Saudi Arabian Airlines V.

CA

297 SCRA 469 (1998)

Summary: A Filipina stewardess was attempted to be raped by fellow male attendants who were Saudi
nationals in Indonesia. The complaint for attempted rape was filed but when she got in Saudi Arabia, Saudi
authorities questioned her and forced her to drop the charges against the two Saudi nationals. Before she left
for Manila, she was brought to a Saudi court and made to sign Arabic documents (all in the pretense that it
was routine procedure in dropping case against Saudi nationals) but was instead sentenced for adultery and
other violations of Islamic laws and sentenced to 5 months imprisonment and lashes. With assistance of RP
embassy, Saudi officials admitted they wrongly accused Filipina. Still, Saudi Arabian Airlines terminated the
contract. Filipina filed for damages against the Airline Company (SAUDIA) in RP courts, which Saudi Arabian
Airlines contested, saying that RP lacked substantial interest in the case. Court held that RP courts have
jurisdiction since both the plaintiff and defendant claimed reliefs from RP courts, and that RP law is applicable
since the injury is in RP and it is of no consequence that the other acts happened abroad (then goes the long
long discussion on PRIL)

FACTS:

 Milagros Morada is a flight atttendant for Saudi Arabian Airlines (SAUDIA)

 While in Jakarta, she went to disco with fellow attendants Thamer and Allah (both Saudi nationals)
 After, they agreed to have breakfast at Thamer's room where Thamer attempted to rape her after
Allah excused himself.
 Rape was not consumated when hotel staff heard Morada's cries.
 Thamer and Allah were both arrested
 Saudi government made the Indonesian authorities deport the 2 Saudi nationals only after 2 weeks of
detention
 Morada was transferred to Manila
 During one of her trips to Jeddah (1992), she was brought to the police who took her passport and
questioned her about the Jakarta incident.
 Her passport was returned only after she agreed to drop the case against the 2 Saudi nationals.
 In 1993, before she was to return to Manila, a SAUDIA officer brought her to Saudi Court to sign an
Arabic document, then later interrogated through an interpreter…all these with the assurance of
SAUDIA that it was merely routine procedure necessary to drop the charges against 2 nationals.
 INSTEAD, SHE WAS SENTENCED TO 5 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT AND 286 LASHES FOR
ADULTERY, GOING TO DISCO AND LISTENING TO MUSIC AND SOCIALIZING W/ MALE CREW,
ALL IN VIOLAITONOF ISLAMIC LAW

 RP embassy assisted Morada, eventually Saudi authorities admitted that she had been wrongly
convicted
 SAUDIA terminated her contract before she was allowed to return to Manila
 Morada filed COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: Art 19 & 21, NCC
 SAUDIA alleged that:
0 RP lacked substantial interest in the case
1 RP courts have no jurisdiction

ISSUES:
←
← WON RP Courts could exercise jurisdiction
← WON RP Law is the choice of law applicable?
←
← HELD:

YES
 Though Art 19 merely declares a principle of law, Art 21 gives flesh to its provisions
 Allowed under Section 1 of RA 7691 (expanded jurisdiction of MTC)
0 Pragmatic considerations: Unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's
choice of forum should rarely be disturbed
 If dismiss, plaintiff would be compelled to bring her action in Saudi Arabia where she no longer have
any substantial connections, thus causing her fundamental unfairness
 No inconvenience and difficulty shown by SAUDIA
 In fact, SAUDIA has filed several motions and petition on other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction
of the court, thus, asked affirmative relief from the court

SECOND ISSUE:

YES

2 important questions sought to be answered by choice-of-law problems:

 What legal system should control a given situation where some of the significant facts occurred in two
or more states
 To what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the situation

Characterization/doctrine of qualification: process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind
question specified in a conflicts rule
 Purpose: enable the forum to select the proper law…HERE: CHARACTERIZED AS A TORT
1
2 In tort, the "connecting factor" or "point of contact" could be the place or places where the tortiuos
conduct or lex loci actus occurred
 HERE: RP is the place of tort
 Morada was already working in Manila but SAUDIA brought her to Jeddah on the pretense that she
would merely testify in an investigation of the charges she made against the 2 SAUDIA crew members
for the attack on her person while they were in Jakarta BUT INSTEAD, she was the one made to face
trial for very serious charges, including adultery and violation of Islamic laws and tradition.
 SO IT IS IN MANILA where SAUDIA deceived Morada
 Morada honestly believed that petitioner would, in the exercise of its rights and in the performance of
its duties, "act with justice, give her her due and observe honesty and good faith", but SAUDIA failed
to protect her
 That certain acts or parts of the injury allegedly occurred in another country is of no moment.
 For in our view, what is important here is the place where the over-all harm or the totality of the
alleged injury to the person, reputation, social standing and human rights of complainant, had lodged
according to the private respondent.
 All told, it is not without basis to identify the Philippines as the situs of the alleged tort.
APPLICATION OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP Rule

What are the contacts to be taken into account and evaluated according to their relative importance with
respect to the particular issue
 Place where the injury occurred
 Place where the conduct causing injury occurred
 The domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation, and place of business of parties
 Place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered

As applied in the case:

 Place of injury is RP
 Plaintiff is resident, national of RP
 Respondent is a resident foreign corporation engaged in the business of international air carriage
engaged in RP
 Relationship between the parties were entered in RP
3
RP TORTS LAW have paramount application
-Plaintiff has no obligation to prove the applicable SAUDI ARABIAN LAW because her Cause of action was
Art 19 and 21 of NCC.

It was SAUDIA who was invoking the applicability of Saudi Arabian law so it has the burden to plead and
establish it.