SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES (SAUDIA) v. MA. JOPETTE M.

REBESENCIO
G.R. No. 198587, January 14, 2015

All Filipinos are entitled to the protection of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

FACTS:

Petitioner Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) is a foreign corporation established and existing under
the laws of Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

REBESENCIO together with other Filipinos were recruited and hired by Saudia as Temporary Flight
Attendants and eventually became Permanent Flight Attendants. They 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 argues that they violated its "Unified Employment Contract for Female Cabin Attendants"
which says 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.

On November 8, 2007, respondents filed a Complaint against Saudia and its officers for illegal
dismissal and for underpayment of salary and other benefits. The case was initially assigned to Labor
Arbiter .
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.

ISSUES:

1. Whether 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

2. Whether or not the case should be dismmised on the ground of forum non conveniens

RULING:

I.

Yes.
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.
It is clear in Saudia's statement in its own Petition that what it has is a "Philippine Office” in Makati
City. Even in the position paper that Saudia submitted to the Labor Arbiter, 4what Saudia now refers
to as "Saudia Jeddah" was then only referred to as "Saudia Head Office at Jeddah, KSA,"

By its own admission, Saudia, while a foreign corporation, has a Philippine office.

Section 3(d) of Republic Act No. 7042, otherwise known as the Foreign Investments Act of 1991,
provides the following:
The phrase "doing business" shall include . . . opening offices, whether called "liaison" offices or
branches; . . . and any other act or acts that imply a continuity of commercial dealings or arrangements
and contemplate to that extent the performance of acts or works, or the exercise of some of the functions
normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution of commercial gain or of the purpose and object of the
business organization. (Emphasis supplied)
 A plain application of Section 3(d) of the Foreign Investments Act leads to no other conclusion than
that Saudia is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines. As such, Saudia may be sued in the
Philippines and is subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine tribunals.

II.

No. the dismissal of the complaint based on forum non conveniens is not correct.

A choice of law governing the validity of contracts or the interpretation of its provisions does not
necessarily imply forum non conveniens. Choice of law and forum non conveniens are entirely different
matters.

Contractual choice of law is not determinative of jurisdiction. Stipulating on the laws of a given
jurisdiction as the governing law of a contract does not preclude the exercise of jurisdiction by tribunals
elsewhere. The reverse is equally true: The assumption of jurisdiction by tribunals does not ipso facto mean
that it cannot apply and rule on the basis of the parties' stipulation.

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.
Forum non conveniens relates to forum, not to the choice of governing law. That forum non
conveniens may ultimately result in the application of foreign law is merely an incident of its application. In
this strict sense, forum non conveniens is not applicable. It is not the primarily pivotal consideration in this
case.

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,94 as well as in Bank of America, NT&SA,95 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[.]"

All told, the considerations for assumption of jurisdiction by Philippine tribunals as outlined in Bank
of America, NT&SA100 have been satisfied. First, all the parties are based in the Philippines and all the
material incidents transpired in this jurisdiction. Thus, the parties may conveniently seek relief from
Philippine tribunals. Second, Philippine tribunals are in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the
law and the facts. Third, Philippine tribunals are in a position to enforce their decisions. There is no
compelling basis for ceding jurisdiction to a foreign tribunal. Quite the contrary, the immense public policy
considerations attendant to this case behoove Philippine tribunals to not shy away from their duty to rule on
the case.

RATIO:
1. a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines such as Saudia may be sued in the
Philippines and is subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine tribunals.
2. Points to remember:
a. Forum non conveniens relates to forum, not to the choice of governing law

b. A choice of law governing the validity of contracts or the interpretation of its provisions does not
necessarily imply forum non conveniens
(Choice of law and forum non conveniens are entirely different matters.)

c. Contractual choice of law is not determinative of jurisdiction. Also, the assumption of jurisdiction
by tribunals does not ipso facto mean that it cannot apply and rule on the basis of the parties'
stipulation.