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.