Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v.

Guerrero
G.R. No. 136804
FACTS:
• Guerrero filed a Complaint for Damages against the Bank
• (1) illegally withheld taxes charged against interests on his
checking account with the Bank;
• (2) a returned check worth US$18,000.00 due to signature
verification problems; and
• (3) unauthorized conversion of his account

• The Bank
• “Guerrero's account is governed by New York law and this law
does not permit any of Guerrero's claims except actual
damages “
• Filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking
dismissal of respondents claims for consequential, nominal,
temperate, moral and exemplary damages as well as
attorney's fees
• Provided an Affidavit by Atty Walden, a NY Atty. to support
the above motion
ISSUE: W/N the Walden affidavit can serve as proof of the
New York law

HELD:
• No. Foreign laws are not a matter of judicial notice. Like
any other fact, they must be alleged and proven
• Section 24 of Rule 132
• by (1) an official publication thereof or
• (2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal
custody thereof.
• Exception of Attorneys testifying in open court does not
Apply
• Citations in the Walden affidavit of various U.S. court
decisions do not constitute proof of the official records or
decisions of the U.S. courts
Crescent Petroleum Ltd. v. M/V "Lok Maheshwari",
G.R. No. 155014
FACTS:
• M/V "Lok Maheshwari" (Vessel) is an oceangoing vessel of
Indian registry that is owned by respondent Shipping
Corporation of India.
• It was chartered to Halla (South Korea)  Transmar
(Canadian)  Port Serv (Canadian)
• Portserv requested Crescent to deliver Bunker Fuels.
• Marinebulk delivered, Crescent Paid and billed Portserv.
• Portserv failed to pay despite demand.
• The Vessel docked in Cebu, Cresent instituted an action for
collection and enforcement of a maritime lien.
• RTC Ruled in favor of the Petitioner
• The CA reversed the decision of the RTC
ISSUE: W/N Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the foreign
vessel found inside Philippine waters for the enforcement of
a maritime lien against said vessel and/or its owners and
HELD: operators
• SC affirmed the decision of the CA
• Applied the Lauritzen test; factors considered
• (1) place of the wrongful act;
• (2) law of the flag;
• (3) allegiance or domicile of the injured;
• (4) allegiance of the defendant shipowner;
• (5) place of contract;
• (6) inaccessibility of foreign forum; and
• (7) law of the forum
• -- Out of the seven basic factors listed in the case of Lauritzen,
Philippine law only falls under one
• It is well-settled that a party whose cause of action or defense depends upon
a foreign law has the burden of proving the foreign law
• By erroneously claiming a maritime lien under Philippine law instead of
proving that a maritime lien exists under Canadian law, petitioner Crescent
failed to establish a cause of action.
EDI-Staffbuilders International, Inc. v. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 145587

FACTS:
• Private respondent Gran was an OFW recruited by EDI,
and deployed by ESI to work for OAB, in Riyadh,
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
• After Gran had been working for about five months for
OAB, his employment was terminated
• After his arrival in the Philippines, Gran instituted a
complaint, on July 21, 1994, against ESI/EDI, OAB with
the NLRC, National Capital Region, Quezon City for
underpayment of wages/salaries and illegal dismissal
ISSUE: W/N Philippine laws should govern the matters
not stated in the employment contract

HELD:
• Yes. the employment contract signed by Gran specifically states
that Saudi Labor Laws will govern matters not provided for in
the
• Being the law intended by the parties (lex loci intentiones) to
apply to the contract, Saudi Labor Laws should govern all
matters relating to the termination of the employment of
Gran.
• In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law
applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the
foreign law.
• The foreign law is treated as a question of fact to be properly
pleaded and proved as the judge or labor arbiter cannot take
judicial notice of a foreign law