Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA (1998) - PH vs.

SAUDI

-SAUDIA hired plaintiff Milagros Morada as a Flight Attendant for its airlines based in Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia. While on a lay- over in Jakarta, Indonesia, plaintiff went to a disco dance with fellow
crew members (Allah and Thamer), both Saudi nationals. Because it was almost morning when they
returned to their hotels, they agreed to have breakfast together at the room of the other (Thamer).
When they were in the room, Allah left on some pretext. Shortly after he did, Thamer attempted to
rape plaintiff. Fortunately, a roomboy and several security personnel heard her cries for help and
rescued her. Later, the Indonesian police came and arrested Thamer and Allah Al-Gazzawi, the latter
as an accomplice.
-When plaintiff returned to Jeddah a few days later, several SAUDIA officials interrogated her about
the Jakarta incident. They then requested her to go back to Jakarta to help arrange the release of
Thamer and Allah. In Jakarta, SAUDIA Legal Officer Sirah Akkad and base manager Baharini
negotiated with the police for the immediate release of the detained crew members but did not
succeed because plaintiff refused to cooperate. She was afraid that she might be tricked into
something she did not want because of her inability to understand the local dialect. She also declined
to sign a blank paper and a document written in the local dialect. Eventually, SAUDIA allowed
plaintiff to return to Jeddah but barred her from the Jakarta flights.
-Plaintiff learned that, through the intercession of the Saudi Arabian government, the Indonesian
authorities agreed to deport Thamer and Allah after two weeks of detention. Eventually, they were
again put in service. In September 1990, defendant SAUDIA transferred plaintiff to Manila.
-Just when plaintiff thought that the Jakarta incident was already behind her, her superiors requested
her to see the Chief Legal Officer of SAUDIA, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. When she saw him, he
brought her to the police station where the police took her passport and questioned her about the
Jakarta incident. Miniewy simply stood by as the police put pressure on her to
make a statement dropping the case. Not until she agreed to do so did the police return her passport
and allowed her to catch the afternoon flight out of Jeddah.
- One year and a half later, a few minutes before the departure of her flight to Manila, plaintiff was
not allowed to board the plane and instead ordered to take a later flight to Jeddah to see the Chief
Legal Officer of SAUDIA. When she did, a SAUDIA office brought her to a Saudi court where she
was asked to sign a document written in Arabic. They told her that this was necessary to close the
case. As it turned out, plaintiff signed a notice to her to appear before the court.
-The next time she was escorted by SAUDIA’s legal officer to court, the judge rendered a decision
against her sentencing her to 5 months imprisonment and to 286 lashes. Apparently, she was tried by
the court which found her guilty of (1) adultery; (2) going to a disco, dancing and listening to the
music in violation of Islamic laws; and (3) socializing with the male crew, in contravention of Islamic
tradition.
-Facing conviction, private respondent sought the help of her employer, SAUDIA. Unfortunately, she
was denied any assistance. She then asked the PH Embassy to help her while her case is on appeal.
-Because she was wrongfully convicted, the Prince of Makkah dismissed the case against her and
allowed her to leave Saudi Arabia. Shortly before her return to Manila, she was terminated from the
service by SAUDIA, without her being informed of the cause.
-Morada filed a Complaint for damages against SAUDIA.
- SAUDIA filed an Omnibus Motion To Dismiss 14 which raised the following grounds, to wit: (1)
that the Complaint states no cause of action against Saudia; (2) that defendant Al-Balawi is not a real
party in interest; (3) that the claim or demand set forth in the Complaint has been waived, abandoned
or otherwise extinguished; and (4) that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case.
RTC: denied the Motion to Dismiss, Amended Complaint filed by Saudia.
Saudia’s contention: the RTC has no jurisdiction to hear and try the case on the basis of Article 21
of the Civil Code, since the proper law applicable is the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
CA: the PH is an appropriate forum considering that the Amended Complaint's basis for recovery of
damages is Article 21 of the Civil Code, and thus, clearly within the jurisdiction of respondent Court.
