CONFLICTS OF LAW 10 CASES.docx - 1 Hasegawa vs Kitamura November 2007 DIGEST FACTS Nippon a Japanese consultancy firm providing infrastructure support

CONFLICTS OF LAW 10 CASES.docx - 1 Hasegawa vs Kitamura...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 160 pages.

1) Hasegawa vs. Kitamura November 2007 DIGEST FACTS: Nippon, a Japanese consultancy firm providing infrastructure support to foreign governments, entered into an Independent Contractor’s Contract (ICA) with Kitamura on April 1, 1999 with a period of one year. Kitamura is a Japanese national permanently residing in the Philippines. He was hired to work on the Southern Tagalog Access Road project of the DPWH. Kitamura was named as the project manager for the Bongabon-Baler Road Improvement project of the DPWH but was later informed that Nippon will not automatically renew his contract and will only be engaging his services until the substantial completion of the Southern Tagalog project, which is until the expiration of his contract. Kitamura sued Nippon and Hasegawa for specific performance and damages with RTC Lipa City. Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction claiming that the claim for improper termination could only be heard in the courts of Japan following the principles of lex loci celebrationis and lex contractus. RTC denied Nippon’s motion. The RTC’s decision was upheld by the CA. Issues: 1. W/N the finality of the CA’s decision barred the filing of the second petition 2. W/N Hasegawa was authorized to act on behalf of Nippon only on the certiorari petition filed with the CA 3. W/N the verification and certification was defective 4. W/N Rule 65 was the proper to question the RTC’s motion to dismiss 5. W/N the RTC had jurisdiction despite the fact that the ICA was entered into by and between two Japanese nationals, written in Japanes and executed in Tokyo, Japan Held: 1. No. The CA’s dismissal of the case due to a defective certificate of non-forum shopping and non-statement of material dates was a dismissal without prejudice. Nippon can re-file the petition with the appropriate attachments and material dates stated therein, within the prescribed period. 2. Yes. Nippon already submitted an updated Authorization for Hasegawa to act on behalf of the company in the instant petition. The court found the same as sufficient and in compliance with the Rules.
Image of page 1
3. Yes. Hasegawa only signed the petition on his behalf and not on behalf of Nippon. This is because the Authorization issued him was only issued by Nippon’s President and CEO and not the company’s Board of Directors. While technical rules of procedure are designed not to frustrate the ends of justice, nonetheless, they are intended to effect the proper and orderly disposition of cases. 4. No. It is a well-settled rule that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and cannot be the subject of the extraordinary petition for certiorari under Rule 65 or mandamus. The appropriate course is to file an answer, interpose as defenses the objections raised in the motion, and to proceed to trial. In case of an adverse decision, to elevate the entire case by appeal in due course. Petitioners’ case does not fall among the recognized exceptions to this rule. 5. Yes. Jurisdiction over subject matter in a judicial proceeding is conferred by the sovereign
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 160 pages?

  • Summer '17
  • Dean Almirante
  • Appellate court, Choice of law

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture