Hasegawa vs Kitamura G.R. No. 149177 (Case Digest)

 

Hasegawa vs Kitamura

G.R. No. 149177

Facts:

            Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd., a Japanese consultancy firm providing technical and management support in the infrastructure projects of foreign governments, entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA) with respondent Minoru Kitamura, a Japanese national permanently residing in the Philippines.

            The agreement provides that respondent was to extend professional services to Nippon for a year. Nippon then assigned respondent to work as the project manager of STAR Project in the Philippines.  Hasegawa, Nippon's general manager informed respondent that the company had no more intention of automatically renewing his ICA in the BBRI Project. His services would be engaged by the company only up to the substantial completion of the STAR Project.

            Kitamura filed for specific performance and damages with the RTC Lipa City.  Petitioners contended that the ICA had been perfected in Japan and executed by and between Japanese nationals, moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. They asserted that the claim for improper pre-termination of respondent's ICA could only be heard and ventilated in the proper courts of Japan following the principles of lex loci celebrationis and lex contractus.

            RTC, invoking SC's ruling in Insular Government v. Frank that matters connected with the performance of contracts are regulated by the law prevailing at the place of performance, denied the motion to dismiss.  CA declared that the trial court was correct in applying instead the principle of lex loci solutionis.

            The ICA subject of the litigation was entered into and perfected in Tokyo, Japan, by Japanese nationals, and written wholly in the Japanese language. Thus, petitioners posit that local courts have no substantial relationship to the parties following the [state of the] most significant relationship rule in Private International Law.

 

Issue:

            Whether RTC has jurisdiction to try the case.

 

Held:

            YES. RTC is vested by law with the power to entertain and hear the civil case filed by respondent and the grounds raised by petitioners to assail that jurisdiction are inappropriate, the trial and appellate courts correctly denied the petitioners’ motion to dismiss.

 

Neither can the other ground raised, forum non conveniens, be used to deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction herein. First, it is not a proper basis for a motion to dismiss because Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court does not include it as a ground. Second, whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of the said doctrine depends largely upon the facts of the particular case and is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. In this case, the RTC decided to assume jurisdiction. Third, the propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle requires a factual determination; hence, this conflicts principle is more properly considered a matter of defense.

====

            To elucidate, in the judicial resolution of conflicts problems, three consecutive phases are involved: jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement of judgments. Corresponding to these phases are the following questions: (1) Where can or should litigation be initiated? (2) Which law will the court apply? and (3) Where can the resulting judgment be enforced?

====

            Lex loci celebrationis relates to the "law of the place of the ceremony" or the law of the place where a contract is made. The doctrine of lex contractus or lex loci contractus means the "law of the place where a contract is executed or to be performed." It controls the nature, construction, and validity of the contract and it may pertain to the law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties or the law intended by them either expressly or implicitly. Under the "state of the most significant relationship rule," to ascertain what state law to apply to a dispute, the court should determine which state has the most substantial connection to the occurrence and the parties. In a case involving a contract, the court should consider where the contract was made, was negotiated, was to be performed, and the domicile, place of business, or place of incorporation of the parties. This rule takes into account several contacts and evaluates them according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue to be resolved.

 

=============

è Before determining which law should apply, first there should exist a conflict of laws situation requiring the application of the conflict of laws rules. Also, when the law of a foreign country is invoked to provide the proper rules for the solution of a case, the existence of such law must be pleaded and proved.

 

è It should be noted that when a conflicts case, one involving a foreign element, is brought before a court or administrative agency, there are three alternatives open to the latter in disposing of it:

(1) dismiss the case, either because of lack of jurisdiction or refusal to assume jurisdiction over the case;

(2) assume jurisdiction over the case and apply the internal law of the forum; or

(3) assume jurisdiction over the case and take into account or apply the law of some other State or States.

 

 

 

Joson vs Torres G.R. No. 131255 (Case Digest)

 

Joson vs Torres

G.R. No. 131255

Facts:

            Private respondents filed with the Office of the President a letter-complaint charging petitioner with grave misconduct and abuse of authority.  DILG Secretary Barbers proceeded to Nueva Ecija and summoned petitioner and private respondents to a conference to settle the controversy which the parties reached peace agreement.  The peace agreement was not respected by the parties and the private respondents reiterated their letter-complaint. Petitioner was again ordered to file his answer to the letter-complaint within fifteen days from receipt. Petitioner asked the DILG to give him an additional time to answer the complaint.  Since the DILG give only 10 days to the petitioner within which the latter will answer the complaint; and failed to do so.  Acting Secretary of the DILG, issued an order declaring petitioner in default.

