CONFLICT OF LAWS DIGEST: Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. CA, GR No. 122191, October 8, 1998

Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. CA, GR No.
122191, October 8, 1998
FACTS:
Plaintiff was a flight attendant went out with two Saudi nationals to which one attempted to rape her but failed due to arrival of Indonesia police who
then arrested the said nationals.When brought to SAUDI court, plaintiff was made to sign a document in Arabic and such was actually a notice to appear.
In the same court, plaintiff was erroneously sentenced to five months imprisonment and to 286 lashes for being allegedly 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.
Plaintiff sued for damages
ISSUES:
a. Whether RTC has juridisdiction.
b. Whether Philippine Law governs.
HELD:
a. Yes, RTC has jurisdiction
b. Yes, Philippine Law governs
Where the factual antecedents satisfactorily establish the existence of a foreign element, we agree with petitioner that the problem herein could present
a "conflicts" case.
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.
We thus find private respondent's assertion that the case is purely domestic, imprecise. A conflicts problem presents itself here, and the question of
jurisdiction 43 confronts the court a quo.After a careful study of the private respondent's Amended Complaint, 44 and the Comment thereon, we note that
she aptly predicated her cause of action on Articles 19 and 21 of the New Civil Code.
Pragmatic considerations, including the convenience of the parties, also weigh heavily in favor of the RTC Quezon City assuming jurisdiction. Paramount
is the private interest of the litigant. Enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained is quite obvious. Relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial are
equally important. Plaintiff may not, by choice of an inconvenient forum, "vex", "harass", or "oppress" the defendant, e.g. by inflicting upon him needless
expense or disturbance. But unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.
Clearly, petitioner had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Thus, we find that the trial court has jurisdiction over the
case and that its exercise thereof, justified.
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. 53
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. 54
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 as
"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." 55 The purpose of "characterization" is to enable the forum to select the proper law. 56
Our starting point of analysis here is not a legal relation, but a factual situation, event, or operative fact. 57 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. 58
Note that one or more circumstances may be present to serve as the possible test for the determination of the applicable law. 59 These "test factors" or
"points of contact" or "connecting factors" could be any of the following:
(1) The nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, his place of sojourn, or his origin;
(2) the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation;
(3) the situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is deemed to be situated. In particular, the lex situs is decisive when real rights are
involved;
(4) the place where an act has been done, the locus actus, such as the place where a contract has been made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed
or a tort committed. The lex loci actus is particularly important in contracts and torts;
(5) the place where an act is intended to come into effect, e.g., the place of performance of contractual duties, or the place where a power of
attorney is to be exercised;
(6) the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern their agreement, the lex loci intentionis;
(7) the place where judicial or administrative proceedings are instituted or done. The lex fori — the law of the forum — is particularly important
because, as we have seen earlier, matters of "procedure" not going to the substance of the claim involved are governed by it; and because the lex
fori applies whenever the content of the otherwise applicable foreign law is excluded from application in a given case for the reason that it falls under
one of the exceptions to the applications of foreign law; and
(8) the flag of a ship, which in many cases is decisive of practically all legal relationships of the ship and of its master or owner as such. It also covers
contractual relationships particularly contracts of affreightment.
After a careful study of the pleadings on record, including allegations in the Amended Complaint deemed admitted for purposes of the motion to dismiss,
we are convinced that there is reasonable basis for private respondent's assertion that although she was already working in Manila, petitioner brought her
to Jeddah on the pretense that she would merely testify in an investigation of the charges she made against the two SAUDIA crew members for the attack
on her person while they were in Jakarta. As it turned out, she was the one made to face trial for very serious charges, including adultery and violation of
Islamic laws and tradition.
Prescinding from this premise that the Philippines is the situs of the tort complained of and the place "having the most interest in the problem", we find,
by way of recapitulation, that the Philippine law on tort liability should have paramount application to and control in the resolution of the legal issues
arising out of this case. Further, we hold that the respondent Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the
complaint; the appropriate venue is in Quezon City, which could properly apply Philippine law.

CONFLICT OF LAWS DIGEST: Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. CA, GR No. 122191, October 8, 1998

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONFLICT OF LAWS DIGEST: Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. CA, GR No. 122191, October 8, 1998

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONFLICT OF LAWS DIGEST: Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. CA, GR No. 122191, October 8, 1998

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. CA, GR No.

122191, October 8, 1998

You might also like