Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, MILAGROS P.

MORADA
and HON. RODOLFO A. ORTIZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 89,
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, respondents.

FACTS: Milagros Morada was working as a stewardess for Saudia Arabian Airlines. In
1990, while she and some co-workers were in a lay-over in Jakarta, Indonesia, an
Arab co-worker tried to rape her in a hotel room. Fortunately, a roomboy heard her
cry for help and two of her Arab co-workers were arrested and detained in
Indonesia. Later, Saudia Airlines re-assigned her to work in their Manila office. While
working in Manila, Saudia Airlines advised her to meet with a Saudia Airlines officer
in Saudi. She did but to her surprise, she was brought to a Saudi court where she
was interrogated and eventually sentenced to 5 months imprisonment and 289
lashes; she allegedly violated Muslim customs by partying with males. The Prince of
Makkah got wind of her conviction and the Prince determined that she was
wrongfully convicted hence the Prince absolved her and sent her back to the
Philippines. Saudia Airlines later on dismissed Morada. Morada then sued Saudia
Airlines for damages under Article 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. Saudia Airlines filed a
motion to dismiss on the ground that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case
because the applicable law should be the law of Saudi Arabia. Saudia Airlines also
prayed for other reliefs under the premises.

ISSUE: Whether or not Saudia Airlines contention is correct.

HELD: No. Firstly, the RTC has acquired jurisdiction over Saudia Airlines when the
latter filed a motion to dismiss with petition for other reliefs. The asking for other
reliefs effectively asked the court to make a determination of Saudia Airliness rights
hence a submission to the courts jurisdiction.

Secondly, the RTC has acquired jurisdiction over the case because as alleged in the
complaint of Morada, she is bringing the suit for damages under the provisions of
our Civil Law and not of the Arabian Law. Morada then has the right to file it in the
QC RTC because under the Rules of Court, a plaintiff may elect whether to file an
action in personam (case at bar) in the place where she resides or where the
defendant resides. Obviously, it is well within her right to file the case here because
if shell file it in Saudi Arabia, it will be very disadvantageous for her (and of course,
again, Philippine Civil Law is the law invoked).

Thirdly, one important test factor to determine where to file a case, if there is a
foreign element involved, is the so called locus actus or where an act has been
done. In the case at bar, Morada was already working in Manila when she was
summoned by her superior to go to Saudi Arabia to meet with a Saudia Airlines
officer. She was not informed that she was going to appear in a court trial. Clearly,
she was defrauded into appearing before a court trial which led to her wrongful
conviction. The act of defrauding, which is tortuous, was committed in Manila and
this led to her humiliation, misery, and suffering. And applying the torts principle in
a conflicts case, the SC finds that the Philippines could be said as a situs of the tort
(the place where the alleged tortious conduct took place).

Вам также может понравиться