Saudi Arabian Airlines vs.
Court of Obviously, it is well within her right to file the
Appeals
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 reassigned 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 sentence to 5 months
imprisonment and 189 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.
Ruling: 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 Airlines’ rights,
hence, a submission to the court’s
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.
case here because if she will file it in Saudi
Arabia, it will be very disadvantageous for
her (and of course, again, Philippine Civil
Law is 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 Supreme Court finds that the
Philippines could be said as a situs of the
tort (the place where the alleged tortious
conduct took place).
Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd vs. Court of
Appeals
Facts: In the Orinoco River in Venezuela, it
is a rule that ships passing through it must
be piloted by pilots familiar to the river.
Hence, in 1988 Captain Nicandro Colon,
master of Philippine Roxas, a ship owned by
Philippine President Lines, INC (PPL),
obtained the services of Ezzar Vasquez, a
duly accredited pilot in Venezuela to pilot the
ship in the Orinico River. Unfortunately,
Philippine Roxas ran aground in the Orinoco
River while being piloted by Vasquez. As a
result, the stranded ship blocked other
vessels. One such vessel was owned by
Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. (WSC). The
blockade caused $400K worth of losses to
WSC as its ship was not able to make its
delivery. Subsequently, WSC sued PPL in
the RTC of Manila. It averred that PPL is
liable for the losses it incurred under the law
of Venezuela, to wit: Reglamento General
de la Ley de Pilotaje and Reglamento Parala
Zona de Pilotaje No. 1 del Orinoco. These
two laws provide that the master and owner
of the ship is liable for the negligence of the
pilot of the ship. Vasquez was proven to be
negligent when he failed to check on certain
vibrations that the ship was experiencing
while traversing the river.

Issue: Whether or not Philippine President

Lines, Inc. is liable under the said
Venezuelan laws.

Ruling: No. The two Venezuelan Laws were

not duly proven as fact before the court.
Only mere photocopies of the laws were
presented as evidence. For a copy of a
foreign public document to be admissible,
the following requisites are mandatory:

(1) It must be attested by the officer

having legal custody of the records
or by his deputy; and
(2) It must be accompanied by a
certificateby a secretary of the
embassy or legation, consul
general, consul, vice consular or
consular agent or Foreign Service
officer, and with the seal of his
office.

And in case of unwritten foreign laws, the

oral testimony of expert witnesses is
admissible, as are printed and published
books of reports of decision of the courts of
the country concerned if proved to be
commonly admitted in such courts. Failure
to prove the foreign law is deemed to be the
same as Philippine laws. Under Philippine
laws, PPL or Captain Colon cannot be held
liable for the negligence of Vasquez. PPL
and Colon had shown due diligence in
selecting Vasquez to pilot the vessel.
Vasquez is competent and was a duly
accredited pilot in Venezuela in good
standing when he was engaged.