After denial by SAUDIA, Morada sought help from Philippine Embassy during
the appeal. Prince of Makkah dismissed the case against her (because she was
Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. 122191 (October 8, 1998)
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
surnamed Al-Gazzawi and 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. Morada was afraid that she might be tricked into something she
did not want because of her inability to understand the local dialect. She also
declined to sign a blank paper and a document written in the local dialect.
Through the intercession of Saudi Arabian government, Thamer and Allah were
deported and, eventually, again put in sevice by SAUDIA. But Morada was
transferred to Manila.
Two years later, Morada was requested to see SAUDIA’s Chief Legal Officer in
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, who brought her to the police station where the police
took her passport and questioned-slash-put pressure on her to drop the case
against Thamer and Allah. Not until she agreed to do so did the police return her
passport. 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. But, she was summoned again
by SAUDIA to see its Chief Legal Officer saying that it was routinary and posed
no danger to her. She was again brought to the court and was interrogated
about Jakarta incident.
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.
wrongfully convicted) and allowed her to leave Saudi Arabia. SAUDIA fired her
without notice.
Morada filed a complaint for damages against SAUDIA, et al with the RTC of QC.
SAUDIA filed Omnibus Motion to Dismiss which raised the ground that the court
has no jurisdiction, among others. MD was denied.
ISSUE: Whether or not RTC of QC has jurisdiction to hear and try the case based
on Article 21 of Civil Code inasmuch as it involves a ‘conflicts problem’
HELD: YES! RTC of QC has jurisdiction and Philippine law should govern.
RATIO:
The RTC of QC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit.
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. Enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained is quite
obvious. Relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial are equally important.
Plaintiff may not, by choice of an inconvenient forum, ‘vex,’ ‘harass,’ or ‘oppress’
the defendant, e.g. by inflicting upon him needless expense or disturbance. But
unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of
forum should rarely be disturbed. (Note: Do remember that Morada was the
plaintiff in the RTC case)
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.
Moreover, by hearing the case in the Philippines no unnecessary difficulties and
inconvenience have been shown by either of the parties. The choice of forum of
the Morada should be upheld.
The RTC of QC has jurisdiction over the persons of the parties.
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.
On the choice of law issue. (impt!)
Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for the Court 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.” Choice-of-law rules invariably consist of a factual relationship
(such as property right, contract claim) and a connecting factor or point of
contact (such as the situs of the res, the place of celebration, the place of
performance, or the place of wrongdoing).
These “test factors” or “points of contact” or “connecting factors” could be any of
the following:
(1) the nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, his place of
sojourn, or his origin;
(2) the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation;
(3) the situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is deemed to be
situated. In particular, the lex situs is decisive when real rights are involved;
(4) the place where an act has been done, the locus actus, such as the place
where a contract has been made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a
tort committed. The lex loci actus is particularly important in contracts and
torts;
(5) the place where an act is intended to come into effect, e.g., the place of
performance of contractual duties, or the place where a power of attorney is
to be exercised;
(6) the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern
their agreement, the lex loci intentionis;
(7) the place where judicial or administrative proceedings are instituted or
done. The lex fori—the law of the forum—is particularly important because,
as we have seen earlier, matters of ‘procedure’ not going to the substance of
the claim involved are governed by it; and because the lex fori applies
whenever the content of the otherwise applicable foreign law is excluded
from application in a given case for the reason that it falls under one of the
exceptions to the applications of foreign law; and
(8) the flag of a ship, which in many cases is decisive of practically all legal
relationships of the ship and of its master or owner as such. It also covers
contractual relationships particularly contracts of affreightment.”
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. SC found 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 Morada that petitioner would, in the exercise of its
rights and in the performance of its duties, “act with justice, give her 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.
Hence, there is basis for the claim that overall injury occurred and lodged in the
Philippines. There is likewise no question that Morada is a resident Filipina
national, working with SAUDIA, a resident foreign corporation engaged here in
the business of international air carriage. Thus, the “relationship” between
the parties was centered here, although it should be stressed that this suit is
not based on mere labor law violations. From the record, the claim that the
Philippines has the most significant contact.
In applying the principle of lex loci delicti commissi to determine the State which
has the most significant relationship, the following contacts are to be taken into
account and evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the
particular issue:
(a) the place where the injury occurred;
(b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred;
(c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of
business of the parties; and
(d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.
On the foreign element. (NOT impt.)
SAUDIA claims that Morada’s claim for alleged abuse of right occurred in Saudi
Arabia, hence the existence of a foreign element, which qualifies the application
of the Saudi Arabia Law by virtue of the lex loci delicti commissi rule. On the
other side, Morada contends that since her claim is based on Arts. 19 & 21 of
Civil Code, then the case is properly a matter of domestic law.
