Foreign Tort Claim
Tortious liability is transitory
•
The
liability resulting from the conduct is “deemed personal to the perpetrator of
the wrong, following him whithersoever he may go, so that compensations may be exacted
from him in any proper tribunal which may obtain jurisdiction of the
defendant’s person, the right to sue not being confined to the place where the
cause of the action arises.”
Conditions for the enforcement of tort
claims
•
In
general, claims for damages arising from torts committed abroad may be given
due course in the forum court if:
- The
foreign tort is based on a civil action and not on a crime;
- The
foreign tort is not contrary to the public policy of the forum; and
- The
judicial machinery of the forum is adequate to satisfy the claim.
Products liability of the foreign
manufacturer
•
Such
suits may be based on negligence, strict liability in tort or breach of
warranty against hidden defects.
•
Courts
of the plaintiff’s home state assume jurisdiction over such cases and apply the
forum law because it has a real interest in allowing its injured domiciliary to
recover damages from an out-of-state manufacturer.
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior
Court of California
•
Asahi
Metal Industry Co. manufactures tire valve assemblies in Japan and sells them
to several tire manufacturers, including
Cheng Shin Rubber Industrial, a Taiwanese company.
•
In
1978, Gary Zurcher, driver of a motorcycle lost control of his vehicle, when
the tire blew, and collided with a tractor, resulting in injuries to the driver
and death to his wife.
•
He
filed a product liability against the Taiwanese company alleging that the
accident was caused by a defect in the make of the motorcycle
•
The
Taiwanese company filed a cross-complaint seeking indemnification from Asahi.
•
Asahi
tried to get the suit thrown out, arguing the court could not exercise
jurisdiction without violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
•
Cheng
Shin and Zurcher reached a settlement.
•
Exercise
of jurisdiction was improper and violated Asahi’s due process rights.
•
Asahi
made no efforts to cater to California.
Products liability of the foreign
manufacturer
•
Bier
v. Mines de Potasse d’ Alsac: Whether the place where the harmful event
occurred, which was the test imposed by Art. 5(3) of the Brussels Convention,
meant the place where the wrongful conduct occurred (France) or the place where
its damaging effects were felt (the Netherlands).
•
It
had no jurisdiction, but, when the case was referred to the European Court, the
latter ruled that the plaintiff could at its election sue either at the place
where the damage occurred or the place of commission of the acts giving rise to
it.
Sovereignty as Basis of Jurisdiction
•
To
justify any exercise of jurisdiction over a defendant present within the
territory, however short, and to deny enforcement of a foreign court judgment
over a defendant who was not present within the court’s jurisdiction.
•
Pennoyer
v Neff: “every state possess exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over person
and property within its territory… no state can exercise direct jurisdiction
and authority over persons and property not within its territory.”
Worldwide Volkswagen Corporation v.
Charles Woodson
•
Harry
and Kay Robinson purchased an Audi automobile from Seaway Volkswagen, Inc. in
New York State in 1976. The following year they left New York to move to
Arizona.
•
While
they were driving through Oklahoma, another car struck them, causing a fire which
burned Kay Robinson and two of her children.
•
The
Robinsons brought a products liability suit in Oklahoma claiming that their
injuries resulted from defective design and placement for the Audi’s gas tank
and fuel system. The Robinsons joined as defendants the auto manufacturer,
Audi, its importer, Volkswagen of America, Inc., its regional distributor,
World Wide Volkswagen Corporation, and its retail dealer, Seaway.
•
Forseeability
of being asked to defend a suit in a particular forum is not a sufficient
benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. Instead, it
is the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum state that determines
whether it is reasonable for a defendant to be hailed into court. Because
Seaway and World-Wide had no contacts, ties or relations with the state of
Oklahoma, jurisdiction would violate the Due Process Clause.
The Alien Tort Act
•
Enacted
in 1789. Grants U.S. district court original jurisdiction over any civil action
by an alien for a tort committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty
of the U.S.
