8/12/2019 Banco Do Brasil vs Court Of

1/3

BANCO DO BRASIL VS COURT OF APPEALS333 SCRA 545-(Conflict of Laws) Private International Law- Service of Summons in In Personam Cases

FACTS: In 1989, Cesar Urbino, Sr. sued Poro Point Shipping Services for damages the former incurredwhen one of the latters ship ran aground causing losses to Urbino. Urbino impleaded Banco Do Brasil(BDB), a foreign corporation not engaged in business in the Philippines nor does it have any office hereorany agent. BDB was impleaded simply because it has a claim over the sunken ship. BDB howeverfailed to appear multiple times. Eventually, a judgment was rendered and BDB was adjudged to pay$300,000.00 in damages in favor of Urbino for BDB being a nuisance defendant.BDB assailed the saiddecision as it argued that there was no valid service of summons because the summons was issued totheambassador of Brazil. Further, the other summons which were made through publication is not applicableto BDB as italleged that the action against them is in personam.

ISSUE: Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction over Banco Do Brasil.

HELD:No. Banco Do Brasil is correct. Although the suit is originally in rem as it was BDBs claim on thesunken ship which was used as the basis for it being impleaded, the action nevertheless became an inpersonam one when Urbino asked for damagesin the said amount. As such, only a personal service of

summons would have vested the court jurisdiction over BDB. Where the action is in personam, onebrought against a person on the basis of his personal liability, jurisdiction over the person of thedefendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. When the defendant is a non-resident, personal service of summons within the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction overthe person. This cannot be done, however, if the defendant is not physically present in the country, andthus, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot validly try and decide thecase against him.

KAZUHIRO HASEGAWA VS MINORU KITAMURA538 SCRA 261

Conflict of LawsPrivate International LawJurisdictionLex Loci CelebrationisLex Loci SolutionisState of the Most Significant Relationship

Forum NonConveniensFACTS:In March 1999, Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd, aJapanese firm, was contracted by theDepartment of PublicWorks and Highways (DPWH) to supervise the construction ofthe Southern TagalogAccess Road. In April 1999, Nipponentered into an independent contractor agreement (ICA) withMinoruKitamura for the latter to head the said project. The ICAwas entered into in Japan and is effective for aperiod of 1 year(so until April 2000). In January 2000, DPWH awarded theBongabon-Baler Road projectto Nippon. Nippon subsequentlyassigned Kitamura to head the road project. But in February2000,Kazuhiro Hasegawa, the general manager of Nipponinformed Kitamura that they are pre-terminating hiscontract.Kitamura sought Nippon to reconsider but Nippon refused tonegotiate. Kitamura then filed a

8/12/2019 Banco Do Brasil vs Court Of

2/3

8/12/2019 Banco Do Brasil vs Court Of

3/3