This case involves a ‘conflicts’ situation. (NOT impt.)
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.
 applicable principle is the [state of the] most significant relationship
rule

Issue: Whether the case is dismissible on the ground of principles

Hasegawa vs. Kitamura
of lex loci celebrationis and lex contractus, forum non conveniens
GR No. 149177 11/23/2007
and state of the most significant relationship rule.
Facts: Nippon, a Japanese consultancy firm entered into an
Ruling: In the judicial resolution of conflicts problems, three
Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA) in Japan with
consecutive phases are involved: jurisdiction, choice of law, and
respondent Minoru Kitamura, a Japanese national permanently
recognition and enforcement of judgments. Corresponding to
residing in the Philippines. Nippon then assigned respondent to
these phases are the following questions: (1) Where can or should
work as the project manager of the Southern Tagalog Access Road
litigation be initiated? (2) Which law will the court apply? and (3)
(STAR) Project in the Philippines On 2000, petitioner Kazuhiro
Where can the resulting judgment be enforced?
Hasegawa, Nippon’s general manager for its International Division,
Jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct concepts.
informed respondent that the company had no more intention of
Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair to cause a defendant to
automatically renewing his ICA. His services would be engaged by
travel to this state; choice of law asks the further question whether
the company only up to the substantial completion of the STAR
the application of a substantive law which will determine the
Project on March 31, 2000, just in time for the ICA’s
merits of the case is fair to both parties. The power to exercise
expiry.Threatened with impending unemployment, respondent,
jurisdiction does not automatically give a state constitutional
through his lawyer, requested a negotiation conference and
authority to apply forum law. In this case, only the first phase is at
demanded that he be assigned to the BBRI project. Nippon insisted
issue—jurisdiction and not choice of law. Lex loci celebrationis
that respondent’s contract was for a fixed term. As he was not able
relates to the “law of the place of the ceremony”63 or the law of
to generate a positive response from the petitioners, respondent
the place where a contract is made.64 The doctrine of lex
consequently initiated an action for specific performance and
contractus or lex loci contractus means the “law of the place where
damages with the Regional Trial Court.
a contract is executed or to be per-formed.”65 It controls the
nature, construction, and validity of the contract66 and it may
Petitioners contended that the ICA had been perfected in Japan
pertain to the law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties or the
and executed by and between Japanese nationals, moved to
law intended by them either expressly or implicitly.67 Under the
dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. They asserted that
“state of the most significant relationship rule,” to ascertain what
the claim for improper pre-termination of respondent’s ICA could
state law to apply to a dispute, the court should determine which
only be heard and ventilated in the proper courts of Japan
state has the most substantial connection to the occurrence and
following the principles of lex loci celebrationis and lex contractus.
the parties. In a case involving a contract, the court should
The RTC, denied the motion to dismiss.
consider where the contract was made, was negotiated, was to be
performed, and the domicile, place of business, or place of
Petitioners on certiorari invoked the defense of forum non
incorporation of the parties. Since these three principles in conflict
conveniens. On petition for review before this Court, petitioners
of laws make reference to the law applicable to a dispute, they are
dropped their other arguments, maintained the forum non
rules proper for the second phase, the choice of law. Clearly the
conveniens defense, and introduced their new argument that the
RTC has jurisdiction over the action is it one of those incapable of
pecuniary estimation. There was a premature invocation of the
choice of law rule since before determining which law should
apply, first there should exist a conflict of laws situation requiring
the application of the conflict of laws rules.
Saudi Arabian Airlines vs Rebesencio
FACTS:
Ma. Jopette M. Rebesencio and the other respondents were recruited and
hired by Saudia as Temporary Flight.
After undergoing seminars required by the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration for deployment overseas, as well as training modules offered
by Saudia and after working as Temporary Flight Attendants, respondents
became Permanent Flight Attendants.
They then entered into Cabin Attendant contracts with Saudia: Ma. Jopette
M. Rebesencio (Ma. Jopette) on May 16, 1990; Montassah B. Sacar-Adiong
(Montassah) and Rouen Ruth A. Cristobal (Rouen Ruth) on May 22, 1993;
and Loraine Schneider-Cruz (Loraine) on August 27, 1995.
Respondents continued their employment with Saudia until they were
separated from service on various dates in 2006. Respondents contended that
the termination of their employment was illegal. They alleged that the
termination was made solely because they were pregnant.
