Case No.

Raytheon International vs. Stockton Rouzie

Facts:

 Brand Marine Services Inc. (BSMI) duly organized and existing corporation under the laws of
Connecticut, United States and respondent Stockton Rouzie an American citizen entered into a
contract, whereby BMSI hired respondent as its representative to negotiate the sale of services
in several government projects in the Philippines for an agreed renumeration of 10% of the
gross receipts.
 Respondent was able to secure a service contract with the Philippines on behalf of BSMI.
 On July 16, 1994, respondent filed before the arbitration branch of the NLRC a suit against BSMI
and Rust International Inc. for alleged non-payment of commission, illegal termination and
breach of employment contract.
 Arbiter rendered judgment ordering BSMI and RUST to pay respondent’s money claims. Upon
appeal, NLRC reversed the decision dismissing the complaint of respondent on the ground of
LACK OF JURISDICTION. The resolution became final and executory.
 Respondent, however, instituted an action for damages before RTC, named as defendants were
petitioner Raytheon International Inc., BSMI and RUST.
 The complaint essentially reiterated the allegations in the labor case. The complaint also averred
that BSMI and RUST as well the petitioner HAD COMBINED AND FUNCTIONED AS ONE
COMPANY.
 In its answer petitioner alleged that it was a foreign corporation duly licensed to do business in
the Philippines and DENIED entering into any agreement with him. It also denied combining with
BSMI and RUST.
 Petitioner then sought the dismissal of the complaint on the grounds of:
a. Failure to state a cause of action
b. Forum non conveniens
 The RTC denied petitioners motion to dismiss and ruled that:
a. Factual allegations in the complaint, were sufficient for the trial court to render a valid
judgment;
b. The principle of forum non conveniens was INAPPLICABLE because the trial court could
ENFORCE judgment on petitioner (Raytheon) being a foreign corporation licensed to do
business in the Philippines.
 Petitioner (Raytheon) filed a MR, was denied. Hence this Petition for review Rule 65.
 CA denied petitioners certiorari for lack of merit, MR was also denied.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the ground of forum non conveniens is applicable in the case.

HELD:

 SC denied the petition for review of petitioner Raytheon for lack of merit.
 The main assertion of petitioner that the:
a. Written contract between respondent and BSMI included a valid choice of law clause
b. That the contract shall be goverened by the laws of the state of Connecticut.
c. Also mentions the presence of foreign elements in the dispute:
-the parties and witnesses involved are AMERICAN corporation and citizens
-that the evidence presented is located outside the Philippines

It is the theory of the petitioner that the foreign elements in the dispute NECESSITATE the
IMMEDIATE APPLICATION of the doctrine of FORUM non Conveniens.
 The Court outlined the CONSECUTIVE PHASES involved in judicial resolution of conflicts of laws:
1. Jurisdiction
2. Choice of law
3. Recognition and enforcement of Judgment
For a local judicial to resolve controversies of foreign element the following requisites must
be proved:
a. That the Philippine court is one to which tha parties may conveniently resort
b. That the Philippine court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and
facts
c. That the Philippine court has or is likely to have the power to enforce its decision.
 The Court ruled that when the subject contract included a stipulation that the same shall be
governed by the laws of State of Connecticut DOES NOT suggest that the Philippine Courts or
any other foreign tribunal are precluded from hearing the civil action.
 Jurisdiction and Choice of Law are TWO DISTINCT CONCEPTS. Jurisdiction considers whether it is
fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state. Choice of law asks further question whether the
application of a substantive law which will determine the merits of the case is FAIR to both
parties.
 Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens – a court, in conflicts of laws cases MAY REFUSE
impositions on its jurisdiction where it is NOT THE MOST “CONVENIENT” or available forum and
the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere.
 Petitioner averments of the foreign elements in the case ARE NOT SUFFICIENT to oust the trial
court of its jurisdiction.

HENCE petition denied.