Petitioner argues that "[i]n view of the compelling necessity to implead the two foreign corporations, the Trial Court should have refused to assume jurisdiction over the case on the ground of forum non-conveniens, even if the Court might have acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person of the petitioner."[95] We find that the trial court correctly assumed jurisdiction over the Complaint.
"Forum non conveniens literally translates to 'the forum is inconvenient.'"[96] This doctrine applies in conflicts of law cases. It gives courts the choice of not assuming jurisdiction when it appears that it is not the most convenient forum and the parties may seek redress in another one.[97] It is a device "designed to frustrate illicit means for securing advantages and vexing litigants that would otherwise be possible if the venue of litigation (or dispute resolution) were left entirely to the whim of either party."[98]
Puyat v. Zabarte[99] enumerated practical reasons when courts may refuse to entertain a case even though the exercise of jurisdiction is authorized by law:
The determination of whether to entertain a case is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, which must carefully consider the facts of the particular case.[102] A mere invocation of the doctrine of forum non conveniens or an easy averment that foreign elements exist cannot operate to automatically divest a court of its jurisdiction. It is crucial for courts to determine first if facts were established such that special circumstances exist to warrant its desistance from assuming jurisdiction.[103]
We discussed in Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio[104] how the doctrine grounds on "comity and judicial efficiency"[105] and how it involves a recognition that other tribunals may be "better positioned to enforce judgments[:]"[106]
Petitioner is a domestic corporation with its main office in the Philippines. It is safe to assume that all of its pertinent documents in relation to its business would be available in its main office. Most of petitioner's officers and employees who were involved in the construction contract in Malaysia could most likely also be found in the Philippines. Thus, it is unexpected that a Philippine corporation would rather engage this civil suit before Malaysian courts. Our courts would be "better positioned to enforce [the] judgment and, ultimately, to dispense"[110] in this case against petitioner.
Also, petitioner failed to plead and show real and present danger that another jurisdiction commenced litigation and the foreign tribunal chose to exercise jurisdiction.[111]
"Forum non conveniens literally translates to 'the forum is inconvenient.'"[96] This doctrine applies in conflicts of law cases. It gives courts the choice of not assuming jurisdiction when it appears that it is not the most convenient forum and the parties may seek redress in another one.[97] It is a device "designed to frustrate illicit means for securing advantages and vexing litigants that would otherwise be possible if the venue of litigation (or dispute resolution) were left entirely to the whim of either party."[98]
Puyat v. Zabarte[99] enumerated practical reasons when courts may refuse to entertain a case even though the exercise of jurisdiction is authorized by law:
1) The belief that the matter can be better tried and decided elsewhere, either because the main aspects of the case transpired in a foreign jurisdiction or the material witnesses have their residence there;On the other hand, courts may choose to assume jurisdiction subject to the following requisites: "(1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to; (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 power to enforce its decision."[101]
2) The belief that the non-resident plaintiff sought the forum[,] a practice known as forum shopping[,] merely to secure procedural advantages or to convey or harass the defendant;
3) The unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to non residents or aliens when the docket may already be overcrowded;
4) The inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for effectuating the right sought to be maintained; and
5) The difficulty of ascertaining foreign law.[100] (Emphasis in the original)
The determination of whether to entertain a case is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, which must carefully consider the facts of the particular case.[102] A mere invocation of the doctrine of forum non conveniens or an easy averment that foreign elements exist cannot operate to automatically divest a court of its jurisdiction. It is crucial for courts to determine first if facts were established such that special circumstances exist to warrant its desistance from assuming jurisdiction.[103]
We discussed in Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio[104] how the doctrine grounds on "comity and judicial efficiency"[105] and how it involves a recognition that other tribunals may be "better positioned to enforce judgments[:]"[106]
Forum non conveniens is soundly applied not only to address parallel litigation and undermine a litigant's capacity to vex and secure undue advantages by engaging in forum shopping on an international scale. It is also grounded on principles of comity and judicial efficiency.Saudi Arabian Airlines also discussed the need to raise forum non conveniens at the earliest possible time, and to show that a prior suit has been brought in another jurisdiction:
Consistent with the principle of comity, a tribunal's desistance in exercising jurisdiction on account of forum non conveniens is a deferential gesture to the tribunals of another sovereign. It is a measure that prevents the former's having to interfere in affairs which are better and more competently addressed by the latter. Further, forum non conveniens entails a recognition not only that tribunals elsewhere are better suited to rule on and resolve a controversy, but also, that these tribunals are better positioned to enforce judgments and, ultimately, to dispense justice. Forum non conveniens prevents the embarrassment of an awkward situation where a tribunal is rendered incompetent in the face of the greater capability — both analytical and practical — of a tribunal in another jurisdiction.[107] (Emphasis supplied)
On the matter of pleading forum non conveniens, we state the rule, thus: Forum non conveniens must not only be clearly pleaded as a ground for dismissal; it must be pleaded as such at the earliest possible opportunity. Otherwise, it shall be deemed waived.The trial court assumed jurisdiction and explained in its Order dated August 11, 1995 that "[o]n the contrary[,] to try the case in the Philippines, it is believed, would be more convenient to defendant corporation as its principal office is located in the Philippines, its records will be more accessible, witnesses would be readily available and entail less expenses in terms of legal services."[109] We agree.
. . . .
Consistent with forum non conveniens as fundamentally a factual matter, it is imperative that it proceed from a factually established basis. It would be improper to dismiss an action pursuant to forum non conveniens based merely on a perceived, likely, or hypothetical multiplicity of fora. Thus, a defendant must also plead and show that a prior suit has, in fact, been brought in another jurisdiction.
. . . .
We deem it more appropriate and in the greater interest of prudence that a defendant not only allege supposed dangerous tendencies in litigating in this jurisdiction; the defendant must also show that such danger is real and present in that litigation or dispute resolution has commenced in another jurisdiction and that a foreign tribunal has chosen to exercise jurisdiction.[108](Emphasis in the original)
Petitioner is a domestic corporation with its main office in the Philippines. It is safe to assume that all of its pertinent documents in relation to its business would be available in its main office. Most of petitioner's officers and employees who were involved in the construction contract in Malaysia could most likely also be found in the Philippines. Thus, it is unexpected that a Philippine corporation would rather engage this civil suit before Malaysian courts. Our courts would be "better positioned to enforce [the] judgment and, ultimately, to dispense"[110] in this case against petitioner.
Also, petitioner failed to plead and show real and present danger that another jurisdiction commenced litigation and the foreign tribunal chose to exercise jurisdiction.[111]
No comments:
Post a Comment