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,xii[12] she was terminated from the service by SAUDIA, without her being informed of the cause. On November 23, 1993, Morada filed a Complaintxiii[13] for damages against SAUDIA, and Khaled Al-Balawi (Al- Balawi), its country manager. On January 19, 1994, SAUDIA filed an Omnibus Motion To Dismissxiv[14] which raised the following grounds, to wit: (1) that the Complaint states no cause of action against Saudia; (2) that defendant Al-Balawi is not a real party in interest; (3) that the claim or demand set forth in the Complaint has been waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished; and (4) that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case. On February 10, 1994, Morada filed her Opposition (To Motion to Dismiss)xv[15] Saudia filed a replyxvi[16] thereto on March 3, 1994. On June 23, 1994, Morada filed an Amended Complaintxvii[17] wherein Al-Balawi was dropped as party defendant. On August 11, 1994, Saudia filed its Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaintxviii[18]. The trial court issued an Orderxix[19] dated August 29, 1994 denying the Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by Saudia. From the Order of respondent Judgexx[20] denying the Motion to Dismiss, SAUDIA filed on September 20, 1994, its Motion for Reconsiderationxxi[21] of the Order dated August 29, 1994. It alleged that the trial court has no jurisdiction to hear and try 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 Arabia. On October 14, 1994, Morada filed her Oppositionxxii[22] (To Defendants Motion for Reconsideration). In the Replyxxiii[23] 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. Respondent Judge subsequently issued another Orderxxiv[24] 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,