! at the ele,tion of the plaintiff$ .eighing the relative ,lai+s of the parties! the ,o-rt a 5-o fo-nd it "est to hear the ,ase in the Philippines$ Bad it ref-sed to ta)e ,ogni3an,e of the ,ase! it &o-ld "e for,ing plaintiff 0private respondent no&1 to see) re+edial a,tion else&here! i$e$ in the 8ingdo+ of Sa-di Ara"ia &here she no longer +aintains s-"stantial ,onne,tions$ That &o-ld have ,a-sed a f-nda+ental -nfairness to her$ Moreover! "' hearing the ,ase in the Philippines no -nne,essar' diffi,-lties and in,onvenien,e have "een sho&n "' either of the parties$ The ,hoi,e of for-+ of the plaintiff 0no& private respondent1 sho-ld "e -pheld$ The trial ,o-rt also a,5-ired @-risdi,tion over the parties$ MORADA thro-gh her a,t of filing! and SAUDIA "' pra'ing for the dis+issal of the A+ended Co+plaint on gro-nds other than la,) of @-risdi,tion$ As to the ,hoi,e of appli,a"le la&! &e note that ,hoi,e(of(la& pro"le+s see) to ans&er t&o i+portant 5-estions: 011 .hat legal s'ste+ sho-ld ,ontrol a given sit-ation &here so+e of the signifi,ant fa,ts o,,-rred in t&o or +ore states2 and 0*1 to &hat e?tent sho-ld the ,hosen legal s'ste+ reg-late the sit-ation$ Considering that the ,o+plaint in the ,o-rt a 5-o is one involving torts! the 9,onne,ting fa,tor: or 9point of ,onta,t: ,o-ld "e the pla,e or pla,es &here the tortio-s ,ond-,t or le?

lo,i a,t-s o,,-rred$ And appl'ing the torts prin,iple in a ,onfli,ts ,ase! &e find that the Philippines ,o-ld "e said as a sit-s of the tort 0the pla,e &here the alleged tortio-s ,ond-,t too) pla,e1$ This is "e,a-se it is in the Philippines &here petitioner allegedl' de,eived private respondent! a Filipina residing and &or)ing here$ A,,ording to her! she had honestl' "elieved that petitioner &o-ld! in the e?er,ise of its rights and in the perfor+an,e of its d-ties! 9a,t &ith @-sti,e! give her d-e and o"serve honest' and good faith$: Instead! petitioner failed to prote,t her! she ,lai+ed$ That ,ertain a,ts or parts of the in@-r' allegedl' o,,-rred in another ,o-ntr' is of no +o+ent$ For in o-r vie& &hat is i+portant here is the pla,e &here the over(all har+ or the totalit' of the alleged in@-r' to the person! rep-tation! so,ial standing and h-+an rights of ,o+plainant! had lodged! a,,ording to the plaintiff "elo& 0herein private respondent1$ All told! it is not &itho-t "asis to identif' the Philippines as the sit-s of the alleged tort$ In appl'ing 9State of the +ost signifi,ant relationship: r-le! to deter+ine the State &hi,h has the +ost signifi,ant relationship! the follo&ing ,onta,ts are to "e ta)en into a,,o-nt and eval-ated a,,ording to their relative i+portan,e &ith respe,t to the parti,-lar iss-e: 0a1 the pla,e &here the in@-r' o,,-rred2 0"1 the pla,e &here the ,ond-,t ,a-sing the in@-r' o,,-rred2 0,1 the do+i,ile! residen,e! nationalit'! pla,e of in,orporation and pla,e of "-siness of the parties! and 0d1 the pla,e &here the relationship! if an'! "et&een the parties is ,entered$ As alread' dis,-ssed! there is "asis for the ,lai+ that over(all in@-r' o,,-rred and lodged in the Philippines$ There is li)e&ise no 5-estion that private respondent is a resident Filipina national! &or)ing &ith petitioner! a resident foreign ,orporation engaged here in the "-siness of international air ,arriage$ Th-s! the 9relationship: "et&een the parties &as ,entered here! altho-gh it sho-ld "e stressed that this s-it is not "ased on +ere la"or la& violations$ Fro+ the re,ord! the ,lai+ that the Philippines has the +ost signifi,ant ,onta,t &ith the +atter in this disp-te! raised "' private respondent as plaintiff "elo& against defendant 0herein petitioner1! in o-r vie&! has "een properl' esta"lished$ NOTE: These 9test fa,tors: or 9points of ,onta,t: or 9,onne,ting fa,tors: ,o-ld "e an' of the follo&ing: 011 The nationalit' of a person! his do+i,ile! his residen,e! his pla,e of so@o-rn! or his origin2 0*1 the seat of a legal or @-ridi,al person! s-,h as a ,orporation2 0/1 the sit-s of a thing! that is! the pla,e &here a thing is! or is dee+ed to "e sit-ated$ In parti,-lar! the le? sit-s is de,isive &hen real rights are involved2 0G1 the pla,e &here an a,t has "een done! the lo,-s a,t-s! s-,h as the pla,e &here a ,ontra,t has "een +ade! a +arriage ,ele"rated! a &ill signed or a tort ,o++itted$ The le? lo,i a,t-s is parti,-larl' i+portant in ,ontra,ts and torts2 0K1 the pla,e &here an a,t is intended to ,o+e into effe,t! e$g$! the pla,e of perfor+an,e of

,ontra,t-al d-ties! or the pla,e &here a po&er of attorne' is to "e e?er,ised2 041 the intention of the ,ontra,ting parties as to the la& that sho-ld govern their agree+ent! the le? lo,i intentionis2 0D1 the pla,e &here @-di,ial or ad+inistrative pro,eedings are instit-ted or done$ The le? fori E the la& of the for-+ E is parti,-larl' i+portant "e,a-se! as &e have seen earlier! +atters of 9pro,ed-re: not going to the s-"stan,e of the ,lai+ involved are governed "' it2 and "e,a-se the le? fori applies &henever the ,ontent of the other&ise appli,a"le foreign la& is e?,l-ded fro+ appli,ation in a given ,ase for the reason that it falls -nder one of the e?,eptions to the appli,ations of foreign la&2 and 0 1 the flag of a ship! &hi,h in +an' ,ases is de,isive of pra,ti,all' all legal relationships of the ship and of its +aster or o&ner as s-,h$ It also ,overs ,ontra,t-al relationships parti,-larl' ,ontra,ts of affreight+ent$