Wing On Company vs Syyap Co., Inc.

Wing On Company incorporated in NY and Syyap Co., Inc. incorporated in RP entered into contract in NY
for the latter's purchase of clothing material, w/ verbal agreement that Syyap would pay Wing On the
value of the clothing material, then after the sale, the profits would be divided between them. The
clothing materials worth $22,246.04 was shipped from NY to RP. However only $3,530.04 paid. Syyap
failed to settle debt and account for profits. Wing On Company sued Syyap in RP. RTC ruled in favor of
wing on.

Respondent appealed stating that Wing On is not licensed to do business in RP nor legal capacity to sue
here in the Philippines and that the court should habe declined jurisdiction base on forum non
convenience.

Issue: Whether or not Wing on does not have legal capacity to sue in the Philipiines.

W/N the court should have decline jurisdiction based on forum non conveniens

Ruling: The Court affirmed the decision of the RTC. The present suit is a PERSONAL ACTION, the case
may be commenced and tried where the defendant resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff
resides, at the election of the plaintiff.

On Forum non Conveniens, the court would only decline jurisdiction based on foum non
conveniens, Unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum
should rarely be disturbed. The court should should consider also both public and private interest. In
private interest court should consider relative ease of access to source of proof; Availability of
compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses; cost of obtaining and attendance off willing
witnesses; possibility of viewing the premises if appropriate; all other practical problems that make trial
of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. In public interest, administrative difficulties encountered
when courts are congested; jury duty or burden on community; appropriateness of having the trial in a
court that is familiar with the applicable state law rather than getting another forum enmeshed in a
complicated conflict-of-laws problem. However the court may not refuse to exercise jurisdiction when
forum is the only state where jurisdiction over defendant can be obtained or when the forum provides
procedural remedies not available in another state.