8/9/2019 05 Saudi Arabian Airlines, Vs. Court of Appeals

1/4

Case No. 1

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

SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES, vs. COURT OF AEALS

!UISU"BING, #.$

Facts$

1. Defendant SAUDIA hired plaintiff as a Flight Attendant for its

airlines based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

2. While on a lay-over in Jakarta, Indonesia, plaintiff ent to a dis!o

dan!e ith fello !re "e"bers #ha"er and Allah, both Saudi

nationals. $e!ause it as al"ost "orning hen they returned to

their hotels, they agreed to have breakfast together at the roo" of

#ha"er. When they ere in te %si!& roo", Allah left on so"eprete't. Shortly after he did, #ha"er atte"pted to rape plaintiff.

Fortunately, a roo"boy and several se!urity personnel heard her

!ries for help and res!ued her. (ater, the Indonesian poli!e !a"e

and arrested #ha"er and Allah, the latter as an a!!o"pli!e.

%. When plaintiff returned to Jeddah a fe days later, several

SAUDIA offi!ials interrogated her about the Jakarta in!ident. #hey

then re)uested her to go ba!k to Jakarta to help arrange the

release of #ha"er and Allah. In Jakarta, SAUDIA (egal *ffi!er

Sirah Akkad and base "anager $aharini negotiated ith the

poli!e for the i""ediate release of the detained !re "e"bers

but did not su!!eed be!ause plaintiff refused to !ooperate. She

as afraid that she "ight be tri!ked into so"ething she did not

ant be!ause of her inability to understand the lo!al diale!t. She

also de!lined to sign a blank paper and a do!u"ent ritten in the

lo!al diale!t. +ventually, SAUDIA alloed plaintiff to return to

Jeddah but barred her fro" the Jakarta flights.

&. laintiff learned that, through the inter!ession of the Saudi

Arabian govern"ent, the Indonesian authorities agreed to deport

#ha"er and Allah after to eeks of detention. +ventually, they

ere again put in servi!e by defendant SAUDI %si!&. Defendant

SAUDIA transferred plaintiff to anila.

'. Just hen plaintiff thought that the Jakarta in!ident as already

behind her, her superiors re)uested her to see r. Ali eniey,

hief (egal *ffi!er of SAUDIA, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. When

she sa hi", he brought her to the poli!e station here the poli!e

took her passport and )uestioned her about the Jakarta in!ident.

iniey si"ply stood by as the poli!e put pressure on her to

"ake a state"ent dropping the !ase against #ha"er and Allah.

/ot until she agreed to do so did the poli!e return her passport

and alloed her to !at!h the afternoon flight out of Jeddah.

(. *ne year and a half later, in 0iyadh, Saudi Arabia, a fe "inutesbefore the departure of her flight to anila, plaintiff as not

alloed to board the plane and instead ordered to take a later

flight to Jeddah to see r. iniey, the hief (egal *ffi!er of

SAUDIA. When she did, a !ertain 1halid of the SAUDIA offi!e

brought her to a Saudi !ourt here she as asked to sign a

do!u"ent ritten in Arabi!. #hey told her that this as ne!essary

to !lose the !ase against #ha"er and Allah. As it turned out,

plaintiff signed a noti!e to her to appear before the !ourt. laintiff

then returned to anila.

). Shortly afterards, defendant SAUDIA su""oned plaintiff toreport to Jeddah on!e again and see iniey for further

investigation. laintiff did so after re!eiving assuran!e fro"

SAUDIA2s anila "anager, Asla" Salee"i, that the investigation

as routinary and that it posed no danger to her.

8. In Jeddah, a SAUDIA legal offi!er brought plaintiff to the sa"e

Saudi !ourt. /othing happened then but, a Saudi 3udge

interrogated plaintiff through an interpreter about the Jakarta

8/9/2019 05 Saudi Arabian Airlines, Vs. Court of Appeals

2/4

in!ident. After one hour of interrogation, they let her go. At the

airport, hoever, 3ust as her plane as about to take off, a

SAUDIA offi!er told her that the airline had forbidden her to take

flight. At the Inflight Servi!e *ffi!e here she as told to go, these!retary of r. 4ahya Saddi!k took aay her passport and told

her to re"ain in Jeddah, at the !re )uarters, until further orders.

9. A SAUDIA legal offi!er again es!orted plaintiff to the sa"e !ourt

here the 3udge, to her astonish"ent and sho!k, rendered a

de!ision, translated to her in +nglish, senten!ing her to five

"onths i"prison"ent and to 567 lashes. *nly then did she

reali8e that the Saudi !ourt had tried her, together ith #ha"er

and Allah, for hat happened in Jakarta. #he !ourt found plaintiff

guilty of %9& adultery: %5& going to a dis!o, dan!ing and listening to

the "usi! in violation of Isla"i! las: and %;& so!iali8ing ith the"ale !re, in !ontravention of Isla"i! tradition.relationship< beteen

the parties as !entered here, although it should be stressed that thissuit is not based on "ere labor la violations. Fro" the re!ord, the

!lai" that the hilippines has the "ost signifi!ant !onta!t ith the

"atter in this dispute, raised by private respondent as plaintiff belo

against defendant %herein petitioner&, in our vie, has been properly

established.

res!inding fro" this pre"ise that the hilippines is the situs of

the tort !o"plaint of and the pla!e >having the "ost interest in the

proble"no obligation to plead and prove the la

of the 1ingdo" of Saudi Arabia sin!e her !ause of a!tion is based on

Arti!les 9 and 59< of the ivil ode of the hilippines. In her

A"ended o"plaint and subse)uent pleadings she never alleged that

Saudi la should govern this !ase. And as !orre!tly held by the

respondent appellate !ourt, >!onsidering that it as the petitioner ho

as invoking the appli!ability of the la of Saudi Arabia, thus the

burden as on it petitionerE to plead and to establish hat the la of

Saudi Arabia is