Saudi&Arabian&Airline&vs&CA& contract& between& nationals& of& one& State& involves&

Facts:& properties&situated&in&another&State.&In&other&cases,&the&
SAUDIA&hired&Morada&as&a&Flight&Attendant.&While&on&a& foreign&element&may&assume&a&complex&form.&
lay8over& in& Jakarta,& Morada& went& to& a& disco& with& fellow& &
male&crew&Thamer&and&Allah,&both&Saudi&nationals.&They& In&the&instant&case,&the&foreign&element&consisted&in&the&
agreed&to&have&breakfast&together&at&the&room&of&Thamer.& fact& that& private& respondent& Morada& is& a& resident&
Thamer&attempted&to&rape&Morada&but&she&was&rescued& Philippine& national,& and& that& petitioner& SAUDIA& is& a&
by& hotel& personnel& when& they& heard& her& cries& for& help.& resident&foreign&corporation.&
Indonesian&police&came&and&arrested&Thamer&and&Allah,& &
the&latter&as&an&accomplice.& But,& after& a& careful& study& of& the& private& respondent's&
& Amended&Complaint,&and&the&Comment&thereon,&we&note&
Morada&refused&to&cooperate&when&SAUDIA’s&Legal&Officer& that&she&aptly&predicated&her&cause&of&action&on&Articles&
and& its& base& manager& tried& to& negotiate& the& immediate& 19& and& 21& of& the& New& Civil& Code.& Although& Article& 19&
release&of&the&detained&crew&members&with&Jakarta&police.& merely&declares&a&principle&of&law,&Article&21&gives&flesh&to&
Through& the& intercession& of& Saudi& Arabian& government,& its&provisions.&Thus,&we&agree&with&private&respondent's&
Thamer& and& Allah& were& deported& and,& eventually,& again& assertion& that& violations& of& Articles& 19& and& 21& are&
put&in&service&by&SAUDIA.&But&Morada&was&transferred&to& actionable,& with& judicially& enforceable& remedies& in& the&
Manila.&& RTC.&
& &
A&year&and&a&half&year&later,&Morada&was&again&summoned& Pragmatic& considerations,& including& the& convenience& of&
by&SAUDIA’s&Chief&Legal&Officer&in&Saudi&Arabia.&She&was& the&parties,&also&weigh&heavily&in&favor&of&the&RTC&Quezon&
brought&to&a& Saudi&court&where&she&was&asked&to&sign&a& City& assuming& jurisdiction.& Paramount& is& the& private&
blank&document,&which&turned&out&to&be&a&notice&to&her& interest&of&the&litigant.&Enforceability&of&a&judgment&if&one&
to&appear&in&court.&Monada&returned&to&Manila.&& is& obtained& is& quite& obvious.& Relative& advantages& and&
& obstacles&to&a&fair&trial&are&equally&important.&Plaintiff&may&
The&next&time&she&was&escorted&by&SAUDIA’s&legal&officer& not,&by&choice&of&an&inconvenient&forum,&"vex",&"harass",&
to& court,& the& judge& rendered& a& decision& against& her& or& "oppress"& the& defendant,& e.g.& by& inflicting& upon& him&
sentencing&her&to&five&months&imprisonment&and&to&286& needless&expense&or&disturbance.&But&unless&the&balance&
lashes.&Apparently,&she&was&tried&by&the&court&which&found& is&strongly&in&favor&of&the&defendant,&the&plaintiffs&choice&
her& guilty& of& (1)& adulteryR& (2)& going& to& a& disco,& dancing& of&forum&should&rarely&be&disturbed.&
and&listening&to&the&music&in&violation&of&Islamic&lawsR&and& &
(3)& socializing& with& the& male& crew,& in& contravention& of& As&to&the&choice&of&applicable&law,&we&note&that&choice8of8
Islamic&tradition.& law& problems& seek& to& answer& two& important& questions:&
& (1)& What& legal& system& should& control& a& given& situation&
After& denial& by& SAUDIA,& Morada& sought& help& from& where& some& of& the& significant& facts& occurred& in& two& or&
Philippine&Embassy&during&the&appeal.&Prince&of&Makkah& more& statesR& and& (2)& to& what& extent& should& the& chosen&
dismissed&the&case&against&her.&SAUDIA&fired&her&without& legal&system&regulate&the&situation.&
notice.&& &
& Point& of& analysis& is& not& a& legal& relation,& but& a& factual&
Morada& filed& a& complaint& for& damages& against& SAUDIA,& situation,&event,&or&operative&fact.&An&essential&element&of&
with& the& RTC& of& QC.& SAUDIA& filed& a& motion& to& dismiss& conflict& rules& is& the& indication& of& a& "test"& or& "connecting&
contending&the&court’s&jurisdiction&over&the&case&and&the& factor"&or&"point&of&contact".&Choice8of8law&rules&invariably&
application&of&Saudi&Law& consist&of&a&factual&relationship&and&a&connecting&factor&or&
& point&of&contact,&such&as&the&situs&of&the&res,&the&place&of&
Issues:& celebration,& the& place& of& performance,& or& the& place& of&
Whether&or&not&the&Trial&Court&has&Jurisdiction&over&the& wrongdoing.&
case& &
Whether&or&not&Saudi&Law&should&apply& Considering&that&the&complaint&in&the&court&a&quo&is&one&
& involving& torts,& the& "connecting& factor"& or& "point& of&
Ruling:& contact"&could&be&the&place&or&places&where&the&tortious&
Where&the&factual&antecedents&satisfactorily&establish&the& conduct&or&lex&loci&actus&occurred.&And&applying&the&torts&
existence&of&a&foreign&element,&we&agree&with&petitioner& principle&in&a&conflicts&case,&we&find&that&the&Philippines&
that&the&problem&herein&could&present&a&"conflicts"&case.& could&be&said&as&a&situs&of&the&tort.&This&is&because&it&is&in&
& the&Philippines&where&petitioner&allegedly&deceived&private&
A&factual&situation&that&cuts&across&territorial&lines&and&is& respondent,&a&Filipina&residing&and&working&here.&&
affected&by&the&diverse&laws&of&two&or&more&states&is&said& &
to&contain&a&"foreign&element".&The&foreign&element&may& In& applying& said& principle& to& determine& the& State& which&
simply& consist& in& the& fact& that& one& of& the& parties& to& a& has& the& most& significant& relationship,& the& following&
contract& is& an& alien& or& has& a& foreign& domicile,& or& that& a& contacts& are& to& be& taken& into& account& and& evaluated&
according&to&their&relative&importance&with&respect&to&the& •!
particular&issue:&(a)&the&place&where&the&injury&occurredR&
(b)& the& place& where& the& conduct& causing& the& injury& •!
occurredR&(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.&
& consecutive&phases&are&involved:&jurisdiction,&choice&
WHEREFORE,&the&instant&petition&for&certiorari&is&hereby&
DISMISSED.&
& •!
Continental&Micro&Asia&vs&Basso&
Facts&
Petitioner&Continental&Micronesia&is&a&foreign&corporation&
organized&and&existing&under&the&laws&of&and&domiciled&in&
the&United&States&of&America.&It&is&licensed&to&do&business&
in&the&Philippines.&Respondent,&a&US&citizen&residing&in&the&
Philippines,& accepted& an& offer& to& be& a& General& Manager&
position.& On& November& 7,& 1992,& CMI& took& over& the&
Philippine& operations& of& Continental,& with& respondent&
retaining& his& position& as& General& Manager.& Thereafter,& •!
respondent& received& a& letter& from& Mr.& Schulz,& who& was&
then& CMI’s& Vice& President& of& Marketing& and& Sales,&
informing& him& that& he& has& agreed& to& work& in& CMI& as& a&
consultant&on&an&“as&needed&basis.”&Respondent&wrote&a&
counter8proposal&that&was&rejected&by&CMI.&
& •!
Respondent& then& filed& a& complaint& for& illegal& dismissal&
against&the&petitioner&corporation.&Alleging&the&presence&
of&foreign&elements,&CMI&filed&a&Motion&to&Dismiss&on&the&
ground&of&lack&of&jurisdiction&over&the&person&of&CMI&and&
the&subject&matter&of&the&controversy.&
& •!
The&Labor&Arbiter&agreed&with&CMI&that&the&employment&
contract& was& executed& in& the& US& “since& the& letter8offer&
was& under& the& Texas& letterhead& and& the& acceptance& of&
Complainant& was& returned& there.”& Thus,& applying& the&
doctrine& of& lex& loci& celebrationis,& US& laws& apply.& Also,&
applying& lex&loci&contractus,&the&Labor&Arbiter&ruled&that&
the&parties&did&not&intend&to&apply&Philippine&laws.&
& wrongdoing.&
The& NLRC& ruled& that& the& Labor& Arbiter& acquired& •!
jurisdiction&over&the&case&when&CMI&voluntarily&submitted&
to& his& office’s& jurisdiction& by& presenting& evidence,&
advancing&arguments&in&support&of&the&legality&of&its&acts,&
and&praying&for&reliefs&on&the&merits&of&the&case.&
& was&hired&to&work.&The&contract&of&employment&was&
The&Court&of&Appeals&ruled&that&the&Labor&Arbiter&and&the&
NLRC&had&jurisdiction&over&the&subject&matter&of&the&case&
and&over&the&parties.&
& employment& as& offered& by& CMI.& The& place& of&
Issue&
Whether&or&not&there&is&an&existence&of&foreign&elements&
making&conflict&of&laws&issue.&
& the&Philippines.&
Ruling& •!
•! Yes.&&There&is&a&conflict8of8laws&issue&that&needs&to&be&
resolved&first.&
Where& the& facts& establish& the& existence& of& foreign&
elements,&the&case&presents&a&conflicts8of8laws&issue.&&
The&foreign&element&in&a&case&may&appear&in&different&
forms,&such&as&in&this&case,&where&one&of&the&parties&
is&an&alien&and&the&other&is&domiciled&in&another&state.&
In& Hasegawa& v.& Kitamura,& it& is& stated& that& in& the&
judicial&resolution&of&conflict8of8laws&problems,&three&
of& law,& and& recognition& and& enforcement& of&
judgments.&&
Under& the& doctrine& of& forum& non& conveniens,& a&
Philippine&court&in&a&conflict8of8laws&case&may&assume&
jurisdiction&if&it&chooses&to&do&so,&provided,&that&the&
following& requisites& are& met:& (1)& that& the& Philippine&
Court& is& one& to& which& the& parties& may& conveniently&
resort&toR&(2)&that&the&Philippine&Court&is&in&a&position&
to&make&an&intelligent&decision&as&to&the&law&and&the&
factsR&and&(3)&that&the&Philippine&Court&has&or&is&likely&
to& have& power& to& enforce& its& decision.& All& these&
requisites&are&present&here.&
The& incident& subject& of& this& case& (i.e.& dismissal& of&
Basso)&happened&in&the&Philippines,&the&surrounding&
circumstances& of& which& can& be& ascertained& without&
having&to&leave&the&Philippines.&The&acts&that&allegedly&
led& to& loss& of& trust& and& confidence& and& Basso's&
eventual&dismissal&were&committed&in&the&Philippines.&
The& choice8of8law& issue& in& a& conflict8of8laws& case&
seeks& to& answer& the& following& important& questions:&
(1)&What&legal&system&should&control&a&given&situation&
where&some&of&the&significant&facts&occurred&in&two&or&
more& statesR& and& (2)& to& what& extent& should& the&
chosen&legal&system&regulate&the&situation.&
In& Saudi& Arabian& Airlines& v.& Court& of& Appeals,& it& is&
emphasized&that&an&essential&element&of&conflict&rules&
is&the&indication&of&a&"test"&or&"connecting&factor"&or&
"point& of& contact".& Choice8of8law& rules& invariably&
consist& of& a& factual& relationship& (such& as& property&
right,&contract&claim)&and&a&connecting&fact&or&point&
of&contact,&such&as&the& situs&of&the& res,&the&place&of&
celebration,&the&place&of&performance,&or&the&place&of&
Basso,&though&a&US&citizen,&was&a&resident&here&from&
the&time&he&was&hired&by&CMI&until&his&death&during&
the& pendency& of& the& case.& CMI,& while& a& foreign&
corporation,& has& a& license& to& do& business& in& the&
Philippines&and&maintains&a&branch&here,&where&Basso&
negotiated& in& the& Philippines.& A& purely& consensual&
contract,&it&was&also&perfected&in&the&Philippines&when&
Basso& accepted& the& terms& and& conditions& of& his&
performance& relative& to& Biasso's& contractual& duties&
was&in&the&Philippines.&The&alleged&prohibited&acts&of&
Basso&that&warranted&his&dismissal&were&committed&in&
Clearly,& the& Philippines& is& the& state& with& the& most&
significant&relationship&to&the&problem.&Thus,&we&hold&
that&CMI&and&Basso&intended&Philippine&law&to&govern,&
notwithstanding& some& references& made& to& US& laws&
 and& the& fact& that& this& intention& was& not& expressly& •! The& question& of& whether& the& law& of& a& state& can& be&
stated&in&the&contract& applied&to&a&transaction&is&different&from&the&question&
& of&whether&the&courts&of&that&state&have&jurisdiction&
Hasegawa&vs&Kitamura& to&enter&a&judgment.&
FACTS:& •! For&a&court&to&validly&exercise&its&power&to&adjudicate&
•! Petitioner& Nippon& Engineering& Consultants,& a& controversy,& it& must& have& jurisdiction& over& the&
Japanese&consultancy&firm,&entered&into&Independent& petitioner,& over& the& respondent,& over& the& subject&
contractor& agreement& with& respondent& Kitamura,& a& matter,& over& the& issues& and& in& cases& involved&
Japanese& national& permanently& residing& in& property,&over&the&res.&
Philippines.& •! Petitioners,&on&their&motion&to&dismiss,&do&not&claim&
•! Nippon& then& assigned& respondent& to& work& as& the& that&the&trial&court&is&not&properly&vested&by&law&with&
project& managed& of& the& STAR& project& in& the& jurisdiction& to& hear& the& subject& controversy.& They&
Philippines.& rather& raise& as& grounds& the& question& subject& matter&
•! When& the& STAR& project& was& near& completion,& the& of& jurisdiction& are& the& pricniples& of& lex& loci&
DPWH&engaged&in&consultancy&services&of&Nippon&for& celebrationies&and&lex&contracts&and&the&state&of&the&
the&detailed&engineering&and&construction&of&the&BBRI& most&significant&relationship&rule.&
Project.& and& named& Respondent& was& named& as& the& •! The& SC& finds& the& invocation& of& these& ground&
project&manager.& unsound.&
•! Petitioner& Hasegawa,& Nippon’s& General& Manager,& •! Lex& loci& celebrationis& relates& to& the& "law& of& the&
informed&that&the&company&had&no&more&intention&to& place&of&the&ceremony"&or&the&law&of&the&place&where&
renew&his&Independent&Contractor&Agreement&(ICA),& a&contract&is&made.&The&doctrine&of&lex&contractus&
it&is&only&up&to&the&STAR&project&completion.& or& lex&loci&contractus& means&the&"law&of&the&place&
•! Kitamura&requested&negotiation&that&he&be&assigned& where&a&contract&is&executed&or&to&be&performed."&
to& the& BBRI& project& but& Nippon& insisted& that& the& •! Under& the& "state& of& the& most& significant&
contract& was& for& a& fixed& term& that& had& already& relationship& rule,"& to& ascertain& what& state& law& to&
expired.& apply&to&a&dispute,&the&court&should&determine&which&
•! Respondent& initiated& a& civil& case& for& specific& state& has& the& most& substantial& connection& to& the&
performance&and&damages&with&the&RTC.& occurrence&and&the&parties.&&
•! Petitioner& contended& that& the& ICA& was& perfected& in& •! Petitioners'&premature&invocation&of&choiceHofH
Japan& and& between& Japan& nationals& and& moved& to& law&rules&is&exposed&by&the&fact&that&they&have&
dismiss& the& complaint& for& lack& of& jurisdiction.& They& not& yet& pointed& out& any& conflict& between& the&
asserted&that&the&claim&for&improper&pre8termination& laws&of&Japan&and&ours.&&
of& respondent’s& ICA& could& only& be& heard& and& •! Before&determining&which&law&should&apply,&first&there&
ventilated&in&the&proper&courts&of&Japan&the&principles& should&exist&a&conflict&of&laws&situation&requiring&the&
of&lex&loci&celebrationis&and&lex&contractus.& application&of&the&conflict&of&laws&rules&
•! RTC& denied& the& motion& to& dismiss& and& motion& for&
reconsideration&filed&by&petitioner.& !! &
•! CA& found& no& grave& abuse& of& discretion& in& the& trial&
court’s&denial&of&the&motion&to&dismiss.&Also&ruled&that&
the& principle& of& lex& loci& celebrationis& was& NOT&
applicable&to&the&case.&
&
ISSUE:&
WON&the&subject&matter&jurisdiction&of&Philippines&courts&
in& civil& cases& for& specific& performance& and& damages&
involving& contracts& executed& outside& the& country& by&
foreign&national&may&be&assailed&on&the&principles&of&lex&
loci& celebrationis,& lex& contractus,& the& “state& of& the& most&
significant&relations&rule”.&
&
RULING:&
•! The&ICA&subject&of&the&litigation&was&entered&into&and&
perfected&in&Tokyo,&Japan,&by&Japanese&&nationals&and&
written&whiolly&in&the&Japanses&language.&
•! Petitioner&motion&to&dismissed&filed&with&the&trial&court&
never& contended& that& the& RTC& is& an& inconvenient&
forum.& They& merely& argued& that& the& applicable& law&
which& will& determine& the& validity& od& respondent’s&
claim&is&that&of&Japan.&