SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES vs. CA (Conflict of Laws)

G.R. No. 122191 October 8, 1998

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.

FACTS:

SAUDIA hired Morada as a Flight Attendant for its airlines based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. 

While on a lay-over in Jakarta, Indonesia, Morada went to a disco dance with fellow crew members Thamer Al-Gazzawi and Allah Al-Gazzawi, 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. When they were in the room, Allah left and shortly after he did, Thamer attempted to rape Morada. Fortunately, a roomboy and several security personnel heard her cries for help and rescued her. Later, the Indonesian police came and arrested Thamer and Allah Al-Gazzawi, the latter as an accomplice.

When Morada returned to Jeddah a few days later, several SAUDIA officials requested her to go back to Jakarta to help arrange the release of Thamer and Allah. In Jakarta, but Morada refused to cooperate. 

Morada learned that, through the intercession of the Saudi Arabian government, the Indonesian authorities agreed to deport Thamer and Allah after two weeks of detention. 

Morada thought that the Jakarta incident was already behind her, her superiors requested her to see the Chief Legal Officer of SAUDIA, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. When she saw him, he brought her to the police station to make a statement dropping the case against Thamer and Allah. 

One year and a half later Morada was ordered to take a later flight to Jeddah to see again the Chief Legal Officer of SAUDIA. She was brought to a Saudi court where she was asked to sign a document written in Arabic. They told her that this was necessary to close the case against Thamer and Allah. As it turned out, Morada signed a notice to her to appear before the court.

Then, SAUDIA legal officer again escorted Morada to the same court where the judge, to her astonishment and shock, rendered a decision, translated to her in English, sentencing her to five months imprisonment and to 286 lashes. Only then did she realize that the Saudi court had tried her, together with Thamer and Allah, for what happened in Jakarta. The court found plaintiff 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. 

Because she was wrongfully convicted, the Prince dismissed the case against her and allowed her to leave Saudi Arabia. And then she was terminated from the service by SAUDIA, without her being informed of the cause.

Morada filed a Complaint for damages against SAUDIA.

ISSUE:

Whether Philippine Laws should govern the case.

RULING:

Yes, problem herein could present a "conflicts" case.

In the instant case, the foreign element consisted in the fact that private respondent Morada is a resident Philippine national, and that petitioner SAUDIA is a resident foreign corporation. Also, by virtue of the employment of Morada with the petitioner Saudia as a flight stewardess, events did transpire during her many occasions of travel across national borders, particularly from Manila, Philippines to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and vice versa, that caused a "conflicts" situation to arise.

After a careful study of the private respondent's Amended Complaint, and the Comment thereon, we note that she aptly predicated her cause of action on Articles 19 and 21 of the New Civil Code.

As to the choice of applicable law, we note that choice-of-law problems seek to answer two important questions: (1) What legal system should control a given situation where some of the significant facts occurred in two or more states; and (2) to what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the situation. 

Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us to determine under what category a certain set of facts or rules fall. This process is known as "characterization", or the "doctrine of qualification". It is the "process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question specified in a conflicts rule." The purpose of "characterization" is to enable the forum to select the proper law. 

Considering that the complaint in the court a quo is one involving torts, the "connecting factor" or "point of contact" could be the place or places where the tortious conduct or lex loci actus occurred. And applying the torts principle in a conflicts case, we find that the Philippines could be said as a situs of the tort (the place where the alleged tortious conduct took place). This is because it is in the Philippines where petitioner allegedly deceived private respondent, a Filipina residing and working here. According to her, she had honestly believed that petitioner would, in the exercise of its rights and in the performance of its duties, "act with justice, give her due and observe honesty and good faith." Instead, petitioner failed to protect her, she claimed. That certain acts or parts of the injury allegedly occurred in another country is of no moment. For in our view what is important here is the place where the over-all harm or the totality of the alleged injury to the person, reputation, social standing and human rights of complainant, had lodged, according to the plaintiff below (herein private respondent). All told, it is not without basis to identify the Philippines as the situs of the alleged tort.