SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES (SAUDIA) AND BRENDA J. BETIA, v. MA. JOPETTE M.

REBESENCIO, MONTASSAH B. SACAR-ADIONG, ROUEN RUTH A. CRISTOBAL AND

LORAINE S. SCHNEIDER-CRUZ
FACTS: Respondents were recruited and hired by Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia), a foreign
corporation established and existing under the laws of Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as
Permanent Flight Attendants. They entered into Cabin Attendant contracts with Saudia.
Respondents continued their employment with Saudia until they were separated from service on
various dates. They contended that the termination of their employment was illegal alleging that
the termination was made solely because they were pregnant.
ISSUE: Whether Philippine Law should apply in this case?
HELD:
Yes, the Philippine Courts is in position to make intelligent decision as to what law governs this
case.
First, there is no basis for concluding that the case can be more conveniently tried elsewhere. As
established earlier, Saudia is doing business in the Philippines. For their part, all four (4)
respondents are Filipino citizens maintaining residence in the Philippines and, apart from their
previous employment with Saudia, have no other connection to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It
would even be to respondents' inconvenience if this case were to be tried elsewhere.
Second, the records are bereft of any indication that respondents filed their Complaint in an
effort to engage in forum shopping or to vex and inconvenience Saudia.
Third, there is no indication of "unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to non-residents
or aliens." That Saudia has managed to bring the present controversy all the way to this court
proves this.
Fourth, it cannot be said that the local judicial machinery is inadequate for effectuating the right
sought to be maintained. Summons was properly served on Saudia and jurisdiction over its
person was validly acquired.
Lastly, there is not even room for considering foreign law. Philippine law properly governs the
present dispute.
As the question of applicable law has been settled, the supposed difficulty of ascertaining foreign
law (which requires the application of forum non conveniens) provides no insurmountable
inconvenience or special circumstance that will justify depriving Philippine tribunals of
jurisdiction.