saudi and llorente full cases

8/12/2019 Saudi and Llorente Full Cases

1/21

[G.R. No. 122191. October 8, 1998]

SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES,petitioner,vs. COURT OF APPEALS,ILAGROS P. ORADA !"# $ON. RODOLFO A. ORTI%, &" '&(c!)!c&t* !( Pre(&"+ -#+e o Br!"c' 89, Re+&o"!/ Tr&!/ Co-rto 0-eo" C&t*, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

0UISUBING, J.

This petition for certioraripursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to annul

and set aside the Resolution[1]dated September 27, 1995 and the e!ision[2]dated "pril1#, 199$ of the Court of "ppeals [%]in C"&'(R( S) *o( %$5%%, [4]and the +rders [5]dated

"uust 29, 1994[$]and -ebruar. 2, 1995 [7]that /ere issued b. the trial !ourt in Ci0il Case*o( &9%&1%94([]

The pertinent ante!edent fa!ts /hi!h a0e rise to the instant petition, as stated inthe 3uestioned e!ision[9],are as follo/s

+n 6anuar. 21, 19 defendant S"8" hired plaintiff as a -liht"ttendant for its airlines based in 6eddah, Saudi "rabia(

+n "pril 27, 199#, /hile on a la.&o0er in 6akarta, 8ndonesia, plaintiff

/ent to a dis!o dan!e /ith fello/ !re/ members Thamer "l&'a::a/iand "llah "l&'a::a/i, both Saudi nationals( ;e!ause it /as almostmornin /hen the. returned to their hotels, the. areed to ha0ebreakfast toether at the room of Thamer( room, "llah left on some pretet( Shortl. after he did, Thamerattempted to rape plaintiff( -ortunatel., a roombo. and se0eral se!urit.personnel heard her !ries for help and res!ued her( ?ater, the8ndonesian poli!e !ame and arrested Thamer and "llah "l&'a::a/i,the latter as an a!!ompli!e(


2/21

into somethin she did not /ant be!ause of her inabilit. to understandthe lo!al diale!t( She also de!lined to sin a blank paper and ado!ument /ritten in the lo!al diale!t( @0entuall., S"8" allo/edplaintiff to return to 6eddah but barred her from the 6akarta flihts(

)laintiff learned that, throuh the inter!ession of the Saudi "rabiano0ernment, the 8ndonesian authorities areed to deport Thamer and

"llah after t/o /eeks of detention( @0entuall., the. /ere aain put inser0i!e b. defendant S"8 =si!>( 8n September 199#, defendantS"8" transferred plaintiff to Aanila(

+n 6anuar. 14, 1992, Bust /hen plaintiff thouht that the 6akartain!ident /as alread. behind her, her superiors re3uested her to seeAr( "li Aenie/., Chief ?eal +ffi!er of S"8", in 6eddah, Saudi

"rabia(


3/21

8nfliht Ser0i!e +ffi!e /here she /as told to o, the se!retar. of Ar(Eah.a Saddi!k took a/a. her passport and told her to remain in6eddah, at the !re/ 3uarters, until further orders(

+n 6ul. %, 199% a S"8" leal offi!er aain es!orted plaintiff to the

same !ourt /here the Bude, to her astonishment and sho!k, rendereda de!ision, translated to her in @nlish, senten!in her to fi0e monthsimprisonment and to 2$ lashes( +nl. then did she reali:e that theSaudi !ourt had tried her, toether /ith Thamer and "llah, for /hathappened in 6akarta( The !ourt found plaintiff uilt. of =1> adulter.F =2>oin to a dis!o, dan!in and listenin to the musi! in 0iolation of8slami! la/sF and =%> so!iali:in /ith the male !re/, in !ontra0ention of8slami! tradition(G[1#]

-a!in !on0i!tion, pri0ate respondent souht the help of her emplo.er, petitionerS"8"( nfortunatel., she /as denied an. assistan!e( She then asked the )hilippine

@mbass. in 6eddah to help her /hile her !ase is on appeal( Aean/hile, to pa. for herupkeep, she /orked on the domesti! fliht of S"8", /hile Thamer and "llah!ontinued to ser0e in the international flihts( [11]

;e!ause she /as /ronfull. !on0i!ted, the )rin!e of Aakkah dismissed the !aseaainst her and allo/ed her to lea0e Saudi "rabia( Shortl. before her return to Aanila,[12]she /as terminated from the ser0i!e b. S"8", /ithout her bein informed of the!ause(

+n *o0ember 2%, 199%, Aorada filed a Complaint [1%]for damaes aainst S"8",and haled "l&;ala/i ="l& ;ala/iG>, its !ountr. manaer(

+n 6anuar. 19, 1994, S"8" filed an +mnibus Aotion To ismiss[14]