•
Hilao
v Estate of Ferdinand Marcos: The claims for damages arising from tort
committed abroad may be given due course in the court of the forum not only in
the theory of vested rights but also the internalization of human rights laws. The
decision of Hawaii District Court, which was affirmed by the US CA, awarded
damages to victims of human rights abuses committed by Marcos and his
officials.
Filartiga v. Pena-Irala
•
A
suit claiming that Pena-Irala had tortured Filartiga’s 17 yr. old son to death
while he was a police Inspector General, was brought by Filartiga . All parties
were Paraguayan citizens. Jurisdiction was based on the Alien Tort Statute,
which provided jurisdiction for tort committed in violation of “the law of
nations.” The case was dismissed by the district court for lack of jurisdiction
to which Filartiga appealed.
•
For
purpose of the Alien Tort Statute, may torture be considered as a violation of
the law of nations?
•
For
purpose of the Alien Tort Statute, torture may be considered to violate law of
nations. The prohibition against torture has become part of customary
international law. Various United Nations declarations such as the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the 1975 Declaration on the Protection of All
Persons from Torture further portrays the fact that prohibition against torture
has become part of customary international law. Torture has been officially
renounced in the vast majority of nations and this is the reason why this court
concluded that torture violates the law of nations.
Philippine Rule on Foreign Torts
•
There
is no specific statutory law governing the enforcement of claims for damages
arising form foreign torts.
•
The
English Rule may be followed such that the tort committed abroad is actionable
in the country where it was committed and also under Philippine law.
•
There
will be no problem of choice of law because Philippine law on torts will be
applied wherever the suit is brought.
Distinguishing Between Torts and Crimes
Torts
|
Crimes
|
•
Tort law assign liability to the perpetrators in
order to indemnify the victim for injuries he sustained.
|
•
Penal laws are promulgated to punish and reform
the perpetrators and deter them and other from violating the law.
|
•
A tort is transitory in character and as such,
liability is deemed personal to the tortfeasor and makes him amenable to suit
on whatever jurisdiction he is found.
|
•
A crime is local in that the perpetrator of the
wrong can be sued only in the state wherein he commits the crime.
|
•
An injury to an individual who may be situated in
any place
|
•
An injury to the state where it is committed.
|
Lexi Loci Delicti
•
The
law of the place where the crime was committed is the controlling law since it
determines the specific law by which the criminal is to be penalized and at the
same time designates the state that has the jurisdiction to punish him.
•
Territorial
principle: crimes committed within the Philippines by all persons, whether
Filipino citizens or aliens, are prosecuted and penalized under Philippine law.
Three exceptions to the territorial rule
•
1st
pertains to crimes committed by state officials, diplomatic representatives and
officials of recognized international organization
•
Based
on the doctrine of state immunity from suit.
•
Unites
States v. Guinto: “the doctrine was also applicable to complaints filed against
state officials for acts allegedly performed in their official capacity.”
•
This
immunity for soveriegn acts (jure imperii) is impliedly waived when the foreign
state and its officials perform private, commercial or proprietary acts.
•
M.H.
Wylie v Rarang: an American naval officer who commits a crime or tortious act
while discharging his official functions is not covered by the immunity from
suit.
Liang (Huefeng) v. People of the
Philippines
•
Petitioner
is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Sometime in
1994, for allegedly uttering defamatory words against fellow ADB worker Joyce
Cabal, he was charged before the MeTC of Mandaluyong City with two counts of
oral defamation.
•
Petitioner
was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the MeTC. After fixing
petitioner’s bail, the MeTC released him to the custody of the Security Officer
of ADB.
•
The
next day, the MeTC judge received an “office of protocol” from the DFA stating
that petitioner is covered by immunity from legal process under section 45 of
the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government regarding the
Headquarters of the ADB in the country.
