You are on page 1of 39

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

1 of 39

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293

664 Phil. 283

FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 125078, May 30, 2011 ]
BERNABE L. NAVIDA, JOSE P. ABANGAN, JR., CEFERINO P.
ABARQUEZ, ORLANDITO A. ABISON, FELIPE ADAYA, ALBERTO R.
AFRICA, BENJAMIN M. ALBAO, FELIPE ALCANTARA, NUMERIANO
S. ALCARIA, FERNANDO C. ALEJADO, LEOPOLDO N. ALFONSO,
FLORO I. ALMODIEL, ANTONIO B. ALVARADO, ELEANOR
AMOLATA, RODOLFO P. ANCORDA, TRIFINO F. ANDRADA, BERT
B. ANOCHE, RAMON E. ANTECRISTO, ISAGANI D. ANTINO,
DOMINGO ANTOPINA, MANSUETO M. APARICIO, HERMINIGILDO
AQUINO, MARCELO S. AQUINO, JR., FELIPE P. ARANIA, ULYSES
M. ARAS, ARSENIO ARCE, RUPERTO G. ARINZOL, MIGUEL G.
ARINZOL, EDGARADO P. ARONG, RODRIGO D.R. ASTRALABIO,
RONNIE BACAYO, SOFRONIO BALINGIT, NELSON M. BALLENA,
EMNIANO BALMONTE, MAXIMO M. BANGI, SALVADOR M. BANGI,
HERMOGENES T. BARBECHO, ARSENIO B. BARBERO, DIOSDADO
BARREDO, VIRGILIO BASAS, ALEJANDRO G. BATULAN, DOMINGO
A. BAUTISTA, VICTOR BAYANI, BENIGNO BESARES, RUFINO
BETITO, GERARDO A. BONIAO, CARLO B. BUBUNGAN, FERNANDO
B. BUENAVISTA, ALEJANDRINO H. BUENO, TOMAS P. BUENO,
LEONARDO M. BURDEOS, VICENTE P. BURGOS, MARCELINO J.
CABALUNA, DIOSDADO CABILING, EMETRIO C. CACHUELA,
BRAULIO B. CADIVIDA, JR., SAMSON C. CAEL, DANIEL B.
CAJURAO, REY A. CALISO, NORBERTO F. CALUMPAG, CELESTINO
CALUMPAG, LORETO CAMACHO, VICTORIANO CANETE,
DOMINADOR P. CANTILLO, FRUCTUSO P. CARBAJOSA,
VICTORINO S. CARLOS, VICTOR CARLOS, GEORGE M. CASSION,
JAIME S. CASTAÑARES, FLAVIANO C. CASTAÑARES, ELPIDIO
CATUBAY, NATHANIEL B. CAUSANG, BEOFIL B. CAUSING,
ADRIANO R. CEJAS, CIRILO G. CERERA, SR., CRISTITUTO M.
CEREZO, DANTE V. CONCHA, ALBERT CORNELIO, CESAR CORTES,
NOEL Y. CORTEZ, SERNUE CREDO, CORNELIO A. CRESENCIO,
ALEX CRUZ, ROGER CRUZ, RANSAM CRUZ, CANUTO M. DADULA,
ROMEO L. DALDE, ZACARIAS DAMBAAN, ELISEO DAPROZA,
VIRGILIO P. DAWAL, TESIFREDO I. DE TOMAS, GAMALLER P.
DEANG, CARMELINO P. DEANG, DIOSDADO P. DEANG, DOMINGO
A. DEANG, FELIPE R. DEANG, JR., JULIETO S. DELA CRUZ,
ELIEZER R. DELA TORRE, JEFFREY R. DELA TORRE, RAUL
DEMONTEVERDE, FELIPE P. DENOLAN, RUBENCIO P. DENOY,
RODRIGO M. DERMIL, ROLANDO B. DIAZ, LORENZO DIEGO,
JOVENCIO DIEGO, SATURNINO DIEGO, GREGORIO DIONG,
AMADO R. DIZON, FE DIZON, VIRGILO M. DOMANTAY, LEO S.