/hi!h raisedthe follo/in rounds, to /it =1> that the Complaint states no !ause of a!tion aainstSaudiaF =2> that defendant "l&;ala/i is not a real part. in interestF =%> that the !laim ordemand set forth in the Complaint has been /ai0ed, abandoned or other/iseetinuishedF and =4> that the trial !ourt has no Burisdi!tion to tr. the !ase(

+n -ebruar. 1#, 1994, Aorada filed her +pposition =To Aotion to ismiss> [15]Saudiafiled a repl.[1$]thereto on Aar!h %, 1994(

+n 6une 2%, 1994, Aorada filed an "mended Complaint [17]/herein "l&;ala/i /asdropped as part. defendant( +n "uust 11, 1994, Saudia filed its Aanifestation andAotion to ismiss "mended Complaint [1](

The trial !ourt issued an +rder[19]dated "uust 29, 1994 den.in the Aotion toismiss "mended Complaint filed b. Saudia(

-rom the +rder of respondent 6ude [2#]den.in the Aotion to ismiss, S"8" filedon September 2#, 1994, its Aotion for Re!onsideration [21]of the +rder dated "uust 29,1994( 8t alleed that the trial !ourt has no Burisdi!tion to hear and tr. the !ase on thebasis of "rti!le 21 of the Ci0il Code, sin!e the proper la/ appli!able is the la/ of the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn21


4/21

indom of Saudi "rabia( +n +!tober 14, 1994, Aorada filed her +pposition [22]=ToefendantDs Aotion for Re!onsideration>(

8n the Repl.[2%]filed /ith the trial !ourt on +!tober 24, 1994, S"8" alleed thatsin!e its Aotion for Re!onsideration raised la!k of Burisdi!tion as its !ause of a!tion, the+mnibus Aotion Rule does not appl., e0en if that round is raised for the first time on

appeal( "dditionall., S"8" alleed that the )hilippines does not ha0e an. substantialinterest in the prose!ution of the instant !ase, and hen!e, /ithout Burisdi!tion toadBudi!ate the same(

Respondent 6ude subse3uentl. issued another +rder[24]dated -ebruar. 2, 1995,den.in S"8"Ds Aotion for Re!onsideration( The pertinent portion of the assailed+rder reads as follo/s

"!tin on the Aotion for Re!onsideration of defendant Saudi "rabian"irlines filed, thru !ounsel, on September 2#, 1994, and the+pposition thereto of the plaintiff filed, thru !ounsel, on +!tober 14,

1994, as /ell as the Repl. there/ith of defendant Saudi "rabian"irlines filed, thru !ounsel, on +!tober 24, 1994, !onsiderin that aperusal of the plaintiffDs "mended Complaint, /hi!h is one for there!o0er. of a!tual, moral and eemplar. damaes plus attorne.Dsfees, upon the basis of the appli!able )hilippine la/, "rti!le 21 of the*e/ Ci0il Code of the )hilippines, is, !learl., /ithin the Burisdi!tion ofthis Court as reards the subBe!t matter, and there bein nothin ne/of substan!e /hi!h miht !ause the re0ersal or modifi!ation of theorder souht to be re!onsidered, the motion for re!onsideration of thedefendant, is @*8@(

S+ +R@R@(G[25]

Conse3uentl., on -ebruar. 2#, 1995, S"8" filed its )etition for Certiorariand)rohibition /ith )ra.er for 8ssuan!e of


5/21

S+ +R@R@(G

+n +!tober 2#, 1995, S"8" filed /ith this Ionorable Court the instant)etition[29]for Re0ie/ /ith )ra.er for Temporar. Restrainin +rder dated +!tober 1%,1995(

Io/e0er, durin the penden!. of the instant )etition, respondent Court of "ppealsrendered the e!ision[%#]dated "pril 1#, 199$, no/ also assailed( 8t ruled that the)hilippines is an appropriate forum !onsiderin that the "mended ComplaintDs basis forre!o0er. of damaes is "rti!le 21 of the Ci0il Code, and thus, !learl. /ithin the

Burisdi!tion of respondent Court( 8t further held that certiorariis not the proper remed. ina denial of a Aotion to ismiss, inasmu!h as the petitioner should ha0e pro!eeded totrial, and in !ase of an ad0erse rulin, find re!ourse in an appeal(

+n Aa. 7, 199$, S"8" filed its Supplemental )etition for Re0ie/ /ith )ra.er forTemporar. Restrainin +rder[%1]dated "pril %#, 199$, i0en due !ourse b. thisCourt( "fter both parties submitted their Aemoranda,[%2]the instant !ase is no/ deemedsubmitted for de!ision(

)etitioner S"8" raised the follo/in issues

3I

The trial !ourt has no Burisdi!tion to hear and tr. Ci0il Case *o( &9%&1%94based on "rti!le 21 of the *e/ Ci0il Code sin!e the proper la/ appli!able isthe la/ of the indom of Saudi "rabia inasmu!h as this !ase in0ol0es /hatis kno/n in pri0ate international la/ as a J!onfli!ts problemD( +ther/ise, theRepubli! of the )hilippines /ill sit in Budment of the a!ts done b. anotherso0erein state /hi!h is abhorred(

II.