•
Based
on the said protocol communication that petitioner is immune from suit, the
MeTC judge without notice to the prosecution dismissed the criminal cases.
•
Whether
or not the petitioner’s case is covered with immunity from legal process with
regard to Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine
Government.
•
The
petitioner’s case is not covered by the immunity. Courts cannot blindly adhere
to the communication from the DFA that the petitioner is covered by any
immunity. It has no binding effect in courts. The court needs to protect the
right to due process not only of the accused but also of the prosecution.
•
Secondly,
the immunity under Section 45 of the Agreement is not absolute, but subject to
the exception that the acts must be done in “official capacity”. Hence,
slandering a person could not possibly be covered by the immunity agreement
because our laws do not allow the commission of a crime, such as defamation, in
the name of official duty.
3 exceptions
•
2nd
relates to crimes committed on board a foreign vessel even if it is within the
territorial waters of the coastal state.
•
Philippine
courts do not acquire jurisdiction over offenders nor can Philippine laws apply
as long as the effect of such crime does not disturb our peace and order.
•
The
rules on the jurisdiction of a coastal state over crimes committed in a foreign
vessel are now contained in Art. 27 of the UNCLOS.
US v. Fowler
•
In
August 12, 1901, the defendants were accused of the theft of 16 champagne
bottles worth 20 dollars while on board the vessel, “Lawton”. The counsel for
defendants alleged to the Court of First Instance of Manila that they were
without jurisdiction over the crime charged. Since it happened in the high seas
and not in the city of Manila or in the territory in which the jurisdiction of
the court extends, they asked that the case be dismissed.
•
Whether
or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over the criminal
case theft committed on board while navigating on high seas on a vessel not
registered in the Philippines.
•
The
Philippine court has jurisdiction over the crime of theft committed on high
seas on board a vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines. The
English Rule states that such crimes are triable in our country when crimes are
committed on board a foreign vessel sailing from a foreign port and which
enters the Philippine waters. In the case at bar, the vessel Lawton was navigating
the high seas at the commission of the crime. Given the location of the vessel
at the time, such act is not triable within our jurisdiction.
People v Wong Cheng
•
Appellee
is accused of having illegally smoked opium, aboard the merchant vessel Changsa
of English nationality while said vessel was anchored in Manila Bay two and a
half miles from the shores of the city. The demurrer filed by said appellee
alleged lack of jurisdiction on the part of the lower court, which so held and
dismissed the case.
•
Whether
the courts of the Philippines have jurisdiction over crime, like the one herein
involved, committed aboard merchant vessels anchored in our jurisdiction
waters.
•
The
mere possession of opium aboard a foreign vessel in transit was held by this court
not triable by our courts, because it being the primary object of our Opium Law
to protect the inhabitants of the Philippines against the disastrous effects
entailed by the use of this drug, its mere possession in such a ship, without
being used in our territory, does not being about in the said territory those
effects that our statute contemplates avoiding. Hence such a mere possession is
not considered a disturbance of the public order.
•
But
to smoke opium within our territorial limits, even though aboard a foreign
merchant ship, is certainly a breach of the public order here established,
because it causes such drug to produce its pernicious effects within our
territory. It seriously contravenes the purpose that our Legislature has in
mind in enacting the aforesaid repressive statute.
Three exceptions
•
The
third exception to the territorial rule bears on crimes which, although
committed by Philippine nationals abroad, are punishable under Philippine law.
•
Although
the crimes enumerated in Art. 2 of the RPC were committed outside of Philippine
territory, the Philippines can exercise and apply its penal laws for the reason
that its national interest is imperiled by such criminal acts.
•
Article 2. Except as provided in the treaties
and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be
enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere,
its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction,
against those who:
1. Should commit
an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
2. Should forge
or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or
obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be
liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the
obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding number;
4. While being
public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions; or
5. Should commit
any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in
Title One of Book Two of this Code.
Comments
Post a Comment