Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*
G.R. No. 122191. October 8, 1998.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
________________
* FIRST DIVISION.
470
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
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 plaintiff (private respondent now) 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.
471
472
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
govern their agreement, the lex loci intentionis; (7) the place
where judicial or administrative proceedings are instituted or
done. The lex forithe law of the forumis 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.
(Italics ours.)
473
474
QUISUMBING, J.:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
were issued
8
by the trial court in Civil Case No. Q-93-
18394.
The pertinent antecedent facts which gave rise to9 the
instant petition, as stated in the questioned Decision, are
as follows:
________________
476
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. Eventually, SAUDIA allowed plaintiff to return to
Jeddah but barred her from the Jakarta flights.
Plaintiff learned that, through the intercession of the Saudi
Arabian government, the Indonesian authorities agreed to deport
Thamer and Allah after two weeks of detention. Eventually, they
were again put in service by defendant SAUDIA (sic). In
September 1990, defendant SAUDIA transferred plaintiff to
Manila.
On January 14, 1992, just when plaintiff thought that the
Jakarta incident was already behind her, her superiors requested
her to see Mr. Ali Meniewy, Chief Legal Officer of SAUDIA, in
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. When she saw him, he brought her to the
police station where the police took her passport and questioned
her about the Jakarta incident. Miniewy simply stood by as the
police put pressure on her to make a statement dropping the case
against Thamer and Allah. Not until she agreed to do so did the
police return her passport and allowed her to catch the afternoon
flight out of Jeddah.
One year and a half later or on June 16, 1993, in Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia, a few minutes before the departure of her flight to
Manila, plaintiff was not allowed to board the plane and instead
ordered to take a later flight to Jeddah to see Mr. Miniewy, the
Chief Legal Officer of SAUDIA. When she did, a certain Khalid of
the SAUDIA office brought her to a Saudi court where she was
asked to sign a document written in Arabic. They told her that
this was necessary to close the case against Thamer and Allah. As
it turned out, plaintiff signed a notice to her to appear before the
court on June 27, 1993. Plaintiff then returned to Manila.
477
________________
478
________________
13 Dated November 19, 1993, and docketed as Civil Case No. Q-93-
18394, Branch 89, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
14 Dated January 14, 1994.
15 Dated February 4, 1994.
16 Reply dated March 1, 1994.
17 Records, pp. 65-84.
18 Rollo, p. 65.
19 Supra, note 6.
20 Hon. Rodolfo A. Ortiz.
21 Dated September 19, 1994.
479
________________
480
Writ of Preliminary
26
Injunction and/or Temporary
Restraining Order with the Court of Appeals.
Respondent Court of Appeals promulgated
27
a Resolution
with Temporary Restraining Order dated February 23,
1995, prohibiting the respondent Judge from further
conducting any proceeding, unless otherwise directed, in
the interim.
28
In another Resolution promulgated on September
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27, 12/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
28
In another Resolution promulgated on September 27,
1995, now assailed, the appellate court denied SAUDIAs
Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction dated February 18, 1995, to wit:
________________
481
I.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
The trial court has no jurisdiction to hear and try Civil Case No.
Q-93-18394 based on Article 21 of the New Civil Code since the
proper law applicable is the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
inasmuch as this case involves what is known in private
international law as a conflicts problem. Otherwise, the Republic
of the Philippines will sit in judgment of the acts done by another
sovereign state which is abhorred.
II.
III.
________________
482
I.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
II.
________________
483
________________
484
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
________________
485
________________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
42 Ibid.
43 Paras, Philippine Conflict of Laws, sixth edition (1984), p. 24, citing
Leflar, The Law of Conflict of Laws, pp. 5-6.
44 Supra, note 17.
486
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in
the performance of his duties, act with justice give everyone his
due and observe honesty and good faith.
Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another
in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy shall compensate the latter for damages.
________________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
487
________________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
488
________________
49 Supra, note 37, p. 58, citing Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert, 350 U.S.
501, 67 Sup. Ct. 839 (1947).
50 Omnibus Motion to Dismiss dated January 14, 1994; Reply (to
Plaintiffs Opposition) dated February 19, 1994; Comment (to Plaintiffs
Motion to Admit Amended Complaint dated June 23, 1994) dated July 20,
1994; Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint dated
June 23, 1994 under date August 11, 1994; and Motion for
Reconsideration dated September 19, 1994.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
489
As held
51
by this Court in Republic vs. Ker and Company,
Ltd.:
________________
490
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
________________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
491
59
ble law. These test factors or points of contact or
connecting factors could be any of the following:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
________________
59 Ibid.
60 Supra, note 37 at pp. 138-139.
492
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
________________
61 Includes the (1) German rule of elective concurrence; (2) State of the
most significant relationship rule (the Second Restatement of 1969); (3)
State-interest analysis; and (4) Cavers Principle of Preference.
