G.R. No. 122191 – 358 Phil. 105 – 297 SCRA 469 – Civil Law – Conflict of Laws – Private International Law – Situs – Locus Actus
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. Later, Saudia Airlines re-assigned her to work in their Manila office. While working in Manila, Saudia Airlines advised her to meet with a Saudia Airlines officer in Saudi. She did but to her surprise, she was brought to a Saudi court where she was interrogated and eventually sentenced to 5 months imprisonment and 289 lashes; she allegedly violated Muslim customs by partying with males. 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 or not Saudia Airlines’ contention is correct.
HELD: No. Firstly, the RTC has acquired jurisdiction over Saudia Airlines when the latter filed a motion to dismiss with petition for other reliefs. The asking for other reliefs effectively asked the court to make a determination of Saudia Airlines’ rights hence a submission to the court’s jurisdiction.
Secondly, the RTC has acquired jurisdiction over the case because as alleged in the complaint of Morada, she is bringing the suit for damages under the provisions of our Civil Law and not of the Arabian Law. Morada then has the right to file it in the QC RTC because under the Rules of Court, a plaintiff may elect whether to file an action in personam (case at bar) in the place where she resides or where the defendant resides. Obviously, it is well within her right to file the case here because if she’ll file it in Saudi Arabia, it will be very disadvantageous for her (and of course, again, Philippine Civil Law is the law invoked).
Thirdly, one important test factor to determine where to file a case, if there is a foreign element involved, is the so called “locus actus” or where an act has been done. In the case at bar, Morada was already working in Manila when she was summoned by her superior to go to Saudi Arabia to meet with a Saudia Airlines officer. She was not informed that she was going to appear in a court trial. Clearly, she was defrauded into appearing before a court trial which led to her wrongful conviction. The act of defrauding, which is tortuous, was committed in Manila and this led to her humiliation, misery, and suffering. And applying the torts principle in a conflicts case, the SC finds that the Philippines could be said as a situs of the tort (the place where the alleged tortious conduct took place).