            Undersecretary Sanchez reconsidered the order of default in the interest of justice. Petitioner, through counsel, filed a "Motion to Dismiss." Petitioner alleged that the letter-complaint was not verified on the day it was filed with the Office of the President; and that the DILG had no jurisdiction over the case and no authority to require him, to answer the complaint.

 

            On recommendation of Secretary Barbers, Executive Secretary Ruben Torres issued an order, by authority of the President, placing petitioner under preventive suspension for sixty (60) days pending investigation of the charges against him.

            Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals challenging the order of preventive suspension and the order of default. CA dismissed the petition. 

 

Issue:

            Whether CA erred in applying the alter-ego principle because the power to discipline elective local officials lies with the President, not with the DILG Secretary.

 

Held:

            NO. The power to discipline evidently includes the power to investigate. As the Disciplining Authority, the President has the power derived from the Constitution itself to investigate complaints against local government officials. A.O. No. 23, however, delegates the power to investigate to the DILG or a Special Investigating Committee, as may be constituted by the Disciplining Authority. This is not undue delegation, contrary to petitioner Joson's claim. The President remains the Disciplining Authority. What is delegated is the power to investigate, not the power to discipline.

            The power of the DILG to investigate administrative complaints is based on the alter-ego principle or the doctrine of qualified political agency.

 

===

è Doctrine of qualified political agency

Under this doctrine, which recognizes the establishment of a single executive, all executive and administrative organizations are adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the various executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and, except in cases where the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or law to act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally, the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through the executive departments, and the acts of the Secretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.

 

è Control is said to be the very heart of the power of the presidency. As head of the Executive Department, the President, however, may delegate some of his powers to the Cabinet members except when he is required by the Constitution to act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he acts personally. The members of Cabinet may act for and in behalf of the President in certain matters because the President cannot be expected to exercise his control (and supervisory) powers personally all the time. Each head of a department is, and must be, the President's alter ego in the matters of that department where the President is required by law to exercise authority.

 

Jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary actions against elective local officials is lodged in two authorities: the Disciplining Authority and the Investigating Authority. This is explicit from A.O. No. 23, to wit:

            Sec. 2. Disciplining Authority. All administrative complaints, duly verified, against elective local officials mentioned in the preceding Section shall be acted upon by the President. The President, who may act through the Executive Secretary, shall hereinafter be referred to as the Disciplining Authority.

            Sec. 3. Investigating Authority. The Secretary of the Interior and Local Government is hereby designated as the Investigating Authority. He may constitute an Investigating Committee in the Department of the Interior and Local Government for the purpose.

The Disciplining Authority may, however, in the interest of the service, constitute a Special Investigating Committee in lieu of the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government.

 

The power of the President over administrative disciplinary cases against elective local officials is derived from his power of general supervision over local governments. Section 4, Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Sec. 4. The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local governments. Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities, and cities and municipalities with respect to component barangays shall ensure that the acts of their component units are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions.

 

è

The power of supervision means "overseeing or the authority of an officer to see that the subordinate officers perform their duties." If the subordinate officers fail or neglect to fulfill their duties, the official may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform their duties. The President's power of general supervision means no more than the power of ensuring that laws are faithfully executed, or that subordinate officers act within the law. Supervision is not incompatible with discipline.  And the power to discipline and ensure that the laws be faithfully executed must be construed to authorize the President to order an investigation of the act or conduct of local officials when in his opinion the good of the public service so requires.

 

 

            Administrative disciplinary proceedings against elective local officials are governed by the Local Government Code of 1991, the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991, and Administrative Order No. 23.

 

                An administrative complaint against an erring elective official must be verified and filed with the proper government office. A complaint against an elective provincial or city official must be filed with the Office of the President. A complaint against an elective municipal official must be filed with the Sangguniang Panlalawigan while that of a barangay official must be filed before the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan.

 

                In the instant case, petitioner Joson is an elective official of the province of Nueva Ecija. The letter-complaint against him was therefore properly filed with the Office of the President.

 

                Assuming, nonetheless, that the letter-complaint was unverified when submitted to the Office of the President, the defect was not fatal. The requirement of verification was deemed waived by the President himself when he acted on the complaint.

 

                Verification is a formal, not jurisdictional requisite. Verification is mainly intended to secure an assurance that the allegations therein made are done in good faith or are true and correct and not mere speculation. The lack of verification is a mere formal defect. The court may order the correction of the pleading, if not verified, or act on the unverified pleading if the attending circumstances are such that a strict compliance with the rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served.