Bank of America, NT & SA v. Litonjua

Bank of America, NT & SA v. Litonjua

G.R. No. 120135 March 31, 2003

Ponente: Austria-Martinez, J.

Facts:

1. The Litonjuas (Eduardo and Aurelio), private respondents, were engaged in the shipping business. They owned 2 vesselsthrough their company and deposited their revenues with the petitioner banks in both Hongkong and UK. The respondents alleged that the petitioner offered easy loans to help them acquire additional three (3) vessels through their company. The operation and the funds were then placed under the control of the petitioner while the possession of the vessels were left in the hands of persons designated.

2. The said vessels were subsequently foreclosed when the business of respondents declined. However, the bank as trustee failed to render an accounting of the incomes of the said vessels. This prompted the Litonjuas to file a complaint. The petitioner bank filed a motion to dismiss  on the ground of forum non conveniens and lack of cause of action. The MD was denied by the lower court. The petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the CA. The Court of Appeals dismissed. It was treated by the CA as a petition for certiorari.

Issue: Whether or not the case should have been dismissed on the ground of FNC

HELD:

NO. Whether a suit is to be dismissed on the ground of FNC depends largely upon the facts of the case and is addressed to the sound discretion of the courts. The following requisites must be met: 

- The Philippine court must be one to which the parties may conveniently resort to

- The Philippine courts is in the position to make intelligent decisions as to law and facts

- It has or likely have the power to enforce its decision.

As to the issue on forum shopping, the court held that there is no forum shopping due to the pendency of the foreign action. Forum shopping exists where elements of litis pendentia are present and where a final judgement is one case will amount to res judicata in the other. Litis pendentia presuposses the existence of these elements; identity of parties, identity of righs asserted and relief prayed for (founded on the same acts) and the identity of the two cases is such that judgement in one case would amount to res judicata in the other. 

Not all the elements for litis pendentia are present here. The petitioner failed to show these as it merely mentioned that civil cases were filed in Hongkong and UK without showing the identity of the rights asserted or reliefs sought, as well as the presence of elements of res judicata should one of the case be adjudged.

Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp. Digest

Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp. Digest

549 U.S. 422 (2007)

Facts:

1. Sinochem is a Chinese government-owned company. It contracted with Triorient for Sinochem to purchase steel coils paid by a letter of credit (LC) through the production of a valid bill of lading. It alleged that the respondent backdated the bill of lading and petitioned the Chinese court to arrest the vessel. 

2. Malaysia International (respondent) is a Malaysian company, chartered and subcontracted bu Triorient to transport the steel coils. Sinochem filed the action in a Chinese court. Malaysia Int'l filed an action in the US citing Sinochem's petition for preservation allegedly contained misrepresentation.. The US districtcourt however dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens on the ground that the case could be adjudicated adequately and conveniently in the Chinese courts. Moreover, it is the latter which accordingly had subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issue: Whether or not a district court can validly dismiss a case at once based on forum non conveniens (FNC) even without any other threshold objection

HELD:

YES. The court has the jurisdiction to respond immediately to an FNC plea and there is no need to take up first any other threshold objection. In essence, a court need not even resolve whether it has authority to adjudicate the case on the basis of subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction over the defendant if it determines that in any event, a foreign tribunal is the more suitable arbiter of the merits of the case. Forum non conveniens is a non merits ground for dismissal.

Piper Aircraft Co. vs. Reyno Digest

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno

Forum non-conveniens

Facts:

1. Reyno was the representative of the estates of citizens and decedents who were residents of Scotland. The decedents were killed in a plane crash (mechanical failure) in Scotland during a chartered flight of an aircraft manufactured by the petitioner. 

2. Petitioner is a company in Pennsylvania, while Hartzel, the one maintaining the propeller was from Ohio. The aircraft was registered in United Kingdom. It was operated by a UK company owned by McDonald (of Scotland). Meanwhile, the  plane pilot who also died is of Scottish descent.

3. The UK government conducted an investigation. The representatives of five (5) passengers who perished filed an action against Piper Corp and Hartzel in California while the survivors filed a separate action in UK against Air Navigation, McDonald and the pilot's estate. Hartzel was properly served with process. The petitioner Piper and Hartzell both moved to dismiss on ground of forum non-conveniens (FNC).

Issue: Whether or not the court should dismiss on ground of FNC

HELD:

YES. The court held that the private and public factors favored Scotland. When an alternative forum has jurisdiction to hear a case and when trial in the chosen forum would establish oppressiveness and vexation to a defendant, or when the chosen forum is inappropriate because of considerations affecting the courts own administrative and legal concerns, the court may in the exercise of sound discretion dismiss the case by applying the list of private and public interest factors. The wreckage of the plane was in Scotland (private) while Scotland had greater interest in hearing the case that concerns Scottish citizens (public).

The private factors include; relative ease of access to evidence, attendance of witnesses, cost of attendance, viewing the scene and other practical matters. While public factors include: administrative difficulties of courts, interest in having local controversies adjudicated at home, interest in trial in a forum familiar with the law governning the action, avoidance of unnecessary problems in the CFLm unfairness of burdening the citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty.

Gulf Oil Corp. vs. Gilbert Digest

Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert

Forum Non-Conveniens

Facts:

1. Plaintiff Gilbert filed an action in New York against the petitioner for negligence due to the delivery of gasoline to his tanks and pumps. The venue statutes of the United States permit this. Gilbert resides in Virginia, USA.

2. Petitioner Gulf Oil is a company organized under the laws of Pennsylvania with authority to do business in both Virginia and New York. It designated officials in each state as agents to receive the process. Gulf Oil invoked the doctrine of 'forum non-conveniens' and claimed that Virginia is the appropriate venue for the trial becuase it is where the plaintiff resides, where corporation does business, where the witness likewise resides and it is also the place where the events took place.

3. On one hand, plaintiff contends that the action filed in New York is justified since the action involved an amount for claim for damages close to $400 thousand which may stagger the imagination of the local jury, the diversity of the citizenship of the parties and that plaintiff's counsel resides in New York.

4. The District Court of New Yorl dismissed the tort action pursuant to FNC (forum non-conveniens) while the Appeals Court reversed the decision.

Issue: Whether or not the action was properly dismissed from NY court under the doctrine of FNC thought personam jurisdiction and venue are proper

HELD:

YES. The application of the doctrine lies in the the discretion of the court. However, tje interests of the plaintiff, the defendant and the forum state need to be considered. Here, there is not interest for any party to have the litigation in New York. In fact, interests weigh against it.

Moreover, the plaintiff may not choose an inconvenient forum to harass the petitioner. Finally, the state has an interest in avoiding the overcrowding of its own courts and subjecting its citizens to jury duty in a case having no ties to their state.