MAPALAD, JULIANNE MARIE

CIVIL LAW
I. FULL TITLE:

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.

II. CASE NO.

G.R. No. 122191 October 8, 1998

III. PONENTE:

QUISUMBING, J:

IV: DOCTRINE: Conflict of Laws, factual situation, connecting factor,

characterization, choice of law, State of the most significant relationship

V. 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

VI. ISSUE: Whether or not Saudia Airlines’ contention is correct.

VII.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

1
MAPALAD, JULIANNE MARIE
CIVIL LAW
asked the court to make a determination of Saudia Airlines’s 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.
Obviously, it is well within her right to file the case here because if she’ll 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.

Lastly, no error could be imputed to the respondent appellate court in upholding

the trial court's denial of defendant's (herein petitioner's) motion to dismiss the case.
Not only was jurisdiction in order and venue properly laid, but appeal after trial was
obviously available, and expeditious trial itself indicated by the nature of the case at
hand. Indubitably, the Philippines is the state intimately concerned with the ultimate
outcome of the case below, not just for the benefit of all the litigants, but also for the
vindication of the country's system of law and justice in a transnational setting. With
these guidelines in mind, the trial court must proceed to try and adjudge the case in the
light of relevant Philippine law, with due consideration of the foreign element or
elements involved. Nothing said herein, of course, should be construed as prejudging
the results of the case in any manner whatsoever.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED. Civil Case
No. Q-93-18394 entitled "Milagros P. Morada vs. Saudi Arabia Airlines" is hereby
REMANDED to Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 89 for further proceedings.