Practice question
A Malaysian creditor sues a Philippine corporation here for reimbursement under an agreement executed and performed in Malaysia. The Philippine court has the legally required jurisdiction; relevant documents can be presented and assets are available here for enforcement. The defendant invokes only the foreign place of contracting as conclusive. Following PNCC, which answer is best?
- The court should assess the actual convenience, decision-making and enforcement factors; foreign execution alone does not compel dismissal
- Every foreign contract necessarily defeats subject-matter jurisdiction
- Philippine assets are always irrelevant
- The foreign creditor automatically wins on the merits
- The defendant can remove jurisdiction merely by naming Malaysia
Legal references
- PNCC v. Asiavest Merchant Bankers, G.R. 172301, August 19, 2015: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/61375
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.