12/3/2015 10:02 AM

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

2 of 39

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293

DONATO, DOMINADOR L. DOSADO, NESTOR DUMALAG, FREDDIE
DURAN, SR., MARIO C. ECHIVERE, AQUILLO M. EMBRADORA,
MIGUEL EMNACE, RIO T. EMPAS, EFRAIM ENGLIS, ANICETO
ENOPIA, DIOCENE ENTECOSA, RUBENTITO D. ENTECOSA,
AVELINO C. ENTERO, FORTUNATA ENTRADA, ROGELIO P. EROY,
RODOLFO M. ESCAMILLA, SERGIO C. ESCANTILLA, LAZARO A.
ESPAÑOLA, EULOGIO M. ETURMA, PRIMO P. FERNANDEZ,
EDILBERTO D. FERNANDO, GREGORIO S. FERNANDO, VICENTE P.
FERRER, MARCELO T. FLOR, ANTONIO M. FLORES, REDENTOR T.
FLOREZA, NORBERTO J. FUENTES, RICARDO C. GABUTAN, PEDRO
D.V. GALEOS, ARNULFO F. GALEOS, EDGARDO V. GARCESA,
BERNARDO P. GENTOBA, EDUARDO P. GENTOBA, VICTORIO B.
GIDO, ROLANDO V. GIMENA, EARLWIN L. GINGOYO, ERNESTO
GOLEZ, JUANITO G. GONZAGA, ONOFRE GONZALES, AMADO J.
GUMERE, LEONARDO M. GUSTO, ALEJANDRO G. HALILI, NOEL H.
HERCEDA, EMILIO V. HERMONDO, CLAUDIO HIPOLITO, TORIBIO
S ILLUSORIO, TEODURO G. IMPANG, JR., GIL A. JALBUNA,
HERMIE L. JALICO, ARMANDO B. JAMERLAN, NARCISO JAPAY,
LIBURO C. JAVINAS, ALEJANDO S. JIMENEZ, FEDERICO T. JUCAR,
NAPOLEON T. JUMALON, OSCAR JUNSAY, ANASTACIO D.
LABANA, CARLOS C. LABAY, AVELINO L. LAFORTEZA, LOE
LAGUMBAY, NORBETO D. LAMPERNIS, ROLANDO J. LAS PEÑAS,
ISMAEL LASDOCE, RENOLO L. LEBRILLA, CAMILO G. LEDRES,
ANASTACIO LLANOS, ARMANDO A. LLIDO, CARLITO LOPEZ,
ARISTON LOS BAÑEZ, CONCISO L. LOVITOS, ARQUILLANO M.
LOZADA, RODOLFO C. LUMAKIN, PRIMITIVO LUNTAO, JR.,
EMILIO S. MABASA, JR., JUANITO A. MACALISANG, TEOTIMO L.
MADULIN, JOSEPH D. MAGALLON, PEDRO P. MAGLASANG, MARIO
G. MALAGAMBA, JAIME B. MAMARADLO, PANFILO A. MANADA,
SR., RICARDO S. MANDANI, CONCHITA MANDANI, ALBERTO T.
MANGGA, ALEJANDRO A. MANSANES, RUFINO T. MANSANES,
EUTIQUIO P. MANSANES, ALCIO P. MARATAS, AGAPITO D.
MARQUEZ, RICARDO R. MASIGLAT, DENDERIA MATABANG,
ARNELO N. MATILLANO, HERNANI C. MEJORADA, ROSITA
MENDOZA, GREGORIO R. MESA, RENATO N. MILLADO, ANTONIO
L. MOCORRO, ALBERTO M. MOLINA, JR., DOMINGO P. MONDIA,
JUANITO P. MONDIA, RICARDO MONTAÑO, RAUL T. MONTEJO,
ROGELIO MUNAR, RODOLFO E. MUÑEZ, CRESENCIO NARCISO,
PANFILO C. NARCISO, BRICS P. NECOR, MOISES P. NICOLAS,
NEMESIO G. NICOLAS, ALFREDO NOFIEL, FELIX T. NOVENA,
MARCELO P. OBTIAL, SR., TEODORO B. OCRETO, BIBIANO C. ODI,
ALFREDO M. OPERIO, TEOTISTO B. OPON, IZRO M. ORACION,
ALAN E. ORANAS, ELPEDIO T. OSIAS, ERNESTO M. PABIONA,
NARCISO J. PADILLA, NELSON G. PADIOS, SR., FRNACISCO G.
PAGUNTALAN, RENE B. PALENCIA, MICHAEL P. PALOMAR,
VIRGILIO E. PANILAGAO, NOLITO C. PANULIN, ROMEO
PARAGUAS, NESTOR B. PASTERA, VICENTE Q. PEDAZO, EDGAR M.
PEÑARANDA, ILUMINIDO B. PERACULLO, ANTONIO C. PEREZ,

