Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    Raytheon Vs Stockton

    Uploaded by

    Louie Sallador
    This case discusses the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Stockton Rouzie Jr., an American citizen, filed a case against Raytheon International and another company for unpaid commissions. Raytheon argued the case should be dismissed under forum non conveniens because the parties and witnesses were foreign and the contract specified Connecticut law. The court found that while choice of law was Connecticut, jurisdiction and choice of law are separate issues. Dismissing under forum non conveniens requires factual determination that another forum is more convenient, which was not clearly established. The lower courts were within their discretion to assume jurisdiction, so the Supreme Court upheld their rulings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Raytheon Vs Stockton

    Uploaded by

    Louie Sallador
    56 views1 page
    This case discusses the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Stockton Rouzie Jr., an American citizen, filed a case against Raytheon International and another company for unpaid commissions. Raytheon argued the case should be dismissed under forum non conveniens because the parties and witnesses were foreign and the contract specified Connecticut law. The court found that while choice of law was Connecticut, jurisdiction and choice of law are separate issues. Dismissing under forum non conveniens requires factual determination that another forum is more convenient, which was not clearly established. The lower courts were within their discretion to assume jurisdiction, so the Supreme Court upheld their rulings.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    Raytheon vs Stockton

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Stockton Rouzie Jr., an American citizen, filed a case against Raytheon International and another company for unpaid commissions. Raytheon argued the case should be dismissed under forum non conveniens because the parties and witnesses were foreign and the contract specified Connecticut law. The court found that while choice of law was Connecticut, jurisdiction and choice of law are separate issues. Dismissing under forum non conveniens requires factual determination that another forum is more convenient, which was not clearly established. The lower courts were within their discretion to assume jurisdiction, so the Supreme Court upheld their rulings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    56 views1 page

    Raytheon Vs Stockton

    Uploaded by

    Louie Sallador
    This case discusses the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Stockton Rouzie Jr., an American citizen, filed a case against Raytheon International and another company for unpaid commissions. Raytheon argued the case should be dismissed under forum non conveniens because the parties and witnesses were foreign and the contract specified Connecticut law. The court found that while choice of law was Connecticut, jurisdiction and choice of law are separate issues. Dismissing under forum non conveniens requires factual determination that another forum is more convenient, which was not clearly established. The lower courts were within their discretion to assume jurisdiction, so the Supreme Court upheld their rulings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    23 RAYTHEON INTERNATIONAL, INC, the petitioner it being a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the

    vs. Philippines. The decision of the RTC was affirmed by the C.A. upon appeal by the
    STOCKTON W. ROUZIE, JR petitioner BMSI.
    G.R. No. 162894
    DATE: Feb. 26, 2008 ISSUE:
    By: Sallador, Louie John S.
    Topic: Forum Non Conveniens Whether or Not the complaint must be dismissed on the ground of forum non
    Petitioner: RAYTHEON INTERNATIONAL, INC, conveniens
    Respondent: STOCKTON W. ROUZIE, JR
    Ponente: , J. Tinga HELD:
    >No, Petitioner mainly asserts that the written contract between respondent and
    DOCTRINE: A court in conflicts-of-laws cases may refuse impositions on its BMSI included a valid choice of law clause, that is, that the contract shall be
    jurisdiction where it is not the most "convenient" or available forum and the governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut. It also mentions the presence of
    parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. foreign elements in the dispute – namely, the parties and witnesses involved are
    American corporations and citizens and the evidence to be presented is located
    FACTS: outside the Philippines – that renders our local courts inconvenient forums.
    >In 1990 Stockton Rouzie Jr an American Citizen was hired by Brand Marine Services Petitioner theorizes that the foreign elements of the dispute necessitate the
    Inc. (BMSI) a duly organized corporation under the laws of the state of Connecticut, immediate application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
    To act as its representative to negotiate the sale of services in several government
    projects in the Philippines for an agreed fee of 10% of the gross receipts. Stockton > That the subject contract included a stipulation that the same shall be governed
    secured a service contract for the dredging of rivers affected by the Mt. Pinatubo by the laws of the State of Connecticut does not suggest that the Philippine courts,
    eruption and mudflows. or any other foreign tribunal for that matter, are precluded from hearing the civil
    action. Jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct concepts. Jurisdiction
    >On July 16, 1994 Stockton filed an action against BMSI and Rust Internation Inc considers whether it is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state; choice of law
    (Rust) with the NLRC for the nonpayment of commission and illegal termination and asks the further question whether the application of a substantive law which will
    breach of employment contract which was ruled in favor of Stockton upon appeal determine the merits of the case is fair to both parties. The choice of law stipulation
    by BMSI and RUST the decision was reversed and the complaint was dismissed on will become relevant only when the substantive issues of the instant case develop,
    the ground of Lack of Jurisdiction. that is, after hearing on the merits proceeds before the trial court.

    >Jan 8 1999 Stockton now a resident of La Union filed an action for damages with >Dismissing a case based on the principle of forum non conveniens requires a
    the RTC of Bauang La Union with the same allegations which were first filed with factual determination it is more properly considered as a matter of defense. While
    the NLRC and that Stockton was verbally employed by BMSI to negotiate the sale of it is within the discretion of the trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on
    services to the government and that he was not paid the commission due on the this ground, it should do so only after vital facts are established.
    dredging project he secured for BMSI and he also alleged that BMSI and RUST had RULING:
    combined and functioned as one company. Finding no grave abuse of discretion on the trial court, the Court of Appeals
    respected its conclusion that it can assume jurisdiction over the dispute
    >In its Answer BMSI referred to the NLRC decision which disclosed that there is a notwithstanding its foreign elements. In the same manner, the Court defers to the
    written agreement between Stockton and BMSI, RUST that the rights and sound discretion of the lower courts because their findings are binding on this
    obligations of the parties shall be governed by the laws of the state of Connecticut Court.
    and sought for its dismissal on the ground of Forum non conveniens and
    WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision
    >The RTC denied the motion of BMSI stating that the principle of Forum Non and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 67001 are hereby
    Conveniens was inapplicable because the trial court could enforce judgement on AFFIRMED.

    You might also like