Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/38
3/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
________________
* FIRST DIVISION.
470
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/38
3/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
471
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/38
3/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
472
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/38
3/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
473
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/38
3/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
474
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/38
3/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
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 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] to plead and to
establish what the law of Saudi Arabia is.”
QUISUMBING, J.:
________________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/38
3/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
3 Penned by Associate Justice Bernardo L1. Salas, and concurred in by
Associate Justice Jorge S. Imperial and Associate Justice Pacita CañizaresNye.
4 Entitled “Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. Hon. Judge Rodolfo A. Ortiz, in his
capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 89 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City and Milagros P. Morada.”
5 Issued by respondent Judge Hon. Rodolfo A. Ortiz of Branch 89, Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City.
6 Annex “B,” PETITION, October 13, 1995; rollo, pp. 3739.
7 Annex “B,” PETITION, October 13, 1995; rollo, p. 40.
8 Entitled “Milagros P. Morada vs. Saudi Arabian Airlines.”
9 Supra, note 2.
476
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/38
3/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/38
3/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
________________
478
________________
13 Dated November 19, 1993, and docketed as Civil Case No. Q93
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. 6584.
18 Rollo, p. 65.
19 Supra, note 6.
20 Hon. Rodolfo A. Ortiz.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/38
3/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
21 Dated September 19, 1994.
479
________________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/38
3/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
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 27,
1995, now assailed, the appellate court denied SAUDIA’s
Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction dated February 18, 1995, to wit:
________________
481
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/38
3/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
“I.
The trial court has no jurisdiction to hear and try Civil Case No.
Q9318394 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.
II.
________________
483
________________
484
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/38
3/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
Manila.
________________
485
________________
486
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/38
3/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
“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.”
________________
487
________________
488
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/38
3/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
________________
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
Plaintiff’s Opposition) dated February 19, 1994; Comment (to Plaintiff’s
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.
489
As held
51
by this Court in Republic vs. Ker and Company,
Ltd.:
“We observe that the motion to dismiss filed on April 14, 1962,
aside from disputing the lower court’s jurisdiction over
defendant’s person, prayed for dismissal of the complaint on the
ground that plaintiff’s 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 latter’s person,
who, being the proponent of the affirmative defense, should be
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/38
3/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
________________
490
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/38
3/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
“characterization”
56
is to enable the forum to select the
proper law.
Our starting point of analysis here is not a legal 57
relation, but a factual situation, event, or operative fact.
An essential element of conflict rules is the indication of a
“test” or “connecting factor” or “point of contact.” Choiceof
law rules invariably consist of a factual relationship (such
as property right, contract claim) and a connecting factor or
point of contact, such as the situs of the res, the place of
celebration, 58the place of performance, or the place of
wrongdoing.
Note that one or more circumstances may be present to
serve as the possible test for the determination of the
applica
________________
491
________________
59 Ibid.
60 Supra, note 37 at pp. 138139.
492
________________
61 Includes the (1) German rule of elective concurrence; (2) “State of the
most significant relationship” rule (the Second Restatement of 1969); (3)
Stateinterest analysis; and (4) Caver’s Principle of Preference.
62 Supra, note 37, p. 396.
494
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/38
3/13/2019 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. 2122; rollo, pp. 202203.
66 CA Decision, p. 10; rollo, p. 97.
495
——o0o——
496
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/38
3/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
________________
* SECOND DIVISION.
497
498
MARTINEZ, J.:
________________
499
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/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/38
3/13/2019 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/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 32/38
3/13/2019 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
“It seems clear that even if said section 4 (5) of the Carriage of
Goods by Sea Act did not exist, the validity and binding effect of
the liability limitation clause in the bill of lading here are
nevertheless fully sustainable on the basis alone of the cited Civil
Code Provisions. That said stipulation is just and reasonable is
arguable from the fact that it echoes Art. 1750 itself in providing
a limit to liability only if a greater value is not declared for the
shipment in the bill of lading. To hold otherwise would amount to
questioning the justness and fairness of the law itself, and this
the private respondent does not pretend to do. But over and above
that consideration, the just and reasonable character of such
stipulation is implicit in it giving the shipper or owner the option
of avoiding accrual of liability limitation by the simple and surely
far from onerous expedient of declaring the nature and value of
the shipment in the bill of lading.”
“18. All claims for which the carrier may be liable shall be
adjusted and settled on the basis of the shipper’s net invoice cost
plus freight and insurance premiums, if paid, and in no event
shall the carrier be liable for any loss of possible profits or any
consequential loss.
“The carrier shall not be liable for any loss of or any damage to
or in any connection with, goods in an amount exceeding One
Hundred Thousand Yen in Japanese Currency (¥100,000.00) or
its equivalent in any other currency per package or customary
freight unit (whichever is least) unless the value of the goods
higher than this amount is declared in writing by the shipper
before receipt of the goods by the carrier and inserted in the Bill of
Lading and extra freight is paid as required.” (Emphasis supplied)
________________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/38
3/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
4 153 SCRA 552 [1987].
503
________________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/38
3/13/2019 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 latter’s 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
readymade 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)
________________
505
506
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 36/38
3/13/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
________________
9 See Mendoza vs. Philippine Air Lines, Inc., 90 Phil. 836, 845846.
10 Rollo, p. 116.
11 Rollo, p. 13.
507
——o0o——
508
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016974da6b4424951805003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 38/38