12/3/2015 10:02 AM

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

3 of 39

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293

DOMINGO PEREZ, OSCAR C. PLEÑOS, ANTONIETO POLANCOS,
SERAFIN G. PRIETO, ZENAIDA PROVIDO, FERNANDO Y.
PROVIDO, ERNESTO QUERO, ELEAZAR QUIJARDO, WILLIAM U.
QUINTOY, LAURO QUISTADIO, ROGELIO RABADON, MARCELINO
M. RELIZAN, RAUL A. REYES, OCTAVIO F. REYES, EDDIE M.
RINCOR, EMMANUEL RIVAS, RODULFO RIVAS, BIENVENIDO C.
ROMANCA, JACINTO ROMOC, ROMEO S. ROMUALDO, ALBERTO
ROSARIO, ROMEO L. SABIDO, SIMON SAGNIP, TIMOTEO SALIG,
ROMAN G. SALIGONAN, VICTORINO SALOMON, GENEROSO J.
SALONGKONG, RODOLFO E. SALVANI, JIMMY A. SAMELIN,
EDUARDO A. SAMELIN, ANDRES A. SAMELIN, GEORGE SAMELIN,
ROMEO A. SARAOSOS, RUDIGELIO S. SARMIENTO, CIRILO
SAYAANG, JARLO SAYSON, LEONCIO SERDONCILLO, RODOLFO C.
SERRANO, NESTOR G. SEVILLA, SIMEON F. SIMBA, CATALINO S.
SIMTIM, SERAFIN T. SINSUANGCO, EDUARDO A. SOLA,
VICTORINO M. SOLOMON, JAIME B. SUFICIENCIA, LYNDON
SUMAJIT, ALFREDO P. SUMAJIT, ALFREDO L. SUMAJIT, PEDRO A.
SUMARAGO, ERNESTO SUMILE, NESTOR S. SUMOG-OY, MANUEL
T. SUPAS, WILFREDO A. TABAQUE, CONSTANCIO L. TACULAD,
EUFROCINO A. TAGOTO, JR., SERAPIO TAHITIT, PANTALEON T.
TAMASE, ERNESTO TARRE, MAGNO E. TATOY, AVELINO TAYAPAD,
SAMUEL S. TERRADO, APOLINARIO B. TICO, ORLANDO TINACO,
ALBERT G. TINAY, ANTONIO TOLEDO, ANTONIO M. TORREGOSA,
ISABELO TORRES, JIMMY C. TORRIBIO, EDUARDO Y. TUCLAOD,
JACINTO UDAL, RICARDO M. URBANO, ERNESTO G. VAFLOR,
FILOMENO E. VALENZUELA, SALORIANO VELASCO, RODOLFO
VIDAL, WALTER VILLAFAÑE, DANTE VILLALVA, PERIGRINO P.
VILLARAN, JESUS L. VILLARBA, ELEAZAR D. VILLARBA, JENNY T.
VILLAVA, HENRY C. VILLEGAS, DELFIN C. WALOG, RODOLFO
YAMBAO, EDGAR A. YARE, MANSUETO M. YBERA, EDUARDO G.
YUMANG, HENRY R. YUNGOT, ROMEO P. YUSON, ARSENIA
ZABALA, FELIX N. ZABALA AND GRACIANO ZAMORA,
PETITIONERS, VS. HON. TEODORO A. DIZON, JR., PRESIDING
JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 37, GENERAL SANTOS
CITY, SHELL OIL CO., DOW CHEMICAL CO., OCCIDENTAL
CHEMICAL CORP., STANDARD FRUIT CO., STANDARD FRUIT &
STEAMSHIP CO., DOLE FOOD CO., INC., DOLE FRESH FRUIT CO.,
DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE N.A., DEL MONTE TROPICAL FRUIT
CO., CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND CHIQUITA
BRANDS, INC., RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 125598]
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY AND OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL
CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS. BERNABE L. NAVIDA, JOSE P.
ABANGAN, JR., CEFERINO P. ABARQUEZ, ORLANDITO A. ABISON,
FELIPE ADAYA, ALBERTO R. AFRICA, BENJAMIN M. ALBAO,
FELIPE ALCANTARA, NUMERIANO S. ALCARIA, FERNANDO C.

