Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILSEC INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 172301 2015-08-19	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS BERHAD LEONEN, J.
The determination of whether to entertain a case is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, which must carefully consider the facts of the particular case.[102] A mere invocation of the doctrine of forum non conveniens or an easy averment that foreign elements exist cannot operate to automatically divest a court of its jurisdiction. It is crucial for courts to determine first if facts were established such that special circumstances exist to warrant its desistance from assuming jurisdiction.[103]
	GR No. 198587 2015-01-14	SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES v. MA. JOPETTE M. REBESENCIO LEONEN, J.
The use of the word "may" (i.e., "may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction"[72]) in the decisions shows that the matter of jurisdiction rests on the sound discretion of a court. Neither the mere invocation of forum non conveniens nor the averment of foreign elements operates to automatically divest a court of jurisdiction. Rather, a court should renounce jurisdiction only "after 'vital facts are established, to determine whether special circumstances' require the court's desistance."[73] As the propriety of applying forum non conveniens is contingent on a factual determination, it is, therefore, a matter of defense.[74]
	GR No. 149177 2007-11-23	KAZUHIRO HASEGAWA v. MINORU KITAMURA NACHURA, J.
Neither can the other ground raised, forum non conveniens,[76] 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.[77] 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.[78] 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.[79]
	GR NO. 166920 2007-02-19	PACIFIC CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL ASIA v. KLAUS K. SCHONFELD CALLEJO, SR., J.
First. The Labor Code of the Philippines does not include forum non conveniens as a ground for the dismissal of the complaint.[34]
	GR NO. 159786 2006-08-15	EDGARDO V. GUEVARA v. BPI SECURITIES CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In an agreement[6] executed in Makati City on 27 January 1983 (the Agreement), 1488 sold the subject property to ATHONA at US$2,807,209.02. PHILSEC and AIFL loaned US$2,500,000.00 to ATHONA to subsidize the purchase price of the subject property. The balance of US$307,209.02 was to be paid by means of a promissory note executed by ATHONA in favor of 1488. Subsequently, PHILSEC and AIFL released Ducat from his indebtedness and delivered to 1488 all the shares of stocks in their possession used before by Ducat as security.[7]
	GR No. 142820 2003-06-20	WOLFGANG O. ROEHR v. MARIA CARMEN D. RODRIGUEZ QUISUMBING, J.
(b) In case of a judgment against a person, the judgment is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title; but the judgment may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. It is essential that there should be an opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment, in order for the court in this jurisdiction to properly determine its efficacy. In this jurisdiction, our Rules of Court clearly provide that with respect to actions in personam, as distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign judgment merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of the claim of a party and, as such, is subject to proof to the contrary.[24]