G.R. No. 93833 - Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd. (Nippon) is a Japanese consultancy firm providing technical and management support in foreign infrastructure projects.
Respondent Minoru Kitamura is a Japanese national permanently residing in the Philippines.
On March 30, 1999, Nippon and Kitamura executed an ICA in Tokyo, written in Japanese, for a one-year period beginning April 1, 1999.

Under the ICA, Kitamura served as project manager of the Southern Tagalog Access Road (STAR) Project in the Philippines.
As STAR neared completion, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) engaged Nippon for the Bongabon-Baler Road Improvement (BBRI) Project effective January 28, 2000; Kitamura was named project manager.
On February 28, 2000, petitioner Hasegawa (Nippon’s International Division GM) informed Kitamura that his ICA would expire on March 31, 2000, with no automatic renewal.

Kitamura, fearing unemployment, through counsel requested negotiation and reassignment to BBRI; Nippon refused, insisting the ICA had expired.
On June 1, 2000, Kitamura filed Civil Case No. 00-0264 for specific performance and damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lipa City.
Petitioners moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, invoking lex loci celebrationis and lex contractus (Japanese law), but the RTC denied the motion on June 29, 2000.

Petitioners filed a first certiorari petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 60205) in the Court of Appeals (CA); it was dismissed on procedural grounds (defective certification and verification).
A second petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 60827), properly verified and certified, challenged the RTC’s jurisdiction; on April 18, 2001, the CA denied relief, applying lex loci solutionis over lex loci celebrationis.
The CA denied reconsideration on July 25, 2001. Petitioners then sought review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

Whether the first CA petition’s dismissal barred the re-filing of a second petition.
Whether defects in verification/certification and corporate authorization warranted dismissal of the Supreme Court petition.

Whether Philippine courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over a civil action for specific performance and damages involving a contract executed in Japan between Japanese nationals, based on: