Torts and Damages

C. Traditional Rule on Determining Applicable Law

a. Lex loci comissii

 The law of the place where the injury, wrong or of death took place. 1
 The traditional rule is a simplified approach and usually involves only one or two
states, one where the damage to property or injury or death occurred in one
country and the other where the action is filed in another country.2
b. Wildvalley Shipping v. CA3
 Facts:
i. PR, a vessel owned by PPL (PH registered) was in Venezuela to unload
ore.
ii. Mr. V, the pilot of PR, was designated by port authorities to navigate the
vessel through Orinoco River.
iii. While navigating, it ran aground, obstructing the ingress and egress of
vessels.
iv. As a result, Wildvalley Shipping’s (WS) vessel was unable to sail out
during that day.
v. Hence, WS filed an action for damages against PPL in the RTC of Manila
 Issue: Whether or not the Venezuelan law is applicable to the case
 Ruling:
i. No. The Court found that WS did not plead and invoke the Venezuelan law in its
complaint, despite the fact that the incident occurred within the territorial
jurisdiction of Venezuela.
ii. Under the rules of Private International Law, a foreign law must be properly
pleaded and proved as a fact. In the absence, of pleading and proof, the laws of a
foreign country, or state, will be presumed to be the same as our own local or
domestic law and this is known as processual presumption.

1
Ruben E. Agpalo “Conflicts of Laws (Private International Law):p. 206
2
Ibid.
3
Wildvalley Shipping v. CA (G.R. No. 119602, October 6, 2000)
D. State of the Most Significant Relationship Rule

a. “State of the Most Significant Relationship”

 The rule is applicable where the acts constituting the cause of action occurred in two or
more states, which ripened into a cause of action in another state. 4
 This rule provides that the rights and obligations of the parties in a case of tort is
determined by the “local law of the state which, with respect to the particular issue, has
the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties”. 5
 In applying this principle, the following contacts are to be taken into account:
i. The place where the injury occurred;
ii. The place where the conduct causing the injury occurred;
iii. The domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business
of the parties; and
iv. The place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered 6
b. Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA7
 Facts:
i. M a resident Filipina national, was a FA working in SA Airlines, a resident
foreign corporation
ii. While on a lay-over in Indonesia, M went to a disco with T and A , fellow crew
members and both Saudi Nationals
iii. After drinking, they all went to T’s room in their hotel, and there, T attempted to
rape M but was rescued by hotel personnel.
iv. Indonesian police arrested T and A, the latter as an accomplice
v. Through the intercession of Saudi Arabian Government, T and A were deported,
and eventually put in service by SA. M was transferred to Manila
vi. M was then ordered to see SA’s Chief Legal Officer in Saudi, and was asked to
sign a blank document, which turned out to be a notice to her to appear in court
vii. Later on, M was escorted by SA’s legal office to court, and after interrogation,
the judge rendered a decision against her for adultery and violation of Islamic
laws and tradition.

4
Ruben E. Agpalo “Conflicts of Laws (Private International Law)”:p. 215
5
Alicia V. Sempio-Diy “Conflict of Laws” (2004): p.132
6
Ruben E. Agpalo “Conflicts of Laws (Private International Law)”:p. 215
7
Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA and Morada (G.R. No. 122191, October 8, 1998)
 viii. M sought the help of her employer, SAUDIA, but the latter refused to extend any
help.
ix. The Prince of Saudi Arabia then dismissed the case against her because she was
wrongfully convicted
x. M then filed a case for damages (based on tort) against SAUDIA before the RTC.
On the other hand, SAUDIA questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC and
argued that the laws of Saudi Arabia should govern because the tort was
committed in the latter.
 Issue: What law should govern in this case, Philippine Law or Saudi Arabian Law?
 Ruling:
i. The Supreme Court did not apply the traditional rule on lex loci delicti commissi,
because the attendant facts occurred in more than two countries and that the tort
was committed in both places.
ii. After taking into account the facts in this case, the SC decided to apply such rule
in determining as to which law should govern this case.
iii. In applying the State of the most significant relationship rule, the Court took into
account the following contacts:
 The place where the injury occurred;
 The place where the conduct causing the injury occurred;
 The domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of
business of the parties; and
 The place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered
iv. In doing so, the Court noted that the Philippines has the most significant contract
with the matter:
 The over-all injury occurred and lodged in the PH, M being
required by SA to travel from Manila to attend hearings in Saudi
and that the RTC of QC have jurisdiction over the tort case filed by
M;
 M is a resident Filipina national and SA Airlines is a resident foreign
corporation engaged in the PH in the business of international air
carriage; and
 The relationship between the partiesas centered in the PH, by virtue
of M’s employment and that the events did transpire during her
 many occasions of travel, particularly from Manila to Saudi Arabia
and vice versa.