?ea0e of !ourt before filin a supplemental pleadin is not a Burisdi!tionalre3uirement( ;esides, the matter as to absen!e of lea0e of !ourt is no/ mootand a!ademi! /hen this Ionorable Court re3uired the respondents to!omment on petitionerDs "pril %#, 199$ Supplemental )etition -or Re0ie/


6/21

Re0ised Rules of Court( Therefore, the de!ision in C"&'(R( S) *+( %$5%%has not .et be!ome final and ee!utor. and this Ionorable Court !an take!oni:an!e of this !ase(G[%%]

-rom the foreoin fa!tual and pro!edural ante!edents, the follo/in issues

emere for our resolution

I.


7/21

7( +n 6anuar. 14, 1992, Bust /hen plaintiff thouht that the 6akartain!ident /as alread. behind her, her superiors re3uested her to seeAR( "li Aenie/., Chief ?eal +ffi!er of S"8", in 6eddah, Saudi

"rabia(


8/21

adulter.F =2> oin to a dis!o, dan!in, and listenin to the musi! in0iolation of 8slami! la/sF =%> so!iali:in /ith the male !re/, in!ontra0ention of 8slami! tradition(

12( ;e!ause S"8" refused to lend her a hand in the !ase, plaintiff

souht the help of the )hilippine @mbass. in 6eddah( The latterhelped her pursue an appeal from the de!ision of the !ourt( To pa. forher upkeep, she /orked on the domesti! flihts of defendant S"8"/hile, ironi!all., Thamer and "llah freel. ser0ed the internationalflihts(G[%9]


9/21

"rt( 21( "n. person /ho /illfull. !auses loss or inBur. to another in amanner that is !ontrar. to morals, ood !ustoms or publi! poli!. shall!ompensate the latter for damaes(G

Thus, in Philippine National Bank (PNB) vs. Court of Appeals,[45]this Court held that

The afore!ited pro0isions on human relations /ere intended toepand the !on!ept of torts in this Burisdi!tion b. rantin ade3uateleal remed. for the untold number of moral /rons /hi!h isimpossible for human foresiht to spe!ifi!all. pro0ide in the statutes(G

"lthouh "rti!le 19 merel. de!lares a prin!iple of la/, "rti!le 21 i0es flesh to itspro0isions( Thus, /e aree /ith pri0ate respondentDs assertion that 0iolations of "rti!les19 and 21 are a!tionable, /ith Budi!iall. enfor!eable remedies in the muni!ipal forum(

;ased on the alleations[4$]in the "mended Complaint, read in the liht of the Rulesof Court on Burisdi!tion[47]/e find that the Reional Trial Court =RTC> of ue:on Cit.

possesses Burisdi!tion o0er the subBe!t matter of the suit([4]

8ts authorit. to tr. and hearthe !ase is pro0ided for under Se!tion 1 of Republi! "!t *o( 7$91, to /it

Se!tion 1( Se!tion 19 of ;atas )ambansa ;l( 129, other/ise kno/nas the 6udi!iar. Reorani:ation "!t of 19#G, is hereb. amended toread as follo/s

S@C( 19( 6urisdi!tion in Ci0il Cases( M Reional Trial Courts shall eer!isee!lusi0e Burisdi!tion

=> 8n all other !ases in /hi!h demand, e!lusi0e of interest, damaes of/hate0er kind, attorne.Ds fees, litiation epenses, and !osts or the 0alue ofthe propert. in !ontro0ers. e!eeds +ne hundred thousand pesos=)1##,###(##> or, in su!h other !ases in Aetro Aanila, /here the demand,e!lusi0e of the abo0e&mentioned items e!eeds T/o hundred Thousandpesos =)2##,###(##>( =@mphasis ours>

"nd follo/in Se!tion 2 =b>, Rule 4 of the Re0ised Rules of CourtNthe 0enue,

ue:on Cit., is appropriate

S@C( 2 Lenue in Courts of -irst 8nstan!e( M[*o/ Reional Trial Court]

=a>

=b> )ersonal a!tions( M "ll other a!tions ma. be !ommen!ed and tried/here the defendant or an. of the defendants resides or ma. be
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn48


10/21

found, or /here the plaintiff or an. of the plaintiff resides, at theele!tion of the plaintiff(G

)ramati! !onsiderations, in!ludin the !on0enien!e of the parties, also /eihhea0il. in fa0or of the RTC ue:on Cit. assumin Burisdi!tion( )aramount is the pri0ateinterest of the litiant( @nfor!eabilit. of a Budment if one is obtained is 3uiteob0ious( Relati0e ad0antaes and obsta!les to a fair trial are e3uall.important( )laintiff ma. not, b. !hoi!e of an in!on0enient forum, J0eD, JharassD, orJoppressD the defendant, e(( b. infli!tin upon him needless epense ordisturban!e( ;ut unless the balan!e is stronl. in fa0or of the defendant, the plaintiffDs!hoi!e of forum should rarel. be disturbed( [49]

to seek remedial a!tion else/here, i(e( in theindom of Saudi "rabia /here she no loner maintains substantial !onne!tions( That/ould ha0e !aused a fundamental unfairness to her(

