Professional Documents
Culture Documents
469
1/43
4/8/2016
470
470
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000153f1a604fba724bad6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
2/43
4/8/2016
471
3/43
4/8/2016
472
4/43
4/8/2016
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 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.)
Same; Same; Same; Torts; Where the action 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; The
Philippines is the situs of the tort where it is in the Philippines
where the defendant allegedly deceived the plaintiff, a citizen
residing and working here, and the fact that certain acts or parts of
the injury occurred in another country is of no moment, for what is
important is the place where the over-all harm or the totality of the
injury to the person, reputation, social standing and human rights
of the plaintiff
473
473
5/43
4/8/2016
474
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000153f1a604fba724bad6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
6/43
4/8/2016
7/43
4/8/2016
475
475
Entitled Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. Hon. Judge Rodolfo A. Ortiz, in his
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000153f1a604fba724bad6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
8/43
4/8/2016
Supra, note 2.
476
476
9/43
4/8/2016
477
10/43
4/8/2016
________________
10
11
12
478
Dated November 19, 1993, and docketed as Civil Case No. Q-93-
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000153f1a604fba724bad6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
11/43
4/8/2016
16
17
18
Rollo, p. 65.
19
Supra, note 6.
20
21
479
the case on the basis of Article 21 of the Civil Code, since the
proper law applicable is the law of the Kingdom of Saudi
22
Arabia. On October 14, 1994, Morada filed her Opposition
(To Defendants 23
Motion for Reconsideration).
In the Reply filed with the trial court on October 24,
1994, SAUDIA alleged that since its Motion for
Reconsideration raised lack of jurisdiction as its cause of
action, the Omnibus Motion Rule does not apply, even if
that ground is raised for the first time on appeal.
Additionally, SAUDIA alleged that the Philippines does not
have any substantial interest in the prosecution of the
instant case, and hence, without jurisdiction to adjudicate
the same.
24
Respondent Judge subsequently issued another Order
dated February 2, 1995, denying SAUDIAs Motion for
Reconsideration. The pertinent portion of the assailed Order
reads as follows:
Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration of defendant Saudi
Arabian Airlines filed, thru counsel, on September 20, 1994, and
the Opposition thereto of the plaintiff filed, thru counsel, on October
14, 1994, as well as the Reply therewith of defendant Saudi
Arabian Airlines filed, thru counsel, on October 24, 1994,
considering that a perusal of the plaintiffs Amended Complaint,
which is one for the recovery of actual, moral and exemplary
damages plus attorneys fees, upon the basis of the applicable
Philippine law, Article 21 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines,
is, clearly, within the jurisdiction of this Court as regards the subject
matter, and there being nothing new of substance which might
cause the reversal or modification of the order sought to be
reconsidered, the motion for reconsideration of the defendant, is
DENIED.
25
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000153f1a604fba724bad6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
12/43
4/8/2016
SO ORDERED.
23
24
Supra, note 7.
25
Ibid.
480
480
Writ of Preliminary
Injunction and/or Temporary
26
Restraining Order with the Court of Appeals.
Respondent Court of Appeals promulgated
a Resolution
27
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 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:
The Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction is
hereby DENIED, after considering the Answer, with Prayer to
Deny Writ of Preliminary Injunction (Rollo, p. 135) the Reply and
Rejoinder, it appearing that herein petitioner is not clearly entitled
thereto (Unciano Paramedical College, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et
al., G.R. No. 100335, April 7, 1993, Second Division).
SO ORDERED.
13/43
4/8/2016
27
Supra, note 7.
28
Records, p. 180.
29
30
Supra, note 2.
481
481
14/43
4/8/2016
32
Memorandum for Petitioner dated October 9, 1996, rollo, pp. 149-180; and
Memorandum for Private Respondent, October 30, 1996, rollo, pp. 182-210.
482
482
15/43
4/8/2016
34
35
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.
36
Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in
483
16/43
4/8/2016
Manila.
7. 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.
8. 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. Meniewy, 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
________________
37
38
484
17/43
4/8/2016
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000153f1a604fba724bad6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
18/43
4/8/2016
485
485
41
Ibid.
43
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000153f1a604fba724bad6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
19/43
4/8/2016
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.
46
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000153f1a604fba724bad6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
20/43
4/8/2016
487
487
21/43
4/8/2016
488
Supra, note 37, p. 58, citing Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert, 350
22/43
4/8/2016
June
23,
1994
under
date
August
11,
1994;
and
Motion
for
489
As held
by this Court in Republic vs. Ker and Company,
51
Ltd.:
We observe that the motion to dismiss filed on April 14, 1962, aside
from disputing the lower courts jurisdiction over defendants
person, prayed for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that
plaintiffs cause of action has prescribed. By interposing such second
ground in its motion to dismiss, Ker and Co., Ltd. availed of an
affirmative defense on the basis of which it prayed the court to
resolve controversy in its favor. For the court to validly decide the
said plea of defendant Ker & Co., Ltd., it necessarily had to acquire
jurisdiction upon the latters person, who, being the proponent of
the affirmative defense, should be deemed to have abandoned its
special appearance and voluntarily submitted itself to the
jurisdiction of the court.
23/43
4/8/2016
________________
51
52
490
24/43
4/8/2016
Ibid.
55
of Laws, p. 50.
56
57
Ibid.
Supra, note 37 at p. 136; cf. Mussbaum, Principle of Private
491
25/43
4/8/2016
Ibid.
60
492
26/43
4/8/2016
493
27/43
4/8/2016
Includes the (1) German rule of elective concurrence; (2) State of the
494
28/43
4/8/2016
Supra, note 59, p. 79, citing Ruben v. Irving Trust Co., 305 N.Y.
65
66
495
29/43
4/8/2016
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (Chairman), Bellosillo, Vitug and
Panganiban, JJ., concur.
Petition dismissed, Civil Case No. Q-93-18394 remanded
to lower court.
Notes.Forum-shopping originated as a concept in
private international law, where non-resident litigants are
given the option to choose the forum or place wherein to
bring their suit for various reasons or excuses, including to
secure procedural advantages, to annoy and harass the
defendant, to avoid overcrowded dockets, or to select a more
friendly venue. (First Philippine International Bank vs.
Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 259 [1996])
After having acquired jurisdiction over a plaintiff foreign
corporation by virtue of the filing of the original complaint,
the Philippine court now has the discretion, based on the
facts of the case, to either give due course to the suit or
dismiss it, on the principle of forum non conveniens.
(Communication Materials and Design, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, 260 SCRA 673 [1996])
o0o
496
496
30/43
4/8/2016
497
497
31/43
4/8/2016
498
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000153f1a604fba724bad6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
32/43
4/8/2016
499
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000153f1a604fba724bad6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
33/43
4/8/2016
500
500
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000153f1a604fba724bad6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
34/43
4/8/2016
501
35/43
4/8/2016
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].
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000153f1a604fba724bad6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
36/43
4/8/2016
502
502
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000153f1a604fba724bad6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
37/43
4/8/2016
503
38/43
4/8/2016
________________
5
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)
39/43
4/8/2016
No. 126699, August 7, 1998. See also Qua Chee Gan vs. Law Union and
Rock Insurance Co., Ltd., 98 Phil. 95 [1955].
505
505
40/43
4/8/2016
506
41/43
4/8/2016
See Mendoza vs. Philippine Air Lines, Inc., 90 Phil. 836, 845-846.
10
Rollo, p. 116.
11
Rollo, p. 13.
507
507
42/43
4/8/2016
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000153f1a604fba724bad6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
43/43