View full case

KAZUHIRO HASEGAWA v. MINORU KITAMURA

FACTS:

Petitioner Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd. (Nippon) entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA) with respondent Minoru Kitamura. The agreement stated that respondent would provide professional services to Nippon for a year. Nippon assigned respondent to work as the project manager of the Southern Tagalog Access Road (STAR) Project in the Philippines.

When the STAR Project was nearing completion, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) engaged Nippon's consultancy services for the Bongabon-Baler Road Improvement (BBRI) Project, with respondent named as the project manager.

Nippon informed respondent that his contract was not being renewed beyond the substantial completion of the STAR Project. Respondent requested a negotiation conference and demanded to be assigned to the BBRI project, but Nippon refused. As a result, respondent filed a lawsuit for specific performance and damages.

Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the ICA was executed by Japanese nationals and should be heard in the courts of Japan. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, invoking the principle of lex loci solutionis. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was initially dismissed on procedural grounds. However, petitioners filed a second petition stating the material dates and attaching the proper verification, and the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion.

Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, questioning the jurisdiction of Philippine courts in civil cases involving contracts executed outside the country by foreign nationals.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the defect in the verification and certification warrant the dismissal and nullification of the entire proceedings.

  2. Whether the petitioner Hasegawa is authorized to act on behalf of Nippon in the instant petition.

  3. Whether the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction over the civil case for specific performance and damages.

  4. Whether the principles of lex loci celebrationis, lex contractus, and the state of the most significant relationship rule are applicable in determining subject matter jurisdiction.

  5. Whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens can deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction.

  6. Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting the statements made by the accused during the custodial investigation.

  7. Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

RULING:

  1. The defect in the verification and certification warrants the denial of the petition. Although there was substantial compliance in other aspects, the strict observance of rules is necessary when it comes to verification and certification.

  2. Hasegawa is not authorized to act on behalf of Nippon in the instant petition. The authorization given was limited in scope, and only issued by Nippon's president and chief executive officer, not by the company's board of directors.

  3. The trial court has subject matter jurisdiction over the civil case for specific performance and damages as it is properly cognizable by the RTC of Lipa City.

  4. The principles of lex loci celebrationis, lex contractus, and the state of the most significant relationship rule are not relevant to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. These principles pertain to the choice of law in resolving conflicts problems and are not applicable to a jurisdictional issue.

  5. The doctrine of forum non conveniens cannot be used to deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction. It is not a proper basis for a motion to dismiss and depends on the facts of the particular case and the discretion of the trial court.

  6. The trial court did not err in admitting the statements made by the accused during the custodial investigation. The accused was properly apprised of his constitutional rights, as evidenced by the waiver he signed, and there is no showing that his statements were obtained through coercion, violence, or intimidation.

  7. The trial court did not err in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. The prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crime, and the accused failed to present any credible evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Technical rules of procedure are designed not to frustrate the ends of justice but are intended to effect the proper and orderly disposition of cases.

  • Corporate powers are exercised by the board of directors, and no person, not even its officers, can bind the corporation in the absence of authority from the board.

  • An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and cannot be the subject of an extraordinary petition for certiorari or mandamus.

  • The appropriate recourse for an order denying a motion to dismiss is to file an answer, interpose the objections raised in the motion, proceed to trial, and, in case of an adverse decision, elevate the entire case by appeal.

  • In the judicial resolution of conflicts problems, three consecutive phases are involved: jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement of judgments.

  • Jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct concepts. Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair to cause a defendant to travel to a particular state, while choice of law asks whether the application of a substantive law is fair to both parties.

  • The power to exercise jurisdiction does not automatically give a state constitutional authority to apply forum law. Minimum contacts for jurisdiction do not always provide the necessary significant contacts for the choice of law.

  • Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by the sovereign authority that establishes and organizes the court.

  • Subject matter jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint.

  • The concepts of lex loci celebrationis, lex contractus, and the state of the most significant relationship rule are relevant to the choice of law in resolving substantive conflicts issues.

  • The existence of a conflict between the laws of different states must be pleaded and proved before the choice of law rules can be applied.

  • A court or administrative agency presented with a conflicts case involving a foreign element has three options: dismiss the case, assume jurisdiction and apply the internal law of the forum, or assume jurisdiction and apply the law of another state.

  • The court's power to hear cases and controversies is derived from the Constitution and the laws, but it is not limited by foreign sovereign law unless provided for in treaties or other formal agreements.

  • The doctrine of forum non conveniens is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and requires a factual determination. It is not a proper ground for a motion to dismiss.

  • Statements made by an accused during the custodial investigation may be admitted as evidence if the accused was properly informed of his constitutional rights, and there is no showing of coercion, violence, or intimidation in obtaining the statements.

  • The prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

  • The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.