Aoreo0er, b. hearin the !ase in the )hilippines no unne!essar. diffi!ulties andin!on0enien!e ha0e been sho/n b. either of the parties( The !hoi!e of forum of theplaintiff =no/ pri0ate respondent> should be upheld(

Similarl., the trial !ourt also possesses Burisdi!tion o0er the persons of the partiesherein( ;. filin her Complaint and "mended Complaint /ith the trial !ourt, pri0aterespondent has 0oluntar. submitted herself to the Burisdi!tion of the !ourt(

The re!ords sho/ that petitioner S"8" has filed se0eral motions [5#]pra.in for thedismissal of AoradaDs "mended Complaint( S"8" also filed an "ns/er 8n x

A!undante Cautelamdated -ebruar. 2#, 1995(


11/21

Similarl., the !ase of %e &id'el# vs. erandos, held that

to /hatetent should the !hosen leal s.stem reulate the situation( [5%]

Se0eral theories ha0e been propounded in order to identif. the leal s.stem thatshould ultimatel. !ontrol( "lthouh ideall., all !hoi!e&of&la/ theories should intrinsi!all.ad0an!e both notions of Busti!e and predi!tabilit., the. do not al/a.s do so( The forumis then fa!ed /ith the problem of de!idin /hi!h of these t/o important 0alues shouldbe stressed([54]

;efore a !hoi!e !an be made, it is ne!essar. for us to determine under /hat!ateor. a !ertain set of fa!ts or rules fall( This pro!ess is kno/n as !hara!teri:ationG,or the do!trine of 3ualifi!ationG( 8t is the pro!ess of de!idin /hether or not the fa!tsrelate to the kind of 3uestion spe!ified in a !onfli!ts rule(G[55]The purposeof !hara!teri:ationG is to enable the forum to sele!t the proper la/( [5$]

+ur startin point of anal.sis here is not a leal relation, but a fa!tual situation,e0ent, or operati0e fa!t([57]"n essential element of !onfli!t rules is the indi!ation of atestG or !onne!tin fa!torG or point of !onta!tG( Choi!e&of&la/ rules in0ariabl. !onsistof a fa!tual relationship =su!h as propert. riht, !ontra!t !laim> and a !onne!tin fa!toror point of !onta!t, su!h as the situsof the res, the pla!e of !elebration, the pla!e ofperforman!e, or the pla!e of /rondoin( [5]

*ote that one or more !ir!umstan!es ma. be present to ser0e as the possible testfor the determination of the appli!able la/( [59]These test fa!torsG or points of !onta!tG or!onne!tin fa!torsG !ould be an. of the follo/in

=1> The nationalit. of a person, his domi!ile, his residen!e, his pla!eof soBourn, or his oriinF

=2> the seat of a leal or Buridi!al person, su!h as a !orporationF
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn59


12/21

=%> the situsof a thin, that is, the pla!e /here a thin is, or is deemedto be situated( 8n parti!ular, the lex situsis de!isi0e /hen real rihtsare in0ol0edF

=4> t'e )/!ce 4'ere !" !ct '!( bee" #o"e, t'e locus actus, (-c'

!( t'e )/!ce 4'ere ! co"tr!ct '!( bee" 5!#e, ! 5!rr&!+ece/ebr!te#, ! 4&// (&+"e# or ! tort co55&tte#. T'e lex loci actus &()!rt&c-/!r/* &5)ort!"t &" co"tr!ct( !"# tort(6

=5> the pla!e /here an a!t is intended to !ome into effe!t, e((, thepla!e of performan!e of !ontra!tual duties, or the pla!e /here a po/erof attorne. is to be eer!isedF

=$> the intention of the !ontra!tin parties as to the la/ that shouldo0ern their areement, the lex loci intentionisF

=7> the pla!e /here Budi!ial or administrati0e pro!eedins are institutedor done( The lex foriNthe la/ of the forumNis parti!ularl. importantbe!ause, as /e ha0e seen earlier, matters of Jpro!edureD not oin tothe substan!e of the !laim in0ol0ed are o0erned b. itF and be!ausethe lex foriapplies /hene0er the !ontent of the other/ise appli!ableforein la/ is e!luded from appli!ation in a i0en !ase for the reasonthat it falls under one of the e!eptions to the appli!ations of foreinla/F and

=> the fla of a ship, /hi!h in man. !ases is de!isi0e of pra!ti!all. all lealrelationships of the ship and of its master or o/ner as su!h( 8t also !o0ers

