Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. Court of Appeals

In a conflict of laws situation involving torts, the Philippines may be considered the situs of the tort and the state with the most significant relationship to the dispute, warranting the application of Philippine law and the assumption of jurisdiction by Philippine courts, particularly when the plaintiff is a resident Filipino national and the defendant is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines.

• On January 21, 1988, defendant Saudi Arabian Airlines (SAUDIA) hired plaintiff Milagros P. Morada as a Flight Attendant based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
• On April 27, 1990, while on a lay-over in Jakarta, Indonesia, plaintiff went to a disco with fellow crew members Thamer Al-Gazzawi and Allah Al-Gazzawi, both Saudi nationals.
• When they returned to their hotel almost morning, they agreed to have breakfast at Thamer’s room, where Allah left on some pretext and Thamer attempted to rape plaintiff.
• Plaintiff was rescued by a roomboy and security personnel who heard her cries; Indonesian police arrested Thamer and Allah Al-Gazzawi as an accomplice.
• Upon returning to Jeddah, SAUDIA officials interrogated plaintiff and requested her to return to Jakarta to help arrange the release of the detained crew members, but she refused to cooperate due to fear and inability to understand the local dialect.
• SAUDIA barred plaintiff from Jakarta flights and transferred her to Manila in September 1990.
• On January 14, 1992, plaintiff’s superiors requested her to see Mr. Ali Meniewy, Chief Legal Officer of SAUDIA, in Jeddah, where he brought her to a police station; police took her passport and pressured her to make a statement dropping the case against Thamer and Allah, returning her passport only after she agreed.
• On June 16, 1993, in Riyadh, plaintiff was prevented from boarding her flight to Manila and ordered to take a later flight to Jeddah to see Meniewy; a SAUDIA officer brought her to a Saudi court where she was asked to sign a document written in Arabic, which turned out to be a notice to appear before the court on June 27, 1993.
• On June 27, 1993, plaintiff reported to Jeddah as summoned after receiving assurance from SAUDIA’s Manila manager that the investigation was routinary; on June 28, 1993, a Saudi judge interrogated her through an interpreter.
• At the airport, a SAUDIA officer prevented her from taking her flight, took away her passport, and told her to remain in Jeddah until further orders.
• On July 3, 1993, a SAUDIA legal officer escorted plaintiff to the same court where the judge rendered a decision sentencing her to five months imprisonment and 286 lashes for (1) adultery; (2) going to a disco and listening to music in violation of Islamic laws; and (3) socializing with male crew in contravention of Islamic tradition.
• The Prince of Makkah dismissed the case against her on appeal, allowing her to leave Saudi Arabia; shortly before her return to Manila, SAUDIA terminated her service without informing her of the cause.
• On November 23, 1993, Morada filed a Complaint for damages against SAUDIA and its country manager in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

• The case presents a conflict of laws situation requiring the application of the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia under the principle of lex loci delicti commissi, as the alleged abuse of rights occurred in Saudi Arabia.
• The trial court has no jurisdiction to hear and try the case based on Article 21 of the Civil Code since the proper law applicable is Saudi law, and the Philippines has no substantial interest in the prosecution of the case.
• The existence of a foreign element qualifies the case for the application of foreign law, and the Philippines should not sit in judgment of acts done by another sovereign state.
• Leave of court before filing a supplemental pleading is not a jurisdictional requirement, and the Revised Rules of Court should be construed with liberality.
• The Supplemental Petition for Review was filed within the 15-day reglementary period under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.

• The Amended Complaint is based on Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, making the case purely domestic and properly within the jurisdiction of Philippine courts.
• There is no obligation to plead and prove the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia since the cause of action is based on Philippine law; the burden of pleading and establishing foreign law lies with the party invoking its applicability.
• The petitioner, by filing motions praying for dismissal on grounds other than lack of jurisdiction (such as prescription and failure to state a cause of action), effectively submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court.
• The Philippines is the appropriate forum considering that the plaintiff is a resident Filipino national, the defendant is doing business in the Philippines, and the relationship between the parties is centered in the Philippines.

• Procedural:
  • Whether certiorari is the proper remedy to assail the denial of a Motion to Dismiss.
  • Whether the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties.
  • Whether the petitioner voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the case involves a conflict of laws situation requiring the application of foreign law.
  • Whether Philippine law or Saudi law should govern the dispute.
  • Whether the Philippines is the situs of the tort and the state with the most significant relationship to the dispute.

