Saudi Arabian Airlines vs Court of Appeals

297 SCRA 469 – Conflict of Laws – Private International Law – Situs – Locus Actus
Milagros Morada was working as a stewardess for Saudia Arabian Airlines. In 1990, while she and some co-workers were in a lay-over
in Jakarta, Indonesia, an Arab co-worker tried to rape her in a hotel room. Fortunately, a roomboy heard her cry for help and two of her
Arab co-workers were arrested and detained in Indonesia. Later, Saudia Airlines re-assigned her to work in their Manila office. While
working in Manila, Saudia Airlines advised her to meet with a Saudia Airlines officer in Saudi. She did but to her surprise, she was brought
to a Saudi court where she was interrogated and eventually sentenced to 5 months imprisonment and 289 lashes; she allegedly violated
Muslim customs by partying with males. The Prince of Makkah got wind of her conviction and the Prince determined that she was
wrongfully convicted hence the Prince absolved her and sent her back to the Philippines. Saudia Airlines later on dismissed Morada.
Morada then sued Saudia Airlines for damages under Article 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. Saudia Airlines filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case because the applicable law should be the law of Saudi Arabia. Saudia Airlines also
prayed for other reliefs under the premises.
ISSUE: Whether or not Saudia Airlines’ contention is correct.
HELD: No. Firstly, the RTC has acquired jurisdiction over Saudia Airlines when the latter filed a motion to dismiss with petition for other
reliefs. The asking for other reliefs effectively asked the court to make a determination of Saudia Airlines’s rights hence a submission to
the court’s jurisdiction.
Secondly, the RTC has acquired jurisdiction over the case because as alleged in the complaint of Morada, she is bringing the suit for
damages under the provisions of our Civil Law and not of the Arabian Law. Morada then has the right to file it in the QC RTC because
under the Rules of Court, a plaintiff may elect whether to file an action in personam (case at bar) in the place where she resides or where
the defendant resides. Obviously, it is well within her right to file the case here because if she’ll file it in Saudi Arabia, it will be very
disadvantageous for her (and of course, again, Philippine Civil Law is the law invoked).
Thirdly, one important test factor to determine where to file a case, if there is a foreign element involved, is the so called “locus actus” or
where an act has been done. In the case at bar, Morada was already working in Manila when she was summoned by her superior to go
to Saudi Arabia to meet with a Saudia Airlines officer. She was not informed that she was going to appear in a court trial. Clearly, she
was defrauded into appearing before a court trial which led to her wrongful conviction. The act of defrauding, which is tortuous, was
committed in Manila and this led to her humiliation, misery, and suffering. And applying the torts principle in a conflicts case, the SC finds
that the Philippines could be said as a situs of the tort (the place where the alleged tortious conduct took place).

Kazuhiro Hasegawa vs Minoru Kitamura

538 SCRA 261 – Conflict of Laws – Private International Law – Jurisdiction – Lex Loci Celebrationis – Lex Loci Solutionis – State of the
Most Significant Relationship – Forum Non Conveniens
In March 1999, Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd, a Japanese firm, was contracted by the Department of Public Works and
Highways (DPWH) to supervise the construction of the Southern Tagalog Access Road. In April 1999, Nippon entered into an independent
contractor agreement (ICA) with Minoru Kitamura for the latter to head the said project. The ICA was entered into in Japan and is effective
for a period of 1 year (so until April 2000). In January 2000, DPWH awarded the Bongabon-Baler Road project to Nippon. Nippon
subsequently assigned Kitamura to head the road project. But in February 2000, Kazuhiro Hasegawa, the general manager of Nippon
informed Kitamura that they are pre-terminating his contract. Kitamura sought Nippon to reconsider but Nippon refused to negotiate.
Kitamura then filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against Nippon in the RTC of Lipa.
Hasegawa filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the contract was entered in Japan hence, applying the principle of lex loci
celebracionis, cases arising from the contract should be cognizable only by Japanese courts. The trial court denied the motion. Eventually,
Nippon filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Hasegawa, on appeal significantly changed its theory, this time invoking forum non conveniens; that the RTC is an inconvenient forum
because the parties are Japanese nationals who entered into a contract in Japan. Kitamura on the other hand invokes the trial court’s
ruling which states that matters connected with the performance of contracts are regulated by the law prevailing at the place of
performance, so since the obligations in the ICA are executed in the Philippines, courts here have jurisdiction.
ISSUE: Whether or not the complaint against Nippon should be dismissed.
HELD: No. The trial court did the proper thing in taking cognizance of it.
In the first place, the case filed by Kitamura is a complaint for specific performance and damages. Such case is incapable of pecuniary
estimation; such cases are within the jurisdiction of the regional trial court.
Hasegawa filed his motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens. However, such ground is not one of those provided for by
the Rules as a ground for dismissing a civil case.
The Supreme Court also emphasized that the contention that Japanese laws should apply is premature. In conflicts cases, there are
three phases and each next phase commences when one is settled, to wit:

1. Jurisdiction – Where should litigation be initiated? Court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter, the parties, the issues, the
property, the res. Also considers, whether it is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state; choice of law asks the further question
whether the application of a substantive law which will determine the merits of the case is fair to both parties.
2. Choice of Law – Which law will the court apply? Once a local court takes cognizance, it does not mean that the local laws must
automatically apply. The court must determine which substantive law when applied to the merits will be fair to both parties.
3. Recognition and Enforcement of Judgment – Where can the resulting judgment be enforced?

1
This case is not yet in the second phase because upon the RTC’s taking cognizance of the case, Hasegawa immediately filed a motion
to dismiss, which was denied. He filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. Then he bypassed the proper procedure by
immediately filing a petition for certiorari. The question of which law should be applied should have been settled in the trial court had
Hasegawa not improperly appealed the interlocutory order denying his MFR.

CONFLICT OF LAWS raytheon international vs rouzie gr 162894

FACTS

Brand Marine Services, Inc. (BMSI), a corporation duly organized & existing under the laws of Connecticut, &Stockton Rouzie, Jr., an American
citizen, entered into a contract

BMSI hired Rouzie as its representative to negotiate the sale of services in several government projects in thePhilippines for an agreed
remuneration of 10% of the gross receipts.

Rouzie secured a service contract w/ the Rep. of Phil. on behalf of BMSI for the dredging of rivers affected by the Mt.Pinatubo eruption &
mudflows.

Rouzie filed before the NLRC a suit against BMSI and Rust International (Rust) for alleged nonpayment of commissions, illegal termination, & breach
of employment contract.

The Labor Arbiter order

ed BMSI & Rust to pay Rouzie’s money claims.

Upon appeal, the NLRC reversed & dismissed Rouzie’s complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Rouzie filed an action for damages before the RTC of La Union (where he was a resident) against Raytheon International. He reiterated that he was
not paid the commissions due him from the Pinatubo dredging project w/c hesecured on behalf of BMSI. The complaint also averred that BMSI,
RUST and Raytheon had combined & functioned as 1 company.

RAYTHEON SOUGHT THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUNDS OF FAILURE TO STATE ACAUSE OF ACTION & FORUM NON
CONVENIENS & PRAYED FOR DAMAGES BY WAY OF COMPULSORY

COUNTERCLAIM. THE RTC DENIED RAYTHEON’S MOTION. THE CA AFFIRMED.

Raytheon’s contention: The written contract between Rouzie & BMSI included a valid choice of law clause, that is, that the contract shall be
governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut. It also mentions the presence of foreign elements in the dispute, namely that the parties &
witnesses involved are American corporations & citizens & the evidence to be presented is located outside the Philippines, that renders our local
courts inconvenient forums. The foreign elements of the dispute necessitate the immediate application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

ISSUES(a) W/N the RTC had jurisdiction.(b) W/N the complaint should be dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens.

RULING

(a) YES.

On the matter of jurisdiction over a conflicts-of-laws problem where the case is filed in a Philippine court and where the court has jurisdiction over
the subject matter, the parties and the res, it may or can proceed to try the case even if the rules of conflict-of-laws or the convenience of the
parties point to a foreign forum. This is an exercise of sovereign prerogative of the country where the case is filed.

2
Jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of an action is conferred by the Constitution and the law & by the material allegations in the
complaint, irrespective of w/n the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein. The case file was an action for
damages arising from an alleged breach of contract. Undoubtedly, the nature of the action and the amount of damages prayed are w/in the
jurisdiction of the RTC.

As regards jurisdiction over the parties, the RTC acquired jurisdiction over Rouzi upon the filing of the complaint. On the other hand, jurisdiction
over the person of Raytheon was acquired by its voluntary appearance in court.

That THE SUBJECT CONTRACT INCLUDED A STIPULATION THAT THE SAME SHALL BE GOVERNED BYTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT DOES
NOT SUGGEST THAT THE PHILIPPINE COURTS,
OR ANY OTHER FOREIGN TRIBUNAL FOR THAT MATTER, ARE PRECLUDED FROM HEARING THE CIVIL ACTION.

JURISDICTION & CHOICE OF LAW ARE 2 DISTINCT CONCEPTS. Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state;
choice of law asks the further question whether the application of a substantive law which will determine the merits of the case is fair to both
parties. The choice of law stipulation will be come relevant only when the substantive issues of the instant case develop, that is, after hearing on
the merits proceeds before the trial court.

(b) NO.

UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, A COURT, IN CONFLICTS-OF-LAWS 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.

Raytheon’s averments of the foreign elements are not sufficient to oust the RTC of its jurisdiction over the case and the parties involved.

Moreover, the propriety of dismissing a case based on the principle of forum non conveniens requires a factual determination; hence, it is more
properly considered as a matter of defense. While it is w/c the discretion of the trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it
should do so only after vital facts are established, to determine whether special circumstances require the court’s desistance.