!ontra!tual relationships parti!ularl. !ontra!ts ofaffreihtment(G [$#]=nders!orin ours(>

"fter a !areful stud. of the pleadins on re!ord, in!ludin alleations in the"mended Complaint deemed submitted for purposes of the motion to dismiss, /e are!on0in!ed that there is reasonable basis for pri0ate respondentDs assertion that althouhshe /as alread. /orkin in Aanila, petitioner brouht her to 6eddah on the pretensethat she /ould merel. testif. in an in0estiation of the !hares she made aainst thet/o S"8" !re/ members for the atta!k on her person /hile the. /ere in 6akarta( "sit turned out, she /as the one made to fa!e trial for 0er. serious !hares, in!ludinadulter. and 0iolation of 8slami! la/s and tradition(

There is like/ise loi!al basis on re!ord for the !laim that the handin o0erG orturnin o0erG of the person of pri0ate respondent to 6eddah offi!ials, petitioner ma.ha0e a!ted be.ond its duties as emplo.er( )etitionerDs purported a!t !ontributed to andamplified or e0en proimatel. !aused additional humiliation, miser. and sufferin ofpri0ate respondent( )etitioner thereb. alleedl. fa!ilitated the arrest, detention andprose!ution of pri0ate respondent under the uise of petitionerDs authorit. as emplo.er,takin ad0antae of the trust, !onfiden!e and faith she reposed upon it( "s purportedl.found b. the )rin!e of Aakkah, the alleed !on0i!tion and imprisonment of pri0ate
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn60


13/21

respondent /as /ronful( ;ut these !apped the inBur. or harm alleedl. infli!ted uponher person and reputation, for /hi!h petitioner !ould be liable as !laimed, to pro0ide!ompensation or redress for the /rons done, on!e dul. pro0en(

Considerin that the !omplaint in the !ourt a quois one in0ol0in torts, the!onne!tin fa!torG or point of !onta!tG !ould be the pla!e or pla!es /here the tortious

!ondu!t or lex loci actus o!!urred( "nd appl.in the torts prin!iple in a !onfli!ts !ase,/e find that the )hilippines !ould be said as a situsof the tort =the pla!e /here thealleed tortious !ondu!t took pla!e>( This is be!ause it is in the )hilippines /herepetitioner alleedl. de!ei0ed pri0ate respondent, a -ilipina residin and /orkinhere( "!!ordin to her, she had honestl. belie0ed that petitioner /ould, in the eer!iseof its rihts and in the performan!e of its duties, a!t /ith Busti!e, i0e her her due andobser0e honest. and ood faith(G 8nstead, petitioner failed to prote!t her, she!laimed( That !ertain a!ts or parts of the inBur. alleedl. o!!urred in another !ountr. isof no moment( -or in our 0ie/ /hat is important here is the pla!e /here the o0er&allharm or the fatalit. of the alleed inBur. to the person, reputation, so!ial standin andhuman rihts of !omplainant, had loded, a!!ordin to the plaintiff belo/ =herein pri0ate

respondent>( "ll told, it is not /ithout basis to identif. the )hilippines as the situsof thealleed tort(

Aoreo0er, /ith the /idespread !riti!ism of the traditional rule of lex loci delicticommissi, modern theories and rules on tort liabilit. [$1]ha0e been ad0an!ed to offer fresh

Budi!ial approa!hes to arri0e at Bust results( 8n keepin abreast /ith the moderntheories on tort liabilit., /e find here an o!!asion to appl. the State of the mostsinifi!ant relationshipG rule, /hi!h in our 0ie/ should be appropriate to appl. no/,i0en the fa!tual !ontet of this !ase(

8n appl.in said prin!iple to determine the State /hi!h has the most sinifi!antrelationship, the follo/in !onta!ts are to be taken into a!!ount and e0aluated

a!!ordin to their relati0e importan!e /ith respe!t to the parti!ular issue =a> the pla!e/here the inBur. o!!urredF =b> the pla!e /here the !ondu!t !ausin the inBur. o!!urredF=!> the domi!ile, residen!e, nationalit., pla!e of in!orporation and pla!e of business ofthe parties, and =d> the pla!e /here the relationship, if an., bet/een the parties is!entered([$2]

"s alread. dis!ussed, there is basis for the !laim that o0er&all inBur. o!!urred andloded in the )hilippines( There is like/ise no 3uestion that pri0ate respondent is aresident -ilipina national, /orkin /ith petitioner, a resident forein !orporation enaedhere in the business of international air !arriae( Thus, the relationshipG bet/een theparties /as !entered here, althouh it should be stressed that this suit is not based on

mere labor la/ 0iolations( -rom the re!ord, the !laim that the )hilippines has the mostsinifi!ant !onta!t /ith the matter in this dispute, [$%]raised b. pri0ate respondent asplaintiff belo/ aainst defendant =herein petitioner>, in our 0ie/, has been properl.established(

