Before: 1. When the foreign law, judgement, or contract is contrary to sound and established public policy
of the forum.
Now: 2. When the foreign law, judgement, or contract is contrary to almost universally considered
principles of morality like it is contract bonus mores.
Examples: Slavery, Prostitution, and incestuous marriages.
3. When the foreign law, judgement, or contracts involves procedural matters. Because we do not give
effect to foreign procedural rules.
Reasons: No vested rights in procedure. The rules of procedure do not affect the outcome of the case. The
rules of procedure are really technical in nature.
4. When the case involves penal laws, contracts, or judgements.
Examples: If a Filipino murders a friend in new York, he cannot be prosecuted in the Philippines for the
crime he committed in a foreign soil. The criminal statutes in New York are deemed penal even in
international sense. Hence, they will not be enforced in our local forum.
Note: We adhere to the principle of territoriality as a cardinal maxim in criminal law. However, this has
been modified by Public International law especially in the field of (e.g. Extradition, transfer service treaty,
crimes against humanity like drug trafficking, etc.).
5. When the case involves fiscal (like revenue producing) or administrative matters. Or when the
application of the foreign law, judgement, or contract may work undeniable justice to the citizens or
residents of the forum; or when the application of the foreign law, judgement, or contract may work against
the vital interest and national security of the state of the Forum.
The national interests of the forum should not be jeopardized. Thus, any foreign law, judgement, or contract
that may result in the undermining of our governmental processes will obviously be refused for spend in
our forum.
6. When the case involves real or personal property situated in the Forum.
Forum – non conveniens (reiteration)
It is a doctrine which literally means the forum is inconvenient, which emerge in private international law,
to deter the practice of global forum shopping. That is to preventnon-resident litigants from choosing the
forum or place wherein to bring their suit for malicious reasons such as the secure procedural advantages
to annoy and harass the defendant; to avoid overcrowded dockets; or to select a more friendly venue.
Under this doctrine, a court in conflict of laws cases may refuse in position on its jurisdiction where it is
not the most convenient or available forum, and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies
elsewhere.
Where the rules of forum shopping, litis pendentia, and res judicata are designed to address the problem of
parallel litigation within a single jurisdiction. Forum non conveniens is a means device to address parallel
litigation arising in multiple jurisdictions.
It is also not ground in a Motion to dismiss. It does not also go into jurisdiction of the court to try the case.
Under the principle, even if the jurisidiction is authorized by the law, courts may nonetheless refuse to
entertain the case for any of the established reasons. It is different from the choice of law.
Requisites for when convenient:
1. The Philippine court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to;
2. The Philippine court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and
3. The Philippine court has or likely to have power to enforce its decision.
When inconvenient, when the said conditions are unavailing. Like when there is a belief that the matter
can be better tried and decided elsewhere. Either because the main aspects of the case transpired in a foreign,
or the material foreign country, or material witnesses have the residents there, or when there is a belief that
the nonresident plaintiff sought the forum merely to secure procedural advantages, or to convey or harass
the defendant, or when there is unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to non-residents or aliens
when the docket may already be overcrowded, or when there is inadequacy of the local judicial machinery
for effectuating the right sought to be maintained; or where there is a difficulty for ascertaining a foreign
law.
When jurisdiction is assumed, it’s either you apply the internal law (lex fori) or apply the proper foreign
law (lex coci).
Communications materials v. CA GR. 102223 August 22, 1996
FACTS: Communication materials and ASPAC are both domestic corporations. While Aguirre is their
president and majority stockholder. ITECH and ITECH international are corporations under the laws of
Alabama U.S. and is a Foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines.
ITECH and ASPAC had a representative of women, with the latter being the exclusive representative in the
Philippines for ITECH products, with ASPAC receiving commission.