Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 84 views

    Raytheon v. Rouzie PDF

    Uploaded by

    Jona Calibuso
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial courts were convenient forums to hear the case, despite the foreign elements involved. While the contract stipulated that Connecticut law would govern, jurisdiction and choice of law are distinct concepts. The trial courts had proper jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute, the parties through their filing and appearance, and could enforce any decision. The foreign elements alone were not sufficient grounds to dismiss the case based on forum non conveniens.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Raytheon v. Rouzie PDF

    Uploaded by

    Jona Calibuso
    84 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial courts were convenient forums to hear the case, despite the foreign elements involved. While the contract stipulated that Connecticut law would govern, jurisdiction and choice of law are distinct concepts. The trial courts had proper jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute, the parties through their filing and appearance, and could enforce any decision. The foreign elements alone were not sufficient grounds to dismiss the case based on forum non conveniens.

    Original Title

    2. RAYTHEON V. ROUZIE.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial courts were convenient forums to hear the case, despite the foreign elements involved. While the contract stipulated that Connecticut law would govern, jurisdiction and choice of law are distinct concepts. The trial courts had proper jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute, the parties through their filing and appearance, and could enforce any decision. The foreign elements alone were not sufficient grounds to dismiss the case based on forum non conveniens.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    84 views3 pages

    Raytheon v. Rouzie PDF

    Uploaded by

    Jona Calibuso
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial courts were convenient forums to hear the case, despite the foreign elements involved. While the contract stipulated that Connecticut law would govern, jurisdiction and choice of law are distinct concepts. The trial courts had proper jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute, the parties through their filing and appearance, and could enforce any decision. The foreign elements alone were not sufficient grounds to dismiss the case based on forum non conveniens.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    RAYTHEON INTERNATIONAL, INC., petitioner, vs. STOCKTON W. ROUZIE, JR., respondent.

    G.R. No. 162894. February 26, 2008

    Averments of the foreign elements in the instant case are not sufficient to oust the trial court of its
    jurisdiction based on forum non-coveniens.

    Averments that both of the parties are foreign nationals and the contract was executed outside the
    Philippines do not automatically mean that the Philippine courts are inconvenient fora.

    NATURE OF THE CASE: PETITIONS for review on certiorari of an order of the Regional Trial Court of
    General Santos City, Br. 37 an order of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Br. 16.

    SC DECISION: WHEREFORE, the Court hereby GRANTS the petitions for review on certiorari.

    FACTS:

    o Brand Marine Services, Inc. (BMSI), a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of
    the State of Connecticut, United States of America, licensed to do business in the Philippines,
    and respondent Stockton W. Rouzie, Jr., an American citizen, entered into a contract whereby
    BMSI hired respondent as its representative to negotiate the sale of services in several
    government projects in the Philippines for an agreed remuneration of 10% of the gross receipts.
    On 11 March 1992, respondent secured a service contract with the Republic of the Philippines
    on behalf of BMSI for the dredging of rivers affected by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and
    mudflows. (2 FOREIGN ELEMENTS)

    o Respondent filed before the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission
    (NLRC) a suit against BMSI and Rust International, Inc. (RUST), Rodney C. Gilbert and Walter G.
    Browning for alleged nonpayment of commissions, illegal termination and breach of
    employment contract.

    o Labor Arbiter Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. rendered judgment ordering BMSI and RUST to pay
    respondent’s money claims.

    o Upon appeal by BMSI, the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed
    respondent’s complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The case was elevated to the SC
    but it was dismissed.

    o Again, the respondent filed the same action with the RTC.

    o In its Answer, the petitioner herein that per the written agreement between respondent and
    BMSI and RUST, denominated as “Special Sales Representative Agreement,” the rights and
    obligations of the parties shall be governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut . Petitioner
    sought the dismissal of the complaint on grounds of failure to state a cause of action and forum
    non conveniens.
    o RTC denied the motion. It also ruled that the principle of forum non conveniens was inapplicable
    because the trial court could enforce judgment on petitioner, it being a foreign corporation
    licensed to do business in the Philippines.

    o Said Decision was affirmed by the CA. Hence, this appeal to the SC.

    The Petitioners contended that the parties and witnesses involved are American corporations
    and citizens and the evidence to be presented is located outside the Philippines—that renders
    our local courts inconvenient forums. Petitioner theorizes that the foreign elements of the
    dispute necessitate the immediate application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

    ISSUE: WON the RTCs in this case are not convenient forums just because the contract involved
    stipulated that the governing law between the parties shall be the laws of the State of Connecticut. (NO)

    RULING: NO. The RTCs are convenient forums. There are 3 reasons:

    (a) The Court held that on the matter of jurisdiction over a conflicts-of-laws problem where the case is
    filed in a Philippine court and where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the parties and
    the res, it may or can proceed to try the case even if the rules of conflict-of-laws or the convenience of
    the parties point to a foreign forum. This is an exercise of sovereign prerogative of the country where
    the case is filed; AND

    (b) That in determining what the law should apply in the determining the merits of the case is different
    from determining what forum is proper. To the latter, jurisdiction is conferred by law and is determined
    differently from that of the former;

    SUBJECT MATTER – Action for damages

    Jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of an action is conferred by the Constitution and
    the law and by the material allegations in the complaint, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is
    entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein. Civil Case No. 1192-BG is an action
    for damages arising from an alleged breach of contract. Undoubtedly, the nature of the action and the
    amount of damages prayed are within the jurisdiction of the RTC.

    PARTIES – upon filing (plaintiff) and voluntary appearance (defendant)

    As regards jurisdiction over the parties, the trial court acquired jurisdiction over herein
    respondent (as party plaintiff) upon the filing of the complaint. On the other hand, jurisdiction over the
    person of petitioner (as party defendant) was acquired by its voluntary appearance in court.

    JURISDICTION different CHOICE OF LAW

    That the subject contract included a stipulation that the same shall be governed by the laws of
    the State of Connecticut does not suggest that the Philippine courts, or any other foreign tribunal for
    that matter, are precluded from hearing the civil action. Jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct
    concepts. Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state; choice of
    law asks the further question whether the application of a substantive law which will determine the
    merits of the case is fair to both parties.

    Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court, in conflicts-of-laws cases, may refuse
    impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most “convenient” or available forum and the parties
    are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. Petitioner’s averments of the foreign elements in
    the instant case are not sufficient to oust the trial court of its jurisdiction over Civil Case No. No. 1192-
    BG and the parties involved.

    Local courts may acquire jurisdiction to resolve conflict involving a foreign element if the following
    are present:

    (1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort;
    (2) that the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the
    facts; and
    (3) that the Philippine Court has or is likely to have the power to enforce its decision.

    You might also like