(because articles invoked by Morada were local laws)
ISSUE/S:
1. WON there is a conflict of law in this case [YES] –
MAIN ISSUE
2. WON the RTC has jurisdiction to hear and try the case [YES]
3. WON respondent appellate court erred in ruling that in this case PH law should govern [NO. civil
code is applicable]
Petitioner’s contention: private respondent's claim for alleged abuse of rights occurred in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It alleges that the existence of a foreign element qualifies the instant case
for the application of the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by virtue of the lex loci delicti
commissi rule. (law of the place where the delict [tort] was committed)
Private respondent Morada’s contention: since her Amended Complaint is based on Articles 19,
35,21 and 36 of the Civil Code, then the instant case is properly a matter of domestic law.
RULING:
1st ISSUE –
- the foreign element consisted in the fact that private respondent Morada is a resident Philippine
national, and that petitioner SAUDIA is a resident foreign corporation. Also, by virtue of the
employment of Morada with the petitioner Saudia as a flight stewardess, events did transpire during
her many occasions of travel across national borders, particularly from Manila, Philippines to Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia, and vice versa, that caused a "conflicts" situation to arise.
A factual situation that cuts across territorial lines and is affected by the diverse laws of two or more
states is said to contain a "foreign element". The presence of a foreign element is inevitable since
social and economic affairs of individuals and associations are rarely confined to the geographic
limits of their birth or conception.
-The forms in which this foreign element may appear are many. The foreign element may simply
consist in the fact that one of the parties to a contract is an alien or has a foreign domicile, or that a
contract between nationals of one State involves properties situated in another State. In other cases,
the foreign element may assume a complex form.
-In the instant case, the foreign element consisted in the fact that private respondent Morada is a
resident Philippine national, and that petitioner SAUDIA is a resident foreign corporation. Also, by
virtue of the employment of Morada with the petitioner Saudia as a flight stewardess, events did
transpire during her many occasions of travel across national borders, particularly from Manila,
Philippines to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and vice versa, that caused a "conflicts" situation to arise.
-There is a foreign element in this case, hence, it involves a conflict of laws question.
2nd ISSUE – The RTC of QC has jurisdiction and Philippine law should govern. Its jurisdiction has
basis on Sec. 1 of RA 7691 and Rules of Court on venue. Pragmatic considerations, including the
convenience of the parties, also weigh heavily in favor of the RTC assuming jurisdiction. Paramount
is the private interest of the litigant. Weighing the relative claims of the parties, the court a quo found
it best to hear the case in the Philippines. Had it refused to take cognizance of the case, it would be
forcing Morada to seek remedial action elsewhere, i.e. in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia where she no
longer maintains substantial connections. That would have caused a fundamental unfairness to her.
-Moreover, by hearing the case in the Philippines no unnecessary difficulties and inconvenience have
been shown by either of the parties. The choice of forum of the Morada should be upheld.
-Similarly, the trial court has also acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the parties in this case. By
filing her Complaint and Amended Complaint with the trial court, Morada has voluntary submitted
herself to the jurisdiction of the court. Similarly, SAUDIA has filed several motions asking the court
for relief. This indicates that SAUDIA indeed has submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court.
3rd ISSUE - As to the choice of applicable law, we note that choice-of-law problems seek to answer
two important questions:
(1) What legal system should control a given situation
where some of the significant facts occurred in two or
more states; and
(2) to what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the situation.
-Several theories have been propounded in order to identify the legal system that should ultimately
control. Although ideally, all choice-of-law theories should intrinsically advance both notions of
justice and predictability, they do not always do so. The forum is then faced with the problem of
deciding which of these two important values should be stressed.
-Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us to determine under what category a certain set
of facts or rules fall. This process is known a"characterization", or the "doctrine of qualification".
It is the "process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question specified in a
conflicts rule." The purpose of "characterization" is to enable the forum to select the proper law.
-Our starting point of analysis here is not a legal relation, but a factual situation, event, or operative
fact. An essential element of conflict rules is the indication of a "test" or "connecting factor" or
"point of contact". Choice- of-law rules invariably consist of a factual relationship (such as
property right, contract claim) and a connecting factor or point of contact, such as the situs of the
res, the place of celebration, the place of performance, or the place of wrongdoing.