Abbot Laboratories Philippines, et al. vs Perlie Alcaraz GR No. 192571, July 23, 2013

Case Doctrine:

Compliance with the certification against forum shopping is separate from and independent of the avoidance of the act of forum shopping itself.

Facts:

The respondent Alcaraz was the Regulatory Affairs and Information Manager of Aventis Pasteur Philippines who showed interest in applying as a Medical and Regulatory Affairs Manager, a position that was published by the petitioner Abbot Laboratories in the newspaper. When the petitioner formally offered the position to the respondent, the latter accepted the position. It was on May 23, 2005 that Walsh, Almazar and Bernardo formally handed to the respondent a letter terminating her employment with the detailed explanation for her termination. The respondent then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with damages against the petitioner and its officers. The Labor Arbiter upheld the termination of probationary employment of the respondent holding that the termination was justified with no evidence showing that the officers of the Abbot Lab acted in bad faith when terminating her services.

The NLRC annulled and set aside the ruling of the Labor Arbiter which prompted the petitioners to file before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction. Meanwhile, the action of the petitioner on its motion for reconsideration of the CA’s resolution in the second CA petition was denied that became final on January 10, 2011 because the petitioner failed to file a timely appeal on the said decision. Alcaraz, in her comment, raised the issue on forum shopping when the petitioner filed its second petition to the CA pending the resolution of the motion for reconsideration that they filed earlier in the December 10, 2009 decision. Alcaraz further contends that the petitioners failed to comply with certification requirement under Section 5, Rule 7 of the rules of court when they failed to disclose in their petition filed on June 16, 2010 Memorandum of Appeal filed before the NLRC.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner violated the rule against forum shopping and have violated the certification requirement under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.

Carlito C. Encinas v PO1 Alfredo Agustin, Jr and PO1 Joel Caubang GR No. 187317, April 11, 2013

Case Doctrine:

There is forum shopping when litis pendencia or res judicata is present.

FACTS:

The petitioner Encinas was the Provincial Fire Marshall of Nueva Ecija. He was charged administratively with grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in violation of the Administrative Code of 1987. He was dismissed from the service. The two respondents were holding the positions of Fire Officer I. He petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Civil Service Commission to dismiss the petitioner from the service.

The case arose when the petitioner allegedly required the respondents to pay him P5,000 in order not to relieve them from their station at the Cabanatuan City and re-assign them to a far flung area. The respondents decided to pay in fear of the re-assignment, but they manage to come up with P2,000 only causing the petitioner to order for their re-assignment to Cuyapo and Talugtug.

As a result, the respondents decided to file a complaint for illegal transfer before the Bureau of Fire Protection and at the same time filed another complaint before the Civil Service Commission Regional Office in Pampanga and the Civil Service Commission in Cabanatuan. Based on the filed complaints, the petitioner alleges that the respondents are guilty of forum shopping by filing the two identical complaints. The petitioner claims that the charges of dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to public interest that were filed before the Civil Service Commission and the BFP are in violation of the rules against forum shopping.

ISSUE:

Is there a violation on the rules against forum shopping?

Conflict of Laws Doctrines

IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

•       Lex situs (where the property is situated)

–      character of immovable property as an isolated object (law of the place where the land is situated)

Immovable property as the factor not the parties

MOVABLE PROPERTY

•       Lex domicilii (owner’s domicile)

•       Lex situs (where the property is situated)

•       Lex loci actus (place where the transaction was completed and the proper law of the forum)

Proper law of transfer (state which has the most real connection with the transfer)

Article 16 of the Civil Code

“Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the place where it is situated”

CAPACITY TO TRANSFER OR ACQUIRE

•       Law of the place where the property is located

EXTRINSIC AND INTRINSIC VALIDITY

•       The formalities of a contract to convey property are governed by the lex situs.

•       Lex situs also applies to the essential validity of the transfer unless the lex intentionis is clearly established.

•       The lex situs also governs the effects of the conveyance of properties.

EXCEPTIONS TO LEX SITUS RULE

•       Where the transaction does not affect transfer of title to or ownership of the land. In this case the proper law of the transfer which is the lex intentionis or lex voluntatis is the governing law.

•       In contracts where real property is offered by way of security for the performance of an obligation such as loan, the principal contract is the loan while the mortgage of the land is only an accessory. The mortgage of the land is governed by the rule of lex situs but the loan contract is governed by the rules on ordinary contracts.

•       Testate and intestate succession and capacity to succeed are governed by the national law of the decedent. (Article 16, par. 2, Civil Code)

Kuroda v Jalandoni, 83 Phil 171

Facts

Shinegori Kuroda, a former Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines was charged before the Philippine Military Commission for war crimes. As he was the commanding general during such period of war, he was tried for failure to discharge his duties and permitting the brutal atrocities and other high crimes committed by his men against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Japanese forces, in violation of of the laws and customs of war.

Kuroda, in his petition, argues that the Military Commission is not a valid court because the law that created it, Executive Order No. 68, is unconstitutional. He further contends that using as basis the Hague Convention’s Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare for the war crime committed cannot stand ground as the Philippines was not a signatory of such rules in such convention. Furthermore, he alleges that the United States is not a party of interest in the case and that the two US prosecutors cannot practice law in the Philippines.