)res!indin from this premise that the )hilippines is the situsof the tort !omplaint ofand the pla!e ha0in the most interest in the problemG, /e find, b. /a. ofre!apitulation, that the )hilippine la/ on tort liabilit. should ha0e paramount appli!ationto and !ontrol in the resolution of the leal issues arisin out of this !ase( -urther, /e
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn62http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn63http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn62http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/122191.htm#_edn63


14/21

hold that the respondent Reional Trial Court has Burisdi!tion o0er the parties and thesubBe!t matter of the !omplaintF the appropriate 0enue is in ue:on Cit., /hi!h !ouldproperl. appl. )hilippine la/( Aoreo0er, /e find untenable petitionerDs insisten!e that[s]in!e pri0ate respondent instituted this suit, she has the burden of pleadin andpro0in the appli!able Saudi la/ on the matter(G [$4]"s aptl. said b. pri0ate respondent,

she has no obliation to plead and pro0e the la/ of the indom of Saudi "rabia sin!eher !ause of a!tion is based on "rti!les 19 and 21G of the Ci0il Code of the)hilippines( 8n her "mended Complaint and subse3uent pleadins she ne0er alleedthat Saudi la/ should o0ern this !ase( [$5]"nd as !orre!tl. held b. the respondentappellate !ourt, !onsiderin that it /as the petitioner /ho /as in0okin the appli!abilit.of the la/ of Saudi "rabia, thus the burden /as on it [petitioner] to plead and toestablish /hat the la/ of Saudi "rabia isG( [$$]

?astl., no error !ould be imputed to the respondent appellate !ourt in upholdin thetrial !ourtDs denial of defendantDs =herein petitionerDs> motion to dismiss the !ase( *otonl. /as Burisdi!tion in order and 0enue properl. laid, but appeal after trial /asob0iousl. a0ailable, and the epeditious trial itself indi!ated b. the nature of the !ase at

hand( 8ndubitabl., the )hilippines is the state intimatel. !on!erned /ith the ultimateout!ome of the !ase belo/ not Bust for the benefit of all the litiants, but also for the0indi!ation of the !ountr.Ds s.stem of la/ and Busti!e in a transnational settin(


15/21

=hereinafter referred to as ?oren:o> ma. ha0e a!3uired durin the t/ent.&fi0e =25> .ears that the. li0ed

toether as husband and /ife(

The -a!ts

The de!eased ?oren:o *( ?lorente /as an enlisted ser0i!eman of the nited States *a0. from Aar!h 1#,

1927 to September %#, 1957(

+n -ebruar. 22, 19%7, ?oren:o and petitioner )aula ?lorente =hereinafter referred to as )aula> /ere

married before a parish priest, Roman Catholi! Chur!h, in *abua, Camarines Sur(

;efore the outbreak of the )a!ifi! all the famil. allo/an!es allotted b. the nited States *a0. as part of

?oren:os salar. and all other obliations for )aulas dail. maintenan!e and support /ould be suspendedF

=2> the. /ould dissol0e their marital union in a!!ordan!e /ith Budi!ial pro!eedinsF =%> the. /ould make a

separate areement reardin their !onBual propert. a!3uired durin their marital lifeF and =4> ?oren:o

/ould not prose!ute )aula for her adulterous a!t sin!e she 0oluntaril. admitted her fault and areed to

separate from ?oren:o pea!efull.( The areement /as sined b. both ?oren:o and )aula and /as

/itnessed b. )aulas father and stepmother( The areement /as notari:ed b. *otar. )ubli! )edro

+sabel(

?oren:o returned to the nited States and on *o0ember 1$, 1951 filed for di0or!e /ith the Superior Court

of the State of California in and for the Count. of San ieo( )aula /as represented b. !ounsel, 6ohn

Rile., and a!ti0el. parti!ipated in the pro!eedins( +n *o0ember 27, 1951, the Superior Court of the

State of California, for the Count. of San ieo found all fa!tual alleations to be true and issued an

interlo!utor. Budment of di0or!e(


16/21

+n e!ember 4, 1952, the di0or!e de!ree be!ame final(

8n the meantime, ?oren:o returned to the )hilippines(

+n 6anuar. 1$, 195, ?oren:o married "li!ia -( ?lorente in Aanila( "pparentl., "li!ia had no kno/lede

of the first marriae e0en if the. resided in the same to/n as )aula, /ho did not oppose the marriae or

!ohabitation(

-rom 195 to 195, ?oren:o and "li!ia li0ed toether as husband and /ife([15] Their t/ent.&fi0e =25> .ear

union produ!ed three !hildren, Raul, ?u: and ;e0erl., all surnamed ?lorente(

+n Aar!h 1%, 191, ?oren:o ee!uted a ?ast 8 i0e and be3ueath e!lusi0el. to m. /ife "li!ia R( -ortuno and to m. !hildren, Raul -( ?lorente, ?u:

-( ?lorente and ;e0erl. -( ?lorente, in e3ual shares, all m. real properties /hatsoe0er and /heresoe0er

lo!ated, spe!ifi!all. m. real properties lo!ated at ;arana. "ro&"ldao, *abua, Camarines SurF ;arana.