Saudia anchored its disapproval of respondents’ maternity leaves and
demand for their resignation on its “Unified Employment Contract for
Female Cabin Attendants” (Unified Contract). Under the Unified Contract,
the employment of a Flight Attendant who becomes pregnant is rendered
void. It provides:
(H) Due to the essential nature of the Air Hostess functions to be physically
fit on board to provide various services required in normal or emergency
cases on both domestic/international flights beside her role in maintaining
continuous safety and security of passengers, and since she will not be able to
maintain the required medical fitness while at work in case of pregnancy,
accordingly, if the Air Hostess becomes pregnant at any time during the term
of this contract, this shall render her employment contract as void and she
will be terminated due to lack of medical fitness.(Emphasis supplied)
Respondents filed a Complaint against Saudia and its officers for illegal
dismissal and for underpayment of salary, overtime pay, premium pay for
holiday, rest day, premium, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay,
separation pay, night shift differentials, medical expense reimbursements,
retirement benefits, illegal deduction, lay-over expense and allowances,
moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Saudia assailed the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. It claimed that all the
determining points of contact referred to foreign law and insisted that the
Complaint ought to be dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens. It
added that respondents had no cause of action as they resigned voluntarily.
Executive Labor Arbiter dismissed respondent’s complaint for lack of
merit/jurisdiction; on respondent’s appeal, the National Labor Relations
Commission reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter It explained that
"[considering that complainants-appellants are OFWs, the Labor Arbiters
and the NLRC has jurisdiction to hear and decide their complaint for illegal
termination." On the matter of forum non conveniens, it noted that there were
no special circumstances that warranted its abstention from exercising
jurisdiction. On the issue of whether respondents were validly dismissed, it
held that there was nothing on record to support Saudia's claim that
respondents resigned voluntarily.
ISSUE: (note – there were 3 issues but in relation to conflict of laws, let’s
discuss issue #1)
Whether or not the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations
Commission may exercise jurisdiction over Saudi Arabian Airlines and apply
Philippine law in adjudicating the present dispute? Yes.
THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION:
Saudia’s contention on forum non convenience:
Saudia asserts that Philippine courts and/or tribunals are not in a position to
make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts. This is because
respondents' Cabin Attendant contracts require the application of the laws of
Saudi Arabia, rather than those of the Philippines. It claims that the difficulty
of ascertaining foreign law calls into operation the principle of forum non
conveniens, thereby rendering improper the exercise of jurisdiction by
Philippine tribunals.
SC held:
A choice of law governing the validity of contracts or the interpretation of its
provisions dees not necessarily imply forum non conveniens. Choice of law
and forum non conveniens are entirely different matters.
Choice of law provisions are an offshoot of the fundamental principle of
autonomy of contracts.
Article 1306 of the Civil Code firmly ensconces this:
Article 1306. The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses,
terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.
In contrast, forum non conveniens is a device akin to the rule against forum
shopping. It is designed to frustrate illicit means for securing advantages and
vexing litigants that would otherwise be possible if the venue of litigation (or
dispute resolution) were left entirely to the whim of either party.
Forum non conveniens, like the rules of forum shopping, litispendentia, and res
judicata, is a means of addressing the problem of parallel litigation. While the
rules of forum shopping, litis pendentia, and res judicata are designed to
address the problem of parallel litigation within a single jurisdiction, forum
non conveniens is a means devised to address parallel litigation arising in
multiple jurisdictions.
On the matter of pleading forum non conveniens, we state the rule, thus: Forum
non conveniens must not only be clearly pleaded as a ground for dismissal; it must
be pleaded as such at the earliest possible opportunity. Otherwise, it shall be deemed
waived.
Forum non conveniens literally translates to "the forum is inconvenient." It is a
concept in private international law and was devised to combat the "less than
honorable" reasons and excuses that litigants use to secure procedural
advantages, annoy and harass defendants, avoid overcrowded dockets, and
select a "friendlier" venue. Thus, the doctrine of forum non conveniens
addresses the same rationale that the rule against forum shopping does,
albeit on a multijurisdictional scale.
Forum non conveniens, like res judicata, is a concept originating in common
law. However, unlike the rule on res judicata, as well as those on litis pendentia
and forum shopping, forum non conveniens finds no textual anchor, whether
in statute or in procedural rules, in our civil law system. Nevertheless,
jurisprudence has applied forum non conveniens as basis for a court to decline
its exercise of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, "a court, in conflicts
of law cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the
most 'convenient' or available forum and the parties are not precluded from
seeking remedies elsewhere.
Consistent with forum non conveniens as fundamentally a factual matter, it is
imperative that it proceed from & factually established basis. It would be
improper to dismiss an action pursuant to forum non conveniens based merely
on a perceived, likely, or hypothetical multiplicity of fora. Thus, a defendant
must also plead and show that a prior suit has, in fact, been brought in another
jurisdiction.
It further stated: 
Forum non conveniens finds no application and does not operate to divest
Philippine tribunals of jurisdiction and to require the application of foreign
law. Saudia invokes forum non conveniens to supposedly effectuate the
stipulations of the Cabin Attendant contracts that require the application of
the laws of Saudi Arabia.
