SAUDIARABIANAIRLINES(SAUDIA)vs.COURTOFAPPEALS,MILAGROSP.

MORADAandHON.RODOLFOA.ORTIZ,inhiscapacityasPresidingJudgeofBranch
89,RTCofQuezonCity
G.R.No.122191October8,1998
FACTS:
PetitionerSaudiArabianAirlines(SAUDIA),basedinJeddah,hiredprivaterespondentMilagros
Moradaasaflightattendant.WhileonalayoverinJakarta,Indonesia,shewenttoadiscodance
with2maleattendants,ThamerAlGazzawiandAllahAlGazzawi,bothSaudinationals.When
theyreturnedtotheirhotel,theyagreedtohavebreakfasttogetherattheroomofThamer.Shortly
afterAllahlefttheroom,ThamerattemptedtorapeMorada.Fortunately,aroomboyandseveral
securitypersonnelheardhercriesforhelpandrescuedher.IndonesianpolicearrestedThamer
andAllah,thelatterasanaccomplice.
MORADAreturnedtoJeddah,butwasaskedbythecompanytogobacktoJakartaandhelp
arrangethereleaseofthe2maleattendants.MORADAdidnotcooperatewhenshegotto
Jakarta.
Onvariousdatesaftertheincident,MoradawassummonedtoJeddahbyheremployerinorderto
signdocuments,purportingtobestatementsdroppingthecaseagainstThamerandAllah.
However,itturnedoutthatacasewasinfactfiledagainstherbeforetheSaudicourt,whichlater
foundherguiltyof(1)adultery;(2)goingtoadisco,dancingandlisteningtothemusicin
violationofIslamiclaws;and(3)socializingwiththemalecrew,incontraventionofIslamic
tradition,sentencinghertofivemonthsimprisonmentandto286lashes.
SAUDIAdeniedhertheassistancesherequested,butbecauseshewaswrongfullyconvicted,the
PrinceofMakkahdismissedthecaseagainstherandallowedhertoleaveSaudiArabia.Shortly
beforeherreturntoManila,shewasterminatedfromtheservicebySAUDIA,withoutherbeing
informedofthecause.
MoradafiledaComplaintfordamagesagainstSAUDIA,andKhaledAlBalawi,itscountry
manager.SAUDIAallegedthatprivaterespondentsclaimforallegedabuseofrightsoccurredin
theKingdomofSaudiArabia.Itallegedthattheexistenceofaforeignelementqualifiesthe
instantcasefortheapplicationofthelawoftheKingdomofSaudiArabia,byvirtueofthelex
locidelicticommissirule.
MoradaallegedthatsinceherAmendedComplaintisbasedonArticles19and21oftheCivil
Code,thentheinstantcaseisproperlyamatterofdomesticlaw.
ISSUE:
1.WhetherornotthePhilippinecourtshavejurisdictiontotrythecase.
2.WhetherornotitisthePhilippineswhichhasthemostsignificantcontactwiththematterin
thisdispute(applicationofthestateofthemostsignificantrelationshiprule).
HELD:
1.YES.Intheinstantcase,theforeignelementconsistedinthefactthatprivaterespondent
MoradaisaresidentPhilippinenational,andthatpetitionerSAUDIAisaresidentforeign
corporation.Also,byvirtueoftheemploymentofMoradawiththepetitionerSaudiaasaflight
stewardess,eventsdidtranspireduringhermanyoccasionsoftravelacrossnationalborders,
particularlyfromManila,PhilippinestoJeddah,SaudiArabia,andviceversa,thatcauseda
conflictssituationtoarise.
COURTdisagreeswithMORADAthathisispurelyadomesticcase.However,thecourtfinds

thattheRTCofQuezonCitypossessesjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterofthesuit.Its
authoritytotryandhearthecaseisprovidedforunderSection1ofRepublicActNo.7691,to
wit:
BP129Sec.19.JurisdictioninCivilCases.RegionalTrialCourtsshallexerciseexclusive
jurisdiction:
xxxxxxxxx
(8)Inallothercasesinwhichdemand,exclusiveofinterest,damagesofwhateverkind,
attorney`ysfees,litigationexpenses,andcotsorthevalueofthepropertyincontroversyexceeds
Onehundredthousandpesos(P100,000.00)or,insuchothercasesinMetroManila,wherethe
demand,exclusiveoftheabovementioneditemsexceedsTwohundredThousandpesos
(P200,000.00).(Emphasisours)
xxxxxxxxx
Section2(b),Rule4oftheRevisedRulesofCourtthevenue,QuezonCity,isappropriate:
Sec.2VenueinCourtsofFirstInstance.[NowRegionalTrialCourt]
(a)xxxxxxxxx
(b)Personalactions.Allotheractionsmaybecommencedandtriedwherethedefendantor
anyofthedefendantsresidesormaybefound,orwheretheplaintifforanyoftheplaintiff
resides,attheelectionoftheplaintiff.
Weighingtherelativeclaimsoftheparties,thecourtaquofounditbesttohearthecaseinthe
Philippines.Haditrefusedtotakecognizanceofthecase,itwouldbeforcingplaintiff(private
respondentnow)toseekremedialactionelsewhere,i.e.intheKingdomofSaudiArabiawhere
shenolongermaintainssubstantialconnections.Thatwouldhavecausedafundamental
unfairnesstoher.Moreover,byhearingthecaseinthePhilippinesnounnecessarydifficultiesand
inconveniencehavebeenshownbyeitheroftheparties.Thechoiceofforumoftheplaintiff(now
privaterespondent)shouldbeupheld.
Thetrialcourtalsoacquiredjurisdictionovertheparties.MORADAthroughheractoffiling,and
SAUDIAbyprayingforthedismissaloftheAmendedComplaintongroundsotherthanlackof
jurisdiction.
Astothechoiceofapplicablelaw,wenotethatchoiceoflawproblemsseektoanswertwo
importantquestions:(1)Whatlegalsystemshouldcontrolagivensituationwheresomeofthe
significantfactsoccurredintwoormorestates;and(2)towhatextentshouldthechosenlegal
systemregulatethesituation.
Consideringthatthecomplaintinthecourtaquoisoneinvolvingtorts,theconnectingfactoror
pointofcontactcouldbetheplaceorplaceswherethetortiousconductorlexlociactus
occurred.Andapplyingthetortsprincipleinaconflictscase,wefindthatthePhilippinescould
besaidasasitusofthetort(theplacewheretheallegedtortiousconducttookplace).Thisis
becauseitisinthePhilippineswherepetitionerallegedlydeceivedprivaterespondent,aFilipina
residingandworkinghere.Accordingtoher,shehadhonestlybelievedthatpetitionerwould,in
theexerciseofitsrightsandintheperformanceofitsduties,actwithjustice,giveherdueand
observehonestyandgoodfaith.Instead,petitionerfailedtoprotecther,sheclaimed.That
certainactsorpartsoftheinjuryallegedlyoccurredinanothercountryisofnomoment.Forin
ourviewwhatisimportanthereistheplacewheretheoverallharmorthetotalityofthealleged

injurytotheperson,reputation,socialstandingandhumanrightsofcomplainant,hadlodged,
accordingtotheplaintiffbelow(hereinprivaterespondent).Alltold,itisnotwithoutbasisto
identifythePhilippinesasthesitusoftheallegedtort.
2.YES.InapplyingStateofthemostsignificantrelationshiprule,todeterminetheStatewhich
hasthemostsignificantrelationship,thefollowingcontactsaretobetakenintoaccountand
evaluatedaccordingtotheirrelativeimportancewithrespecttotheparticularissue:(a)theplace
wheretheinjuryoccurred;(b)theplacewheretheconductcausingtheinjuryoccurred;(c)the
domicile,residence,nationality,placeofincorporationandplaceofbusinessoftheparties,and
(d)theplacewheretherelationship,ifany,betweenthepartiesiscentered.
Asalreadydiscussed,thereisbasisfortheclaimthatoverallinjuryoccurredandlodgedinthe
Philippines.ThereislikewisenoquestionthatprivaterespondentisaresidentFilipinanational,
workingwithpetitioner,aresidentforeigncorporationengagedhereinthebusinessof
internationalaircarriage.Thus,therelationshipbetweenthepartieswascenteredhere,
althoughitshouldbestressedthatthissuitisnotbasedonmerelaborlawviolations.Fromthe
record,theclaimthatthePhilippineshasthemostsignificantcontactwiththematterinthis
dispute,raisedbyprivaterespondentasplaintiffbelowagainstdefendant(hereinpetitioner),in
ourview,hasbeenproperlyestablished.