)alo.on, *abua, Camarines SurF ;arana. ;aras, Sitio )ua, *abua, Camarines SurF and ;arana.

)alo.on, Sitio *alilidon, *abua, Camarines SurF

=%> 8 like/ise i0e and be3ueath e!lusi0el. unto m. /ife "li!ia R( -ortuno and unto m. !hildren, Raul -(

?lorente, ?u: -( ?lorente and ;e0erl. -( ?lorente, in e3ual shares, m. real properties lo!ated in ue:on

Cit. )hilippines, and !o0ered b. Transfer Certifi!ate of Title *o( 1$52F and m. lands in "ntipolo, Ri:al,

)hilippines, !o0ered b. Transfer Certifi!ate of Title *os( 12419$ and 1$51, both of the Reistr. of

eeds of the pro0in!e of Ri:al, )hilippinesF

=4> That their respe!ti0e shares in the abo0e&mentioned properties, /hether real or personal properties,

shall not be disposed of, !eded, sold and !on0e.ed to an. other persons, but !ould onl. be sold, !eded,

!on0e.ed and disposed of b. and amon themsel0esF

=5> 8 desinate m. /ife "?8C8" R( -+RT*+ to be the sole ee!utor of this m. ?ast 8 hereb. dire!t that the ee!utor named herein or her la/ful substitute should ser0ed =sic> /ithout

bondF

=7> 8 hereb. re0oke an. and all m. other /ills, !odi!ils, or testamentar. dispositions heretofore ee!uted,

sined, or published, b. meF


17/21

=> 8t is m. final /ish and desire that if 8 die, no relati0es of mine in an. deree in the ?lorentes Side

should e0er bother and disturb in an. manner /hatsoe0er m. /ife "li!ia R( -ortunato and m. !hildren

/ith respe!t to an. real or personal properties 8 a0e and be3ueathed respe!ti0el. to ea!h one of them b.

0irtue of this ?ast that she /as ?oren:os sur0i0in spouse, =2> that the

0arious propert. /ere a!3uired durin their marriae, =%> that ?oren:os /ill disposed of all his propert. in

fa0or of "li!ia and her !hildren, en!roa!hin on her leitime and 1H2 share in the !onBual propert.(

+n e!ember 1%, 195, "li!ia filed in the testate pro!eedin =Sp( )ro!( *o( 8R&755>, a petition for the

issuan!e of letters testamentar.(

+n +!tober 14, 195, /ithout terminatin the testate pro!eedins, the trial !ourt a0e due !ourse to

)aulas petition in Sp( )ro!( *o( 8R&(

+n *o0ember $, 1% and 2#, 195, the order /as published in the ne/spaper ;i!ol Star(

+n Aa. 1, 197, the Reional Trial Court issued a Boint de!ision, thus


18/21

!hildren, Raul, ?u: and ;e0erl., all surname =sic> ?lorente, for them to partition in e3ual shares and also

entitled to the remainin free portion in e3ual shares(

)etitioner, )aula ?lorente is appointed leal administrator of the estate of the de!eased, ?oren:o

?lorente( "s su!h let the !orrespondin letters of administration issue in her fa0or upon her filin a bond in

the amount =sic> of )1##,###(## !onditioned for her to make a return to the !ourt /ithin three =%> months

a true and !omplete in0entor. of all oods, !hattels, rihts, and !redits, and estate /hi!h shall at an. time

!ome to her possession or to the possession of an. other person for her, and from the pro!eeds to pa.

and dis!hare all debts, lea!ies and !hares on the same, or su!h di0idends thereon as shall be

de!reed or re3uired b. this !ourtF to render a true and Bust a!!ount of her administration to the !ourt /ithin

one =1> .ear, and at an. other time /hen re3uired b. the !ourt and to perform all orders of this !ourt b.

her to be performed(

+n the other matters pra.ed for in respe!ti0e petitions for /ant of e0iden!e !ould not be ranted(

S+ +R@R@(

8n time, "li!ia filed /ith the trial !ourt a motion for re!onsideration of the afore3uoted de!ision(

+n September 14, 197, the trial !ourt denied "li!ias motion for re!onsideration but modified its earlier

de!ision, statin that Raul and ?u: ?lorente are not !hildren leitimate or other/ise of ?oren:o sin!e the.

/ere not leall. adopted b. him( "mendin its de!ision of Aa. 1, 197, the trial !ourt de!lared ;e0erl.