12/3/2015 10:02 AM

CONCHA. ROGER CRUZ. HERMOGENES T. FELIPE R. GALEOS. SR. CRESENCIO. ALVARADO. GREGORIO DIONG. ESPAÑOLA. CARLOS. ANTONIO B. SR. BUENO. ARNULFO F. RANSAM CRUZ.. EMETRIO C. DEANG. AVELINO C. APARICIO. ANOCHE. DIOSDADO BARREDO. ELEANOR AMOLATA. CASTAÑARES. DIOCENE ENTECOSA. DIAZ. MIGUEL G. ARSENIO ARCE. ULYSES M. ARONG. GALEOS. CANUTO M. ELISEO DAPROZA. RUBENTITO D. ISAGANI D. DOSADO. JAIME S. ANDRADA. BRAULIO B. ANICETO ENOPIA. VIRGILO M.. EMBRADORA. SERNUE CREDO. EMNIANO BALMONTE.judiciary. DOMINADOR L. ARINZOL. MARCELINO J. DELA CRUZ.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 4 of 39 http://elibrary. TRIFINO F. EULOGIO M. NATHANIEL B. DOMINGO A. BENIGNO BESARES. NESTOR DUMALAG. CAUSANG. ANTECRISTO. ESCAMILLA. SALVADOR M. FERNANDO. CARLO B. ANTONIO M. ELIEZER R. CACHUELA. RODOLFO M. ALFONSO. RUFINO BETITO. VICENTE P. JEFFREY R. GABUTAN. LEONARDO M. SOFRONIO BALINGIT. CEREZO. ZACARIAS DAMBAAN. BATULAN.gov. CERERA. DEANG. CADIVIDA. DEANG. FLOR. VICTOR BAYANI. PEDRO D. CARBAJOSA. GEORGE M. DEANG. CAJURAO. ALEX CRUZ. ASTRALABIO. TOMAS P. AMADO R. BARBERO. VICTORINO S. DENOLAN. DEANG. FERNANDO B. NORBERTO F. JR. FERNANDO. DERMIL. ROGELIO P. LAZARO A. BALLENA. LORENZO DIEGO. BAUTISTA. ENTERO. EDGARDO V. BONIAO. FERNANDEZ. VICENTE P. FLORO I. CANTILLO. DIOSDADO CABILING. ARINZOL. FREDDIE DURAN. JR. ARSENIO B. CAUSING. ALEJANDRINO H. ALEJANDRO G. GAMALLER P. ANCORDA. CALUMPAG. BUBUNGAN. ALMODIEL. SAMSON C. BERT B. EDGARADO P. CASSION. LEOPOLDO N. PRIMO P. DANIEL B. EFRAIM ENGLIS. NELSON M. CIRILO G. MARCELO T. LEO S. BANGI. CESAR CORTES. BANGI.E-Library . SERGIO C. NORBERTO J. CALISO. RODRIGO D.. DENOY. ARANIA. ELPIDIO CATUBAY. CORTEZ. HERMINIGILDO AQUINO. FELIPE P. MANSUETO M. MIGUEL EMNACE. CRISTITUTO M. JOVENCIO DIEGO. TESIFREDO I. BURGOS. JR.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 ALEJADO. RAUL DEMONTEVERDE. GERARDO A. RUBENCIO P. CARMELINO P. BARBECHO. FE DIZON. EDILBERTO D. DELA TORRE. ADRIANO R. GARCESA. SATURNINO DIEGO. BEOFIL B. CELESTINO CALUMPAG. GREGORIO S. EROY. JULIETO S. FRUCTUSO P. RUPERTO G. DANTE V. RICARDO C. MARCELO S. RIO T. RONNIE BACAYO. VICTORIANO CANETE. FORTUNATA ENTRADA. DALDE. MARIO C. DOMINADOR P. VIRGILIO BASAS. ALBERT CORNELIO.. REY A. DAWAL. CORNELIO A. ROMEO L. CEJAS. FUENTES. BUENAVISTA. NOEL Y. AQUINO. BURDEOS. CAEL. DOMINGO A. ROLANDO B. DONATO. DIZON. RAMON E. DOMINGO ANTOPINA. ENTECOSA. DIOSDADO P. ANTINO. FLORES. ESCANTILLA. DELA TORRE. REDENTOR T. EMPAS. RODRIGO M.R. ETURMA. LORETO CAMACHO. DE TOMAS. CABALUNA. MAXIMO M. ARAS. FLAVIANO C. DOMANTAY. AQUILLO M. 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . BUENO. FELIPE P.V. VIRGILIO P. VICTOR CARLOS.. RODOLFO P. CASTAÑARES. ECHIVERE. FLOREZA. FERRER. DADULA.

