Saudi Arabian

Airlines v. CA
z
G.R. No. 122191 October 8, 1998
FACTS:
z

▪ Saudi Arabian Airlines (SAUDIA) hired Milagros Morada as a Flight Attendant for its
airlines based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. While on a lay-over in Jakarta, Morada went to a
disco with fellow crew members Thamer & Allah, both Saudi nationals. Because it was
almost morning when they returned to their hotels, they agreed to have breakfast together
at the room of Thamer. In which Allah left on some pretext. Thamer attempted to rape
Morada but she was rescued by hotel personnel when they heard her cries for help.
Indonesian police came and arrested Thamer and Allah, the latter as an accomplice.

▪ Morada refused to cooperate when SAUDIA’s Legal Officer and its base manager tried to
negotiate the immediate release of the detained crew members with Jakarta police.

▪ Through the intercession of Saudi Arabian government, Thamer and Allah were deported
and, eventually, again put in service by SAUDIA. But Morada was transferred to Manila.
 z

▪ One year and a half year later, Morada was again ordered to see SAUDIA’s Chief Legal Officer. Instead, she was
brought to a Saudi court where she was asked to sign a blank document, which turned out to be a notice to her to
appear in court. Monada returned to Manila.

▪ The next time she was escorted by SAUDIA’s legal officer to court, the judge rendered a decision against her
sentencing her to five months imprisonment and to 286 lashes. Apparently, she was tried by the court which found
her guilty 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.

▪ After denial by SAUDIA, Morada sought help from Philippine Embassy during the appeal. Prince of Makkah
dismissed the case against her. SAUDIA fired her without notice.

▪ Morada filed a complaint for damages against SAUDIA, with the RTC of QC. SAUDIA filed Omnibus Motion to
Dismiss which raised the ground that the court has no jurisdiction, among others which was denied.
z
ISSUE:

▪ Whether RTC
of QC has
jurisdiction to
hear and try
the case?
 z
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.