Forum non conveniens rule
Under this rule, a court, in conflicts 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 (Bank of America NT
& SA v. Court of Appeals, supra note 45, at 196).
The court may refuse to entertain a case for any of the following practical
reasons: (1) the belief that the matter can be better tried and decided
elsewhere, either because the main aspects of the case transpired in a foreign
jurisdiction or the material witnesses have their residence there; (2) the
belief that the non-resident plaintiff sought the forum, a practice known as
forum shopping, merely to secure procedural advantages or to convey or harass
the defendant; (3) the unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to
non-residents or aliens when the docket may already be overcrowded; (4) the
inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for effectuating the right sought
to be maintained; and (5) the difficulty of ascertaining foreign law (Puyat v.
Zabarte, 405 Phil. 413, 432 [2001]).
The court may refuse to entertain a case for any of the following practical
reasons: (1) the belief that the matter can be better tried and decided
elsewhere, either because the main aspects of the case transpired in a foreign
jurisdiction or the material witnesses have their residence there; (2) the
belief that the non-resident plaintiff sought the forum, a practice known as
forum shopping, merely to secure procedural advantages or to convey or harass
the defendant; (3) the unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to
non-residents or aliens when the docket may already be overcrowded; (4) the
inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for effectuating the right sought
to be maintained; and (5) the difficulty of ascertaining foreign law (Puyat v.
Zabarte, 405 Phil. 413, 432 [2001]).