NOTE:
Philippine law is definite as to what governs the formal or extrinsic validity
of contracts. The first paragraph of Article 17 of the Civil Code provides that
"[t]he forms and solemnities of contracts . . . shall be governed by the laws of
the country in which they are executed" (i.e., lex loci celebrationis).
In contrast, there is no statutorily established mode of settling conflict of laws
situations on matters pertaining to substantive content of contracts. It has
been noted that three (3) modes have emerged:
(1) lex loci contractus or the law of the place of the making;
(2) lex loci solutionis or the law of the place of performance; and
(3) lex loci intentionis or the law intended by the parties.
Given Saudia's assertions, of particular relevance to resolving the present
dispute is lex loci intentionis.
SC emphasize the glaringly discriminatory nature of Saudia’s policy. As
argued by respondents, Saudia’s policy entails the termination of
employment of flight attendants who become pregnant. At the risk of stating
the obvious, pregnancy is an occurrence that pertains specifically to women.
Saudia’s policy excludes from and restricts employment on the basis of no
other consideration but sex.

SC do lose sight of the reality that pregnancy does present physical
limitations that may render difficult the performance of functions associated
with being a flight attendant. Nevertheless, it would be the height of iniquity
to view pregnancy as a disability so permanent and immutable that it must
entail the termination of one’s employment. It is clear to us that any
individual, regardless of gender, may be subject to exigencies that limit the
performance of functions. However, we fail to appreciate how pregnancy
could be such an impairing occurrence that it leaves no other recourse but
the complete termination of the means through which a woman earns a
living.
Oddly enough, the petitioner Saudia themselves stated that the Saudi law
does not allow the termination of employment of women who take maternity
leaves;
In their Comment, respondents write:
Under the Labor Laws of Saudi Arabia and the Philippines[,] it is illegal and
unlawful to terminate the employment of any woman by virtue of
pregnancy. The law in Saudi Arabia is even more harsh and strict [sic] in that
no employer can terminate the employment of a female worker or give her a
warning of the same while on Maternity Leave, the specific provision of
Saudi Labor Laws on the matter is hereto quoted as follows: “An employer
may not terminate the employment of a female worker or give her a warning
of the same while on maternity leave.” (Article 155, Labor Law of the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Royal Decree No. M/51.)
SC pointed out that the relationship is much affected with public interest and that
the otherwise applicable Philippine laws and regulations cannot be rendered illusory
by the parties agreeing upon some other law to govern their relationship.
Under these circumstances, paragraph 10 of the employment agreement
cannot be given effect so as to oust Philippine agencies and courts of the
jurisdiction vested upon them by Philippine law. As the present dispute
relates to (what the respondents allege to be) the illegal termination of
respondents' employment, this case is immutably a matter of public interest
and public policy. Consistent with clear pronouncements in law and
jurisprudence, Philippine laws properly find application in and govern this
case.
The case now does not entail a preponderance of linkages that favor a foreign
jurisdiction.
Here, the circumstances of the parties and their relation do not approximate
the circumstances enumerated in Puyat, which this court recognized as
possibly justifying the desistance of Philippine tribunals from exercising
jurisdiction.
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. There
is no basis for concluding that "Saudia Jeddah" is distinct from "Saudia
Manila."
Lastly, there is not even room for considering foreign law. Philippine law
properly governs the present dispute.
Even if we were to assume, for the sake of discussion, that it is the laws of
Saudi Arabia which should apply, it does not follow that Philippine tribunals
should refrain from exercising jurisdiction. To. recall our pronouncements in
Puyat, as well as in Bank of America, NT&SA, it is not so much the mere
applicability of foreign law which calls into operation forum non conveniens.
Rather, what justifies a court's desistance from exercising jurisdiction is "[t]he
difficulty of ascertaining foreign law" or the inability of a "Philippine Court
to make an intelligent decision as to the law[.]"
This. case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter to make a detailed
computation of the amounts due to respondents which petitioner Saudi
Arabian Airlines should pay without delay.
NOTE:
Accordingly, under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, "a court, in conflicts
of law cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the
most 'convenient' or available forum and the parties are not precluded from
seeking remedies elsewhere."67 In Puyat v. Zabarte,68 this court recognized the
following situations as among those that may warrant a court's desistance
from exercising jurisdiction:

1) The belief that the matter can be better tried and decided elsewhere,
either because the main aspects of the case transpired in a foreign
jurisdiction or the material witnesses have their residence there;
2) The belief that the non-resident plaintiff sought the forum[,] a practice
known as forum shopping[,] merely to secure procedural advantages or to
convey or harass the defendant;
3) The unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to non residents or
aliens when the docket may already be overcrowded;
4) The inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for effectuating the right
sought to be maintained; and
5) The difficulty of ascertaining foreign law.