. ROMEO L. MANSANES. PASTERA. ROMEO S. RODOLFO C. HERMONDO. ANDRES A. RAUL A. CONCISO L. LEDRES. LAFORTEZA. PEDRO P. OPON. MANDANI. ORACION.. ELEAZAR QUIJARDO. MEJORADA. CAMILO G. PERACULLO. ARISTON LOS BAÑEZ. LAMPERNIS. JOSEPH D. NESTOR B. JUANITO P. JUMALON. GENEROSO M. ALBERTO ROSARIO. PEREZ. CARLITO LOPEZ. MANGGA. BRICS P. TORIBIO S ILLUSORIO. EARLWIN L. CRESENCIO NARCISO. ALBERTO M. JALICO. SAMELIN. RENE B. MALAGAMBA. MARATAS. MARIO G. JAMERLAN. CLAUDIO HIPOLITO. PAGUNTALAN. PALOMAR. TEOTISTO B. LUMAKIN. MOISES P.gov. MASIGLAT. LOZADA. ANTONIETO POLANCOS. PANFILO A. ILUMINIDO B. OCRETO. SIMON SAGNIP. ERNESTO M. ROMAN B. SALONGKONG. OSCAR JUNSAY. DOMINGO P. HALILI. MATILLANO. ROLANDO V. OCTAVIO F. SR. NEMESIO G. ANASTACIO D. NOEL H.. MANADA. RENOLO L. NAPOLEON T. RICARDO S.E-Library . SERAFIN G. RINCOR. GENTOBA. RODOLFO E. HERMIE L. SABIDO. ELPEDIO T. ANASTACIO LLANOS. NECOR. OBTIAL. SAMELIN. ALAN E.. MUÑEZ. AVELINO L. FRANCISCO G. 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . RELIZAN. JUANITO A. REYES. AMADO J. GUMERE. CONCHITA MANDANI. LOVITOS. ARNELO N.. ROMUALDO. ALEJANDO S. ORANAS. VICTORINO SALOMON. EDDIE M. MAGLASANG. MONDIA. RUFINO T. ERNESTO QUERO. OSIAS. NORBETO D. RODULFO RIVAS. TEODORO B. JR. ODI. MONDIA. ROGELIO RABADON. NARCISO JAPAY. TIMOTEO SALIG. LABANA. GIMENA.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 BERNARDO P. ALBERTO T. NARCISO. SR. LIBURO C. GENTOBA.judiciary. SALVANI. PANFILO C. RAUL T. MABASA. GUSTO. AGAPITO D. MOLINA. NICOLAS. ANTONIO L. ARMANDO B. JAVINAS. JUANITO G. TEODURO G. PRIETO. MARCELINO M. MARCELO P. ROSITA MENDOZA. EMMANUEL RIVAS. GREGORIO R. IMPANG. ANTONIO C. ZENAIDA PROVIDO. JIMENEZ. NARCISO J. OPERIO. WILLIAM U. MESA. ALEJANDRO A. MANSANES. PEDAZO. ROMANCA. ALFREDO NOFIEL. PROVIDO. RODOLFO E. ISMAEL LASDOCE. PRIMITIVO LUNTAO. MARQUEZ. HERCEDA. REYES. PANULIN. RENATO N.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 5 of 39 http://elibrary. LEBRILLA.. EUTIQUIO P. GIDO. JR. JACINTO ROMOC. BIBIANO C. ARQUILLANO M. LABAY. LAURO QUISTADIO. CARLOS C. GEORGE SAMELIN. DOMINGO PEREZ. JUCAR. ROMEO PARAGUAS. QUINTOY. TEOTIMO L. VICENTE Q. ALFREDO M. VIRGILIO E. EDUARDO A. GONZAGA. OSCAR C. SALIGONAN. MACALISANG. PEÑARANDA. GIL A. IZRO M. ALCIO P. EMILIO S. MONTEJO. MADULIN. PANILAGAO. ONOFRE GONZALES. ALEJANDRO G. JAIME B. LOE LAGUMBAY. LAS PEÑAS. RICARDO MONTAÑO. PADILLA. NELSON G. PLEÑOS. MAGALLON. NOLITO C. RICARDO R. NICOLAS. PALENCIA. JR. ROGELIO MUNAR. HERNANI C. JALBUNA. GINGOYO. VICTORIO B. LEONARDO M. FEDERICO T. JR. FELIX T. JIMMY A. PADIOS. EMILIO V. MOCORRO. FERNANDO Y. PABIONA. MICHAEL P. NOVENA. DENDERIA MATABANG. SR. EDGAR M. BIENVENIDO C. ROLANDO J. LLIDO.. EDUARDO P. MILLADO. MAMARADLO. SAMELIN. ERNESTO GOLEZ. MANSANES. ARMANDO A.

