Saudi Arabian Airlines vs.

CA

G.R. No. 122191, October 8, 1998

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.

Morada returned to Jeddah, but was asked by the company to go back to Jakarta and help arrange the
release of the 2 male attendants. MORADA did not cooperate when she got to Jakarta. What followed
was a series of interrogations from the Saudi Courts which she did not understand as this was in their
language. In 1993, she was surprised, upon being ordered by SAUDIA to go to the Saudi court, that she
was being convicted of (1) adultery; (2) going to a disco, dancing and listening to the music in violation
of Islamic laws; and (3) socializing with the male crew, in contravention of Islamic tradition, sentencing
her to five months imprisonment and to 286 lashes. Only then did she realize that the Saudi court had
tried her, together with the 2, for what happened in Jakarta.

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 RTC of QC has jurisdiction to hear and try the case

HELD: 

YES. The RTC of QC has jurisdiction and Philippine law should govern. Its jurisdiction has basis on Sec. 1
of RA 7691 and Rules of Court on venue. Pragmatic considerations, including the convenience of the
parties, also weigh heavily in favor of the RTC QC assuming jurisdiction. Paramount is the private interest
of the litigant. Weighing the relative claims of the parties, the court a quo found it best to hear the case
in the Philippines. Had it refused to take cognizance of the case, it would be forcing Morada to seek
remedial action elsewhere, i.e. in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia where she no longer maintains substantial
connections. That would have caused a fundamental unfairness to her.

By filing a complaint, Morada has voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. By filing several
motions and praying for reliefs (such as dismissal), SAUDIA has effectively submitted to the trial court’s
jurisdiction.