SAUDI ARABIA AIRLINES v. CA

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

FACTS: SAUDIA hired plaintiff Morada as a Flight Attendant for its airlines based in Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia. Morada – resident Filipina national, SAUDIA, RFC engaged in airline business in
PH. While on a lay-over in Jakarta, Morada went to a disco to dance with fellow crew members
Thamer and Allah. It was almost morning when they returned to their hotels, they agreed to have
breakfast together at the room of Thamer. Thamer attempted to rape Morada. Fortunately, a
roomboy and several security personnel heard her cries for help and rescued her.

Later, the Indonesian police came and arrested Thamer and Allah, the latter as an accomplice.
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 SAUDI (sic). Later on, defendant SAUDIA transferred
plaintiff to Manila.

Almost two years after, Morada’s superiors requested her to see Mr. Ali, Chief Legal Officer of
SAUDIA, in Saudi Arabia. When she did, an officer of SAUDIA 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. Morada then returned to Manila.

Later on, an officer of SAUDIA brought her to the same Saudi court. A Saudi judge interrogated
her about the Jakarta incident. On the second day of the hearing, to her astonishment and shock,
the court rendered a decision, sentencing her to 5 months imprinsonment and 286 lashes, finding
her guilty of adultery and violating Islamic laws and traditions for going to a disco and
socializing with the male crew. Facing conviction, Morada sought the help of her employer,
SAUDIA. Unfortunately, she was denied any assistance. Because she was wrongfully convicted,
the Prince of Makkah dismissed the case against her and allowed her to leave Saudi Arabia.
Shortly before her return to Manila, she was terminated from service by SAUDIA, without her
being informed of the cause.

Morada filed a complaint for damages against SAUDIA before the RTC of QC for damages
under the principle of abuse of right (Article 21, in relation to 19). On the other hand, SAUDIA
filed a motion to dismiss because the all the acts and injuries constituting the abuse of right
occurred in Saudi Arabia, hence, the latter’s law should govern, following the lex loci delicti
commissi rule, and accordingly Philippine courts have no jurisdiction.

ISSUE:
I. Whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction to try the case;
II. Whether Philippine Law should govern in this case

RULING:
1. The trial court has jurisdiction to try the case. The Supreme Court denied the motion to
dismiss because the over-all harm or the totality of the injury to the person, reputation,
social standing and human rights of Morada who was a resident and citizen of the country
took place in the Philippines. The Supreme Court did not apply the traditional rule on lex
loci delicti commissi because the attendant facts occurred in more than two countries.
Under the factual antecedents obtaining in this case, there is no dispute that the interplay
of events occurred in two states, the Philippines and Saudi Arabia. Morada is a resident
Philippine national, and that SAUDIA is a resident foreign corporation. Also, by virtue of
the employment of Morada and Saudia as a flight stewardess, events did transpire during
her many occasions of travel across national borders, particularly from Manila,
Philippines to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and vice versa,

Furthermore, what principally prompted the courts are the country’s interests, as the case
involves a clear abuse of rights by the foreign employer against a Filipino resident
 woman who, in the foreign country was not only subjected to harm and humiliation, but
was also helpless therein, which entitled her to the local court’s protection. Moreover,
paramount is the private interest of the litigant. Had it refused to take cognizance of the
case, it would be forcing plaintiff to seek remedial action elsewhere, where she no longer
maintains substantial connections. That would have caused a fundamental unfairness to
her.

2. After taking into account the facts in this case, the SC decided to apply the most
significant relationship rule in determining as to which law should govern this case. In
applying said rule, the following contacts must be considered: 1. The place where the
injury occurred; 2. The place where the conduct causing the injury occurred; 3. The
domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the
parties; and 4. The place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.

In doing so, the Court noted that the Philippines has the most significant contract with the
matter:
1. First, is we look at the place where the injury occurred. The over-all injury occurred
and lodged in the PH, How? Morada being required by Saudia to travel from Manila
to attend hearings in Saudi and that the RTC of QC have jurisdiction over the tort
case filed by Morada.
2. Second, we look at the nationality of the parties. Morada is a resident Filipina
national and Saudia is a resident foreign corporation engaged in the PH in the
business of international air carriage;
3. Last, we look at where the relationship between the parties is centered. The
relationship between the parties was centered in the Philippines, for by virtue of
Morada’s employment and that the events did transpire during her many occasions of
travel, particularly from Manila to Saudi Arabia and vice versa.

Hence, as to the jurisdiction and choice of the applicable law, since the Philippines is the situs of
the tort complained of and the place having the most interest in the problem, the Philippine law
on tort liability should apply.