SOTELO DIGESTS – CONFLICTS OF LAW

Saudi Arabian Airlines v CA G. R. No. 122191 October 8, 199

Respondent Morada is a resident Philippine national. She was involved in an incident of attempted rape
while serving as a flight crew in Saudi Arabian Airlines (SAUDIA) while on a lay-over in Jakarta, Indonesia.
Her coworkers were detained in Jeddah and the management forced her to cooperate and handed her
over to the Jeddah officials to sign papers she did not understand in order to release the men involved.
Because of that incident she lost her job and had to go through trial in a foreign land where she was
found guilty for adultery although the whole proceeding was not explained to her.

When she returned to the Philippines, she filed a case of damages against the airline company and the
country manager who refused to assist her during the whole affair.

Petitioner contends that since the abuse of rights happened in Saudi Arabia, the law of Saudi Arabia
must apply by virtue of lex loci delicti commissi rule.

W/n the regional trial court of qc has jurisdiction

Yes, the basis of her claim are violation of art. 19 and art. 21 of the NCC which provides for damages in
case of loss or injury. Also, the petitioner submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts when it filed several
motions and prayed for reliefs.

Pragmatic considerations, including convenience also weigh in favor of the RTC assuming jurisdiction.
Moreover, by hearing the case in the Philippines, no unnecessary difficulties and inconvenience have
been shown by either of the parties.

w/n Philippine law should govern

Yes, since it was established that the RTC shall have jurisdiction it is by consequence that the Philippine
law should govern. Also because the Philippines is the situs of the tort. That certain acts or parts of the
injury allegedly occurred in another country is of no moment. 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 plaintiff.

Conflicts notes:
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." The purpose of "characterization" is to enable the forum to select the proper law.

Considering that the complaint in the court a quo is one involving torts, the "connecting factor" or
"point of contact" could be the place or places where the tortious conduct or lex loci actus occurred.
And applying the torts principle in a conflicts case, the court found that the Philippines is the situs of
the tort (the place where the alleged tortious conduct took place). This is because it is in the
Philippines where petitioner allegedly deceived private respondent, a Filipina residing and working
here.

In cases of torts, according to the "State of the most significant relationship" rule the following
contacts are to be taken into account and evaluated according to their relative importance with
respect to the particular issue:

MCESotelo, 2020 1
 SOTELO DIGESTS – CONFLICTS OF LAW

(a) the place where the injury occurred;

(b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred;
(c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties,
and
(d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.

Hasegawa vs. Kitamura G.R. No. 149177 November 23, 2007

Nippon Engineering Consultants Co. a Japanese consultancy firm providing technical and
management support in the infrastructure projects of foreign governments, entered into an
Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA) with respondent Minoru Kitamura, a Japanese national
permanently residing in the Philippines. The agreement provides that respondent was to extend
professional services to Nippon for a year starting on April 1, 1999. Nippon then assigned
respondent to work as the project manager of the Southern Tagalog Access Road (STAR) Project in
the Philippines, following the company's consultancy contract with the Philippine Government. On
February 28, 2000, Nippon's general manager for its International Division, informed respondent that
the company had no more intention of automatically renewing his ICA. His services would be
engaged by the company only up to the substantial completion of the STAR Project on March 31,
2000, just in time for the ICA's expiry. Due to failure to negotiate, respondent filed an action for
damages and specific performance.

Issue: whether the subject matter jurisdiction of Philippine courts in civil cases for specific
performance and damages involving contracts executed outside the country by foreign nationals may
be assailed on the principles of lex loci celebrationis, lex contractus, the "state of the most significant
relationship rule," or forum non conveniens

Held: No, the RTC is vested by law with the power to entertain and hear the civil case filed by
respondent and the grounds raised by petitioners to assail that jurisdiction are inappropriate.

Conflicts notes:
In the judicial resolution of conflicts problems, three consecutive phases are involved: jurisdiction,
choice of law, and recognition and enforcement of judgments. Corresponding to these phases are
the following questions: (1) Where can or should litigation be initiated? (2) Which law will the court
apply? and (3) Where can the resulting judgment be enforced?

Lex loci celebrationis relates to the "law of the place of the ceremony" or the law of the place
where a contract is made. The doctrine of lex contractus or lex loci contractus means the "law
of the place where a contract is executed or to be performed." It controls the nature, construction,
and validity of the contract 66 and it may pertain to the law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties
or the law intended by them either expressly or implicitly. Under the "state of the most
significant relationship rule," to ascertain what state law to apply to a dispute, the court should
determine which state has the most substantial connection to the occurrence and the parties. In a
case involving a contract, the court should consider where the contract was made, was
negotiated, was to be performed, and the domicile, place of business, or place of incorporation of
the parties. This rule takes into account several contracts and evaluates them according to their
relative importance with respect to the particular issue to be resolved.

Since these three principles in conflict of laws make reference to the law applicable to a dispute, they
are rules proper for the second phase, the choice of law. They determine which state's law is to be

MCESotelo, 2020 2
 SOTELO DIGESTS – CONFLICTS OF LAW

applied in resolving the substantive issues of a conflicts problem. Necessarily, as the only issue in this
case is that of jurisdiction, choice-of-law rules are not only inapplicable but also not yet called for.
Petitioners' premature invocation of choice-of-law rules is exposed by the fact that they have not yet
pointed out any conflict between the laws of Japan and ours. Before determining which law should
apply, first there should exist a conflict of laws situation requiring the application of the conflict of
laws rules. Also, when the law of a foreign country is invoked to provide the proper rules for the
solution of a case, the existence of such law must be pleaded and proved.

Neither can the other ground raised, forum non conveniens, be used to deprive the trial court of its
jurisdiction herein. First, it is not a proper basis for a motion to dismiss because Section 1, Rule 16 of
the Rules of Court does not include it as a ground. Second, whether a suit should be entertained or
dismissed on the basis of the said doctrine depends largely upon the facts of the particular case and is
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. In this case, the RTC decided to assume
jurisdiction. Third, the propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle requires a factual
determination; hence, this conflicts principle is more properly considered a matter of defense.

Puyat vs. Zabarte 405 Phil 413

On 24 January 1994, Respondent Ron Zabarte commenced an action to enforce the money
judgment rendered by the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Contra Costa, U.S.A.
Petitioner argues that the RTC should have refused to entertain the Complaint for enforcement of
the foreign judgment on the principle of forum non conveniens. He claims that the trial court had no
jurisdiction, because the case involved partnership interest, and there was difficulty in ascertaining
the applicable law in California. All the aspects of the transaction took place in a foreign country, and
respondent is not even Filipino.
Issue: W/n the RTC has jurisdiction
Held: Yes. Under Section 48, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a judgment in an action
in personam rendered by a foreign tribunal clothed with jurisdiction is presumptive evidence of a
right as between the parties and their successors-in-interest by a subsequent title
The issue of whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of forum non
conveniens depends largely upon the facts of each case and on the sound discretion of the trial
court. None of the aforementioned reasons barred the RTC from exercising its jurisdiction. In the
present action, there was no more need for material witnesses, no forum shopping or harassment of
petitioner, no inadequacy in the local machinery to enforce the foreign judgment, and no question
raised as to the application of any foreign law.
Since the present action lodged in the RTC was for the enforcement of a foreign judgment, there
was no need to ascertain the rights and the obligations of the parties based on foreign laws or
contracts. The parties needed only to perform their obligations under the Compromise Agreement
they had entered into.

Under the principle of forum non conveniens, even if the exercise of jurisdiction is authorized
by law, courts may nonetheless refuse to entertain a case for any of the following practical
reasons: "

MCESotelo, 2020 3
 SOTELO DIGESTS – CONFLICTS OF LAW

1) The belief that the matter can be better tried and decided elsewhere, either because the main
aspects of the case transpired in a foreign jurisdiction or the material witnesses have their
residence there;
2) The belief that the non-resident plaintiff sought the forum[,] a practice known as forum
shopping[,] merely to secure procedural advantages or to convey or harass the defendant;
3) The unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to non-residents or aliens when the docket may
already be overcrowded;
4) The inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for effectuating the right sought to be maintained;
and
5) The difficulty of ascertaining foreign law

Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. Rebesencio G.R. No. 198587 January 14, 2015

Respondents question the legality the termination of their employment with Saudi Arabian Airlines
(Saudia) on the ground of their pregnancy. Saudia anchored its disapproval of respondents'
maternity leaves and demand for their resignation on its "Unified Employment Contract for Female
Cabin Attendants" (Unified Contract). Under the Unified Contract, the employment of a Flight
Attendant who becomes pregnant is rendered void. Saudia invokes forum non conveniens to
effectuate the stipulations of the Cabin Attendant contracts that require the application of the laws of
Saudi Arabia. However the respondents emphasized that the unified contract took effect after they
had filed and had their maternity leaves approved.
Issue: whether the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission may exercise
jurisdiction over Saudi Arabian Airlines and apply Philippine law in adjudicating the present
dispute
Held: Yes. Forum non conveniens has no application and does not operate to divest Philippine
tribunals of jurisdiction and to require the application of foreign law.
All told, the considerations for assumption of jurisdiction by Philippine have been satisfied. First, all
the parties are based in the Philippines and all the material incidents transpired in this jurisdiction.
Thus, the parties may conveniently seek relief from Philippine tribunals. Second, Philippine tribunals
are in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts. Third, Philippine
tribunals are in a position to enforce their decisions. There is no compelling basis for ceding
jurisdiction to a foreign tribunal. Quite the contrary, the immense public policy considerations
attendant to this case behoove Philippine tribunals to not shy away from their duty to rule on the
case.
As the present dispute relates to (what the respondents allege to be) the illegal termination of
respondents' employment, this case is immutably a matter of public interest and public policy.
Consistent with clear pronouncements in law and jurisprudence, Philippine laws properly find
application in and govern this case.

Conflicts notes: Any evaluation of the propriety of contracting parties’ choice of a forum and its
incidents must grapple with 2 considerations: (1) the availability and adequacy of recourse to a
foreign tribunal; and (2) the question of where, as between the forum court and a foreign court, the
balance of interest inherent in a dispute weighs more heavily.

MCESotelo, 2020 4
 SOTELO DIGESTS – CONFLICTS OF LAW

Manila Hotel vs. NLRC

Marcelo Santos was an overseas worker in Oman. He was offered a job in Palace Hotel in China
with a higher monthly salary and increased benefits. An employment contract for a period of 2 years
was perfected beginning November 5, 1988. However on August 10, 1989 he was informed of his
employment termination due to business reverses brought by the political upheaval in China.
Because of this, Santos filed a complaint of illegal dismissal with the NLRC.
Issue: w/n NLRC had jurisdiction
Held: NO. The case involved purely foreign elements. The only link that the Philippines has with the
case is that respondent Santos is a Filipino citizen. Not all cases involving Filipino citizens can be
tried here. If Santos were an "overseas contract worker," a Philippine forum, specifically the POEA,
not the NLRC, would protect him. However, he is not an "overseas contract worker," a fact which he
admits with conviction. He was hired directly by the Palace Hotel, a foreign employer, through
correspondence sent to the Sultanate of Oman where he was then employed. He was hired without
the intervention of the POEA or any authorized recruitment agency of the government.
Neither can an intelligent decision be made as to the law governing the employment contract as
such was perfected in foreign soil. This calls to fore the application of the principle of lex loci
contractus (the law of the place where the contract was made). The employment contract was not
perfected in the Philippines.

Conflicts notes: Under the rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court or agency may
assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so provided:
(1) that the Philippine court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to;
(2) that the Philippine court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the
facts; and
(3) that the Philippine court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision.

MCESotelo, 2020 5