?lorente as the onl. illeitimate !hild of ?oren:o, entitlin her to one&third =1H%> of the estate and one&third

=1H%> of the free portion of the estate(

+n September 2, 197, respondent appealed to the Court of "ppeals([%1]

+n 6ul. %1, 1995, the Court of "ppeals promulated its de!ision, affirmin /ith modifi!ation the de!ision

of the trial !ourt in this /ise


19/21

Strippin the petition of its lealese and sortin throuh the 0arious aruments raised,[%$] the issue is

simple( ee!ution of his /illF and =4> death, is dul. established,

admitted and undisputed(

Thus, as a rule, issues arisin from these in!idents are ne!essaril. o0erned b. forein la/(

The Ci0il Code !learl. pro0ides

"rt( 15( ?a/s relatin to famil. rihts and duties, or to the status, !ondition and leal !apa!it. of persons

are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, e0en thouh li0in abroad(

"rt( 1$( Real propert. as /ell as personal propert. is subBe!t to the la/ of the !ountr. /here it is situated(

Io/e0er, intestate and testamentar. su!!ession, both /ith respe!t to the order of su!!ession and to the

amount of su!!essional rihts and to the intrinsi! 0alidit. of testamentar. pro0isions, shall be regulated

by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration , /hate0er ma. be the

nature of the propert. and reardless of the !ountr. /herein said propert. ma. be found( =emphasis ours>

True, forein la/s do not pro0e themsel0es in our Burisdi!tion and our !ourts are not authori:ed to take

Budi!ial noti!e of them( ?ike an. other fa!t, the. must be alleed and pro0ed(


20/21

The Court of "ppeals also disrearded the /ill( 8t de!lared "li!e entitled to one half =1H2> of /hate0er

propert. she and ?oren:o a!3uired durin their !ohabitation, appl.in "rti!le 144 of the Ci0il Code of the

)hilippines(

The hast. appli!ation of )hilippine la/ and the !omplete disreard of the /ill, alread. probated as dul.

ee!uted in a!!ordan!e /ith the formalities of )hilippine la/, is fatal, especially in light of the factual

and legal circumstances here obtaining(

Lalidit. of the -orein i0or!e

8n an %orn v. Romillo, *r([4#] /e held that o/in to the nationalit. prin!iple embodied in "rti!le 15 of the

Ci0il Code, onl. )hilippine nationals are !o0ered b. the poli!. aainst absolute di0or!es, the same bein

!onsidered !ontrar. to our !on!ept of publi! poli!. and moralit.( 8n the same !ase, the Court ruled

that aliens ma. obtain di0or!es abroad, pro0ided the. are 0alid a!!ordin to their national la/(

Citin this landmark !ase, the Court held in +uita v. Court of Appeals,[41] that on!e pro0en that

respondent /as no loner a -ilipino !iti:en /hen he obtained the di0or!e from petitioner, the rulin in an

%orn/ould be!ome appli!able and petitioner !ould 0er. /ell lose her riht to inherit from him(

8n Pilapil v. !a#-omera,[42] /e re!oni:ed the di0or!e obtained b. the respondent in his !ountr., the

-ederal Republi! of 'erman.( There, /e stated that di0or!e and its leal effe!ts ma. be re!oni:ed in the

)hilippines insofar as respondent is !on!erned in 0ie/ of the nationalit. prin!iple in our !i0il la/ on the

status of persons(

-or failin to appl. these do!trines, the de!ision of the Court of "ppeals must be re0ersed([4%] are matters best left to the determination of the trial !ourt(

Lalidit. of the


21/21

"s a uide ho/e0er, the trial !ourt should note that /hate0er publi! poli!. or ood !ustoms ma. be

in0ol0ed in our s.stem of leitimes, Conress did not intend to etend the same to the su!!ession of

forein nationals( Conress spe!ifi!all. left the amount of su!!essional rihts to the de!edentDs national

la/([45]

Ia0in thus ruled, /e find it unne!essar. to pass upon the other issues raised(

The -allo

7$EREFORE, the petition is 'R"*T@( The de!ision of the Court of "ppeals in C"&'( R( S) *o( 1744$

promulated on 6ul. %1, 1995 is S@T "S8@(

8n lieu thereof, the Court R@L@RS@S the de!ision of the Reional Trial Court and R@C+'*8K@S as

L"?8 the de!ree of di0or!e ranted in fa0or of the de!eased ?oren:o *( ?lorente b. the Superior Court

of the State of California in and for the Count. of San ieo, made final on e!ember 4, 1952(

-urther, the Court R@A"*S the !ases to the !ourt of oriin for determination of the intrinsi! 0alidit. of?oren:o *( ?lorentes /ill and determination of the parties su!!essional rihts allo/in proof of forein la/

/ith instru!tions that the trial !ourt shall pro!eed /ith all deliberate dispat!h to settle the estate of the

de!eased /ithin the frame/ork of the Rules of Court(

*o !osts(

S+ +R@R@(

Davide, Jr., C.J., Chairman!, Puno, "apunan, !"# >"!re(?S!"t&!+o, ., co"c-r.

saudi and llorente full cases

Documents