IRENEO AGABATU. ANTONIO L.. LEANDRO BILIRAN. ERNESTO TARRE. SIMEON F. ARSENIA ZABALA. DANTE VILLALVA. SIMBA. QUINTINO DISIPULO. MARCIANO NATINGAL.. BONIFACIO M. LUIS BUGHAO. JOSE F. EDGAR A. CATCHA. CATALINO BONGO. VILLARBA. CESAR G. ROMEO P. SERAFIN AZUCENA. JR. EDUARDO L. DOMINGO ALONZO. NESTOR S. EDUARDO A. MARGARITO R.R. LEONCIO SERDONCILLO. YARE. REYNALDO BAHAYA. DE LA PENA. CATALINO S. ANTONIO ENGBINO. YUSON. PEDRO A. 126654] CORNELIO ABELLA. TORREGOSA. FELIX N. SUPAS. ELEAZAR D. FELIX M. EDUARDO Y.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 ROMEO A. ARARAO. SINSUANGCO. MELCHOR BRIGOLE. CORNELIO COSTILLAS. APOLINARIO B. BERNARDO M. RESPONDENTS. ARTIGAS. EUFROCINO A. BADOY. JAIME FEROLINO. TAMASE. TERRADO. TUCLAOD. JR. YUMANG. ANTONIO TOLEDO. SIMTIM. RICARDO M.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 6 of 39 http://elibrary. CARLITO A. SALORIANO VELASCO. DELUAO. ALFREDO ESPINOSA. JENNY T. CIRILO SAYAANG. ANTIPAS A. GEMENTIZA. BURGUINZO. YUNGOT. PRUDENCIO ALDEPOLIA. FILOMENO E. MANUEL T. GREGORIO S. TACULAD. DAGAME. RICADO C. MARