Wild Valley Shipping Co

7/29/2019 Wild Valley Shipping Co

1/9

WILD VALLEY SHIPPING CO., LTD. v.COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINEPRESIDENT LINES INC.342 SCRA 213 October 6, 2000

FACTS

Sometime in February 1988, the Philippine Roxas, a vessel owned by PhilippinePresident Lines, Inc., private respondent herein, arrived in Puerto Ordaz,Venezuela, to load iron ore. Upon the completion of the loading and when thevessel was ready to leave port, Mr. Ezzar del Valle Solarzano Vasquez, an officialpilot of Venezuela, was designated by the harbour authorities in Puerto Ordaz tonavigate the Philippine Roxas through the Orinoco River. He was asked to pilot thesaid vessel on February 11, 1988 boarding it that night at 11:00 p.m.

Captain of the Philippine Roxas, Captain Nicandro Colon, was at the bridge together

with the pilot Vasquez, the vessel's third mate, and a helmsman when the vesselleft the port at 1:40 a.m. on February 12, 1988. Captain Colon left the bridge whenthe vessel was under way.

The Philippine Roxas experienced some vibrations. It was then that the watchofficer called the master to the bridge. At around 4:35 a.m., the Philippine Roxasran aground in the Orinoco River, thus obstructing the ingress and egress ofvessels.

As a result of the blockage, the Malandrinon, a vessel owned by herein petitionerWildvalley Shipping Company, Ltd., was unable to sail out of Puerto Ordaz on thatday.

Subsequently, Wildvalley Shipping Company, Ltd. filed a suit with the Regional Trial

Court of Manila against Philippine President Lines, Inc. and Pioneer InsuranceCompany (the underwriter/insurer of Philippine Roxas) for damages in the form ofunearned profits, and interest.

The trial court rendered its decision on October 16, 1991 in favor of the petitioner,Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. The dispositive portion thereof reads as follows:

Both parties appealed: the petitioner appealing the non-award of interest with theprivate respondent questioning the decision on the merits of the case.

After the requisite pleadings had been filed, the Court of Appeals judgment isreversed

ISSUE

Whether or not Venezuelan law is applicable to the case at bar

RULING

It is well-settled that foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction andour courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact,they must be alleged and proved.


2/9

A distinction is to be made as to the manner of proving a written and an unwrittenlaw. The former falls under Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, as amended,the entire provision of which is quoted hereunder. Where the foreign law sought tobe proved is "unwritten," the oral testimony of expert witnesses is admissible, asare printed and published books of reports of decisions of the courts of the countryconcerned if proved to be commonly admitted in such courts.

Section 24 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides:

"Sec. 24. Proof of official record. -- The record of public documents referred to inparagraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidencedby an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having thelegal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is notkept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If

the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may bemade by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, viceconsul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines

stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated bythe seal of his office." (Underscoring supplied)

The court has interpreted Section 25 (now Section 24) to include competentevidence like the testimony of a witness to prove the existence of a written foreignlaw.

For a copy of a foreign public document to be admissible, the following requisitesare mandatory: (1) It must be attested by the officer having legal custody of therecords or by his deputy; and (2) It must be accompanied by a certificate by asecretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consular or

consular agent or foreign service officer, and with the seal of his office. The latterrequirement is not a mere technicality but is intended to justify the giving of fullfaith and credit to the genuineness of a document in a foreign country.

It is not enough that the Gaceta Oficial,or a book published by the Ministerio deComunicaciones of Venezuela, was presented as evidence with Captain Monzonattesting it. It is also required by Section 24 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court that acertificate that Captain Monzon, who attested the documents, is the officer who hadlegal custody of those records made by a secretary of the embassy or legation,consul general, consul, vice consul or consular agent or by any officer in the foreignservice of the Philippines stationed in Venezuela, and authenticated by the seal ofhis office accompanying the copy of the public document. No such certificate could

be found in the records of the case.

With respect to proof of written laws, parol proof is objectionable, for the writtenlaw itself is the best evidence. According to the weight of authority, when a foreignstatute is involved, the best evidence rule requires that it be proved by a dulyauthenticated copy of the statute.


3/9

There being no contractual obligation, the private respondent is obliged to give onlythe diligence required of a good father of a family in accordance with the provisionsof Article 1173 of the New Civil Code, thus:The law does provide that the master can countermand or overrule the order orcommand of the harbor pilot on board. The master of the Philippine Roxas deemedit best not to order him (the pilot) to stop the vessel, mayhap, because the latterhad assured him that they were navigating normally before the grounding of thevessel. Moreover, the pilot had admitted that on account of his experience he wasvery familiar with the configuration of the river as well as the course headings, andthat he does not even refer to river charts when navigating the Orinoco River.

G.R. No. 122191, Oct. 8, 1998

Jurisdiction is based on allegations on the pleading State of the Most Significant Relationship Theory Conflicts of Laws Problem Points of Contact

FACTS:

Plaintiff Morada is a flight attendant for defendant SAUDIAs airlines based in Jeddah. On April 27,

1990, while on a lay-over in Jakarta, Indonesia, Morada became a victim of attempted rape by fellow

crewmembers, Thamer and Allah, who are both Saudi nationals. The two were eventually arrested anddeported back to Saudi Arabia while Morada was transferred to Manila. On various dates after the

incident, Morada was summoned to Jeddah by her employer in order to sign documents, purporting to be

statements dropping the case against Thamer and Allah. However, it turned out that a case was in factfiled against her before the Saudi court, which later found her guilty of (1) adultery; (2) going to a disco,

dancing and listening to the music in violation of Islamic laws; and (3) socializing with the male crew, incontravention of Islamic tradition.

Hence, Morada filed this complaint for damages based on Article 21 of the New Civil Code against

SAUDIA and its country manager.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction over the case Whether the proper law applicable is Philippine law or the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Whether or not the case involves a conficts problem


4/9

HELD:

Is there a conflicts case?

The Supreme Court held in the affirmative.

A factual situation that cuts across territorial lines and is affected by the diverse laws of two or more

states is said to contain a foreign element. The presence of a foreign element is inevitable since social

and economic affairs of individuals and associations are rarely confined to the geographic limits of their

birth or conception.

The forms in which this foreign element may appear are many. The foreign element may simply consist in

the fact that one of the parties to a contract is an alien or has a foreign domicile, or that a contract between

nationals of one State involves properties situated in another State. In other cases, the foreign element

may assume a complex form.

In the instant case, the foreign element consisteG.R. No. 122191, Oct. 8, 1998

Jurisdiction is based on allegations on the pleading State of the Most Significant Relationship Theory Conflicts of Laws Problem Points of Contact

FACTS:

Plaintiff Morada is a flight attendant for defendant SAUDIAs airlines based in Jeddah. On April

27, 1990, while on a lay-over in Jakarta, Indonesia, Morada became a victim of attempted rapeby fellow crewmembers, Thamer and Allah, who are both Saudi nationals. The two were

eventually arrested and deported back to Saudi Arabia while Morada was transferred to Manila.On various dates after the incident, Morada was summoned to Jeddah by her employer in order

to sign documents, purporting to be statements dropping the case against Thamer and Allah.However, it turned out that a case was in fact filed against her before the Saudi court, which later

found her guilty of (1) adultery; (2) going to a disco, dancing and listening to the music inviolation of Islamic laws; and (3) socializing with the male crew, in contravention of Islamic

tradition.

Hence, Morada filed this complaint for damages based on Article 21 of the New Civil Codeagainst SAUDIA and its country manager.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction over the case


5/9

Whether the proper law applicable is Philippine law or the law of the Kingdom of SaudiArabia

Whether or not the case involves a conficts problem

HELD:

Is there a conflicts case?

The Supreme Court held in the affirmative.

A factual situation that cuts across territorial lines and is affected by the diverse laws of two or

more states is said to contain a foreign element. The presence of a foreign element is inevitablesince social and economic affairs of individuals and associations are rarely confined to the

geographic limits of their birth or conception.

The forms in which this foreign element may appear are many. The foreign element may simplyconsist in the fact that one of the parties to a contract is an alien or has a foreign domicile, or that

a contract between nationals of one State involves properties situated in another State. In othercases, the foreign element may assume a complex form.

In the instant case, the foreign element consisted in the fact that private respondent Morada is a

resident Philippine national, and that petitioner SAUDIA is a resident foreign corporation. Also,by virtue of the employment of Morada with the petitioner SAUDIA as a flight stewardess,

events did transpire during her many occasions of travel across national borders, particularlyfrom Manila, Philippines to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and vice versa, that caused a conflicts

situation to arise.

Applicability of Art. 19 and 21, NCC and Jurisdiction of Quezon City RTC

The Supreme Court held that private respondent aptly predicated her cause of action on Articles19 and 21 of the New Civil Code. Although Article 19 merely declares a principle of law, Article

21 gives flesh to its provisions. Thus, violations of Articles 19 and 21 are actionable, withjudicially enforceable remedies in the municipal forum.

Based on the allegations in the Amended Complaint, read in the light of the Rules of Court on

jurisdiction, the Supreme Court found that the RTC of Quezon City possesses jurisdiction overthe subject matter of the suit. Its authority to try and hear the case is provided under Section 1 of

RA 7691. Venue was also held to be proper. Furthermore, jurisdiction over the person of theplaintiff and defendant were properly acquired.

Choice-of-law Problem

Choice-of-law problems seek to answer two important questions: (1) What legal system should


6/9

control a given situation where some of the significant facts occurred in two or more states; and(2) to what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the situation.

Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us to determine under what category a certain set

of facts or rules fall. This process is known as characterization, or the doctrine of

qualification. It is the process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of questionspecified in a conflicts rule. The purpose of characterization is to enable the forum to selectthe proper law.

Our starting point of analysis here is not a legal relation, but a factual situation, event or

operative fact. An essential element of conflict rules is the indication of a test or connectingfactor or point of contact. Choice-of-law rules invariably consist of factual relationship (such

as property right, contract claim) and a connecting factor or point of contract, such as the situs ofthe res, the place of celebration, the place of performance, or the place of wrongdoing.

Note that one or more circumstances may be present to serve as the possible test for the

determination of the applicable law. These test factors or points of contact or connectingfactors could be any of the following:

1. The nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, his place of sojourn, or his origin;2. The seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation;3. The situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is deemed to be situated. In

particular, the lex situs is decisive when real rights are involved;4. The place where an act has been done, the locus actus, such as the place where a contract

has been made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort committed. The lex lociactus is particularly important in contracts and torts;

5. The place where an act is intended to come into effect, e.g. the place of performance ofcontractual duties, or the place where a power of attorney is to be exercised;

6. The intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern their agreement,the lex loci intentionis;

7. The place where judicial or administrative proceedings are instituted or done. The lex forithe law of the forumis particularly important because, as we have seen earlier,

matters of procedure not going to the substance of the claim involved are governed byit; and because the lex fori applies whenever the content of the otherwise applicable

foreign law is excluded from application in a given case for the reason that it falls underone of the exceptions to the applications of foreign law; and

8. The flag of the ship, which in many cases is decisive of practically all legal relationshipsof the ship and of its master or owner as such. It also covers contractual relationships

particularly contracts of affreightment.

Considering that the complaint in the court a quo is one involving torts, the connecting factoror point of contact could be the place or places where the tortious conduct or lex loci actus

occurred. And applying the torts principle in a conflicts case, we find that the Philippines couldbe said as a situs of the tort (the place where the alleged tortious conduct took place). This is

because it is in the Philippines where petitioner allegedly deceived private respondent, a Filipina


7/9

residing and working here. According to her, she had honestly believed that petitioner would, inthe exercise of its rights and in the performance of its duties, act with justice, give her her due

and observe honesty and good faith. Instead, petitioner failed to protect her, she claimed. Thatcertain acts or parts of the injury allegedly occurred in another country is of no moment. For in

our view what is important here is the place where the over-all harm or the fatality of the alleged

injury to the person, reputation, social standing and human rights of the complainant, had lodged,according to the plaintiff below (herein private respondent). All told, it is not without basis toidentify the Philippines as the situs of the alleged tort.

Moreover, with the widespread criticism of the traditional rule of lex loci delicti commissi,

modern theories and rules on tort liability have been advanced to offer fresh judicial approachesto arrive at just results. In keeping abreast with the modern theories on tort liability, we find here

an occasion to apply the State of the most significant relationship rule, which in our viewshould be appropriate to apply now, given the factual context of this case.

In applying said principle to determine the State which has the most significant relationship, the

following contacts are to be taken into account and evaluated according to their relativeimportance with respect to the particular issue: (a) the place where the injury occurred; (b) the

place where the conduct causing the injury occurred; (c) the domicile, residence, nationality,place of incorporation and place of business of the parties; and (d) the place where the

relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.

Over-all injury occurred in the Philippines

As already discussed, there is basis for the claim that over-all injury occurred and lodged in thePhilippines. There is likewise no question that private respondent is a resident Filipina national,

working with petitioner, a resident foreign corporation engaged here in the business ofinternational air carriage. Thus, the relationship between the parties was centered here,

although it should be stressed that this suit is not based on mere labor law violations. From therecord, the claim that the Philippines has the most significant contact with the matter in this

dispute, raised by private respondent as plaintiff below against defendant (herein petitioner), inour view, has been properly established. d in the fact that private respondent Morada is a residentPhilippine national, and that petitioner SAUDIA is a resident foreign corporation. Also, by virtue of theemployment of Morada with the petitioner SAUDIA as a flight stewardess, events did transpire during hermany occasions of travel across national borders, particularly from Manila, Philippines to Jeddah, Saudi

Arabia, and vice versa, that caused a conflicts situation to arise.

Applicability of Art. 19 and 21, NCC and Jurisdiction of Quezon City RTC

The Supreme Court held that private respondent aptly predicated her cause of action on Articles 19 and21 of the New Civil Code. Although Article 19 merely declares a principle of law, Article 21 gives flesh

to its provisions. Thus, violations of Articles 19 and 21 are actionable, with judicially enforceable

remedies in the municipal forum.

Based on the allegations in the Amended Complaint, read in the light of the Rules of Court onjurisdiction, the Supreme Court found that the RTC of Quezon City possesses jurisdiction over the subject

matter of the suit. Its authority to try and hear the case is provided under Section 1 of RA 7691. Venuewas also held to be proper. Furthermore, jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff and defendant were


8/9

properly acquired.

Choice-of-law Problem

Choice-of-law problems seek to answer two important questions: (1) What legal system should control agiven situation where some of the significant facts occurred in two or more states; and (2) to what extent

should the chosen legal system regulate the situation.

Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us to determine under what category a certain set of factsor rules fall. This process is known as characterization, or the doctrine of qualification. It is the

process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question specified in a conflicts rule.The purpose of characterization is to enable the forum to select the proper law.

Our starting point of analysis here is not a legal relation, but a factual situation, event or operative fact.

An essential element of conflict rules is the indication of a test or connecting factor or point of

contact. Choice-of-law rules invariably consist of factual relationship (such as property right, contractclaim) and a connecting factor or point of contract, such as the situs of the res, the place of celebration,

the place of performance, or the place of wrongdoing.

Note that one or more circumstances may be present to serve as the possible test for the determination of

the applicable law. These test factors or points of contact or connecting factors could be any of the

following:

1. The nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, his place of sojourn, or his origin;2. The seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation;3. The situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is deemed to be situated. In particular,

the lex situs is decisive when real rights are involved;4. The place where an act has been done, the locus actus, such as the place where a contract has

been made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort committed. The lex loci actus is

particularly important in contracts and torts;

5. The place where an act is intended to come into effect, e.g. the place of performance ofcontractual duties, or the place where a power of attorney is to be exercised;

6. The intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern their agreement, the lexloci intentionis;

7. The place where judicial or administrative proceedings are instituted or done. The lex fori thelaw of the forum is particularly important because, as we have seen earlier, matters of

procedure not going to the substance of the claim involved are governed by it; and because the

lex fori applies whenever the content of the otherwise applicable foreign law is excluded fromapplication in a given case for the reason that it falls under one of the exceptions to the

applications of foreign law; and8. The flag of the ship, which in many cases is decisive of practically all legal relationships of the

ship and of its master or owner as such. It also covers contractual relationships particularly

contracts of affreightment.

Considering that the complaint in the court a quo is one involving torts, the connecting factor or point

of contact could be the place or places where the tortious conduct or lex loci actus occurred. And

applying the torts principle in a conflicts case, we find that the Philippines could be said as a situs of the

tort (the place where the alleged tortious conduct took place). This is because it is in the Philippines

where petitioner allegedly deceived private respondent, a Filipina residing and working here. According


9/9

to her, she had honestly believed that petitioner would, in the exercise of its rights and in the performance

of its duties, act with justice, give her her due and observe honesty and good faith. Instead, petitioner

failed to protect her, she claimed. That certain acts or parts of the injury allegedly occurred in another

country is of no moment. For in our view what is important here is the place where the over-all harm or

the fatality of the alleged injury to the person, reputation, social standing and human rights of the

complainant, had lodged, according to the plaintiff below (herein private respondent). All told, it is notwithout basis to identify the Philippines as the situs of the alleged tort.

Moreover, with the widespread criticism of the traditional rule of lex loci delicti commissi, modern

theories and rules on tort liability have been advanced to offer fresh judicial approaches to arrive at just

results. In keeping abreast with the modern theories on tort liability, we find here an occasion to apply the

State of the most significant relationship rule, which in our view should be appropriate to apply now,

given the factual context of this case.

In applying said principle to determine the State which has the most significant relationship, the following

contacts are to be taken into account and evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to

the particular issue: (a) the place where the injury occurred; (b) the place where the conduct causing the

injury occurred; (c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of

the parties; and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.

Over-all injury occurred in the Philippines

As already discussed, there is basis for the claim that over-all injury occurred and lodged in the

Philippines. There is likewise no question that private respondent is a resident Filipina national, working

with petitioner, a resident foreign corporation engaged here in the business of international air carriage.

Thus, the relationship between the parties was centered here, although it should be stressed that this suit

is not based on mere labor law violations. From the record, the claim that the Philippines has the mostsignificant contact with the matter in this dispute, raised by private respondent as plaintiff below against

defendant (herein petitioner), in our view, has been properly established.

Documents

Wild Valley Shipping Co