Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA - Case Digest

Facts:

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.

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

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.