Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES v. MA. JOPETTE M. REBESENCIO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 172301 2015-08-19	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS BERHAD LEONEN, J.
"Forum non conveniens literally translates to 'the forum is inconvenient.'"[96] This doctrine applies in conflicts of law cases. It gives courts the choice of not assuming jurisdiction when it appears that it is not the most convenient forum and the parties may seek redress in another one.[97] It is a device "designed to frustrate illicit means for securing advantages and vexing litigants that would otherwise be possible if the venue of litigation (or dispute resolution) were left entirely to the whim of either party."[98]
	GR No. 172301 2015-08-19	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS BERHAD LEONEN, J.
"Forum non conveniens literally translates to 'the forum is inconvenient.'"[96] This doctrine applies in conflicts of law cases. It gives courts the choice of not assuming jurisdiction when it appears that it is not the most convenient forum and the parties may seek redress in another one.[97] It is a device "designed to frustrate illicit means for securing advantages and vexing litigants that would otherwise be possible if the venue of litigation (or dispute resolution) were left entirely to the whim of either party."[98]
	GR No. 172301 2015-08-19	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS BERHAD LEONEN, J.
We discussed in Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio[104] how the doctrine grounds on "comity and judicial efficiency"[105] and how it involves a recognition that other tribunals may be "better positioned to enforce judgments[:]"[106]
	GR No. 172301 2015-08-19	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS BERHAD LEONEN, J.
Petitioner is a domestic corporation with its main office in the Philippines. It is safe to assume that all of its pertinent documents in relation to its business would be available in its main office. Most of petitioner's officers and employees who were involved in the construction contract in Malaysia could most likely also be found in the Philippines. Thus, it is unexpected that a Philippine corporation would rather engage this civil suit before Malaysian courts. Our courts would be "better positioned to enforce [the] judgment and, ultimately, to dispense"[110] in this case against petitioner.
	GR No. 215568 2015-08-03	RICHARD N. RIVERA v. GENESIS TRANSPORT SERVICE LEONEN, J.
As we explained in Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio:[39]