• Procedural:
  • Certiorari is not the proper remedy to question the denial of a Motion to Dismiss; the petitioner should have proceeded to trial and, in case of adverse ruling, found recourse in an appeal.
  • The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City has jurisdiction over the subject matter under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 7691, as the demand exceeds P200,000.00, and over the persons of the parties.
  • The petitioner voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court by invoking affirmative defenses (such as prescription and failure to state a cause of action) in its Motion to Dismiss, thereby praying for relief other than dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
• Substantive:
  • The case presents a conflict of laws situation due to the presence of foreign elements (foreign corporation, events occurring in multiple states).
  • Applying the "State of the most significant relationship" rule, the Philippines is the situs of the tort and the place having the most interest in the problem, considering that the overall harm occurred and lodged in the Philippines, the plaintiff is a resident Filipino national, and the employment relationship was centered in the Philippines.
  • Philippine law on tort liability, specifically Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code, has paramount application to the resolution of the legal issues.
  • The burden of pleading and proving the applicability of Saudi law lies with the petitioner who invoked it, not with the respondent.

• Abuse of Rights (Article 19, Civil Code) — Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. Violations of this provision are actionable and grant adequate legal remedy for moral wrongs.
• Acts Contrary to Morals, Good Customs or Public Policy (Article 21, Civil Code) — Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for damages. This provision expands the concept of torts in Philippine jurisdiction.
• Conflict of Laws / Foreign Element — 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," which may qualify the case for the application of private international law principles.
• Characterization or Doctrine of Qualification — The process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question specified in a conflicts rule, enabling the forum to select the proper law.
• Lex Loci Delicti Commissi — The traditional rule that the law of the place where the wrong was committed governs tort liability; the Court noted widespread criticism of this rigid rule in modern jurisprudence.
• State of the Most Significant Relationship Rule — A modern theory in conflict of laws where the applicable law is determined by evaluating contacts such as the place where the injury occurred, the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, the domicile or nationality of the parties, and the place where the relationship between the parties is centered.
• Voluntary Submission to Jurisdiction — A party who files a motion to dismiss invoking grounds other than lack of jurisdiction (such as affirmative defenses) is deemed to have submitted voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the court, abandoning the special appearance.

• "Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith." — Article 19 of the Civil Code.
• "Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for damages." — Article 21 of the Civil Code.
• "The aforecited provisions on human relations were intended to expand the concept of torts in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically provide in the statutes."
• "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'."
• "When the appearance is by motion for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, it must be for the sole and separate purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court. If his motion is for any other purpose than to object to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, he thereby submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court."

• Philippine National Bank (PNB) v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the interpretation that Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code were intended to expand the concept of torts by granting adequate legal remedy for moral wrongs.
• Republic v. Ker and Company, Ltd. — Cited for the doctrine that a party who files a motion to dismiss on grounds other than lack of jurisdiction (such as prescription) submits itself to the jurisdiction of the court.
• De Midgely v. Ferandos — Cited for the principle that a special appearance by motion for the purpose of objecting to jurisdiction becomes a general appearance if the party asks for dismissal on other grounds.
• Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert — Cited for pragmatic considerations in determining forum non conveniens, including the convenience of the parties and the relative advantages of trial in different forums.
• Unciano Paramedical College v. Court of Appeals — Cited by the Court of Appeals for the standard in issuing writs of preliminary injunction.

• Article 19, Civil Code — Defines the principle of abuse of rights and the duty to act with justice, honesty, and good faith.
• Article 21, Civil Code — Provides for liability for damages caused by acts contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy.
• Section 1, Republic Act No. 7691 — Amends Section 19 of B.P. Blg. 129 regarding the jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts in civil cases where the demand exceeds P200,000.00 in Metro Manila.
• Section 2(b), Rule 4, Revised Rules of Court — Provides for venue in personal actions where the defendant or plaintiff resides.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.

• Davide, Jr., J. — Concurred in the decision.
• Bellosillo, J. — Concurred in the decision.
• Vitug, J. — Concurred in the decision.
• Panganiban, J. — Concurred in the decision.