62 Supra, note 37, p. 396.
494
63
with the matter in this dispute, raised by private
respondent as plaintiff below against defendant (herein
petitioner), in our view, has been properly established.
Prescinding from this premise that the Philippines is the
situs of the tort complained of and the place having the
most interest in the problem, we find, by way of
recapitulation, that the Philippine law on tort liability
should have paramount application to and control in the
resolution of the legal issues arising out of this case.
Further, we hold that the respondent Regional Trial Court
has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of
the complaint; the appropriate venue is in Quezon City,
which could properly apply Philip-pine law. Moreover, we
find untenable petitioners insistence that [s]ince private
respondent instituted this suit, she has the burden of
pleading64 and proving the applicable Saudi law on the
matter. As aptly said by private respondent, she has no
obligation to plead and prove the law of the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia since her cause of action is based on Articles
19 and 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. In her
Amended Complaint and subsequent pleadings, she 65
never
alleged that Saudi law should govern this case. And as
correctly held by the respondent appellate court,
considering that it was the petitioner who was invoking
the applicability of the law of Saudi Arabia, then the
burden was on it [petitioner] 66
to plead and to establish what
the law of Saudi Arabia is.
Lastly, no error could be imputed to the respondent
appellate court in upholding the trial courts denial of
defendants (herein petitioners) motion to dismiss the case.
Not only was jurisdiction in order and venue properly laid,
but appeal after trial was obviously available, and
expeditious trial itself indicated by the nature of the case at
hand. Indubitably, the
________________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
63 Supra, note 59, p. 79, citing Ruben v. Irving Trust Co., 305 N.Y. 288,
305, 113 N.E. 2d 424, 431.
64 Memorandum for Petitioner, p. 22; rollo, p. 170.
65 Memorandum for Private Respondent, pp. 21-22; rollo, pp. 202-203.
66 CA Decision, p. 10; rollo, p. 97.
495
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
o0o
496
*
G.R. No. 122494. October 8, 1998.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
________________
* SECOND DIVISION.
497
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
498
MARTINEZ, J.:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
________________
499
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 32/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
Art. 1750. A contract fixing the sum that may be recovered by the owner
or shipper for the loss, destruction or de-
________________
500
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
501
Hence, it follows that the appellee may recover the full value of
the shipment lost, the basis of which is not the breach of contract
as appellee was never a privy to the any contract with the
appellant, but is based on Article 1735 of the New Civil Code,
there being no evidence to prove satisfactorily that the appellant
has overcome the presumption of negligence provided for in the
law.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
________________
3 St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. vs. Macondray & Co., 70
SCRA 122 [1976]; Sea Land Services, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate
Court, 153 SCRA 552 [1987]; Pan American World Airways, Inc. vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, 164 SCRA 268 [1988]; Phil. Airlines, Inc.
vs. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 63 [1996].
502
4
Service, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, we ruled:
18. All claims for which the carrier may be liable shall be
adjusted and settled on the basis of the shippers net invoice cost
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 35/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
________________
503
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 36/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
________________
504
While it may be true that petitioner had not signed the plane
ticket x x, he is nevertheless bound by the provisions thereof.
Such provisions have been held to be a part of the contract of
carriage, and valid and binding upon the passenger regardless of
the latters lack of knowledge or assent to the regulation. It is
what is known as a contract of adhesion, in regards which it has
been said that contracts of adhesion wherein one party imposes a
ready-made form of contract on the other, as the plane ticket in
the case at bar, are contracts not entirely prohibited. The one who
adheres to the contract is in reality free to reject it entirely; if he
adheres, he gives his consent. x x x, a contract limiting liability
upon an agreed valuation does not offend against the policy of the
law forbidding one from contracting against his own negligence.
(Emphasis supplied)
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 37/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
________________
505
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 38/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
506
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 39/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
________________
9 See Mendoza vs. Philippine Air Lines, Inc., 90 Phil. 836, 845-846.
10 Rollo, p. 116.
11 Rollo, p. 13.
507
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 40/41
9/3/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
o0o
508
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e47a5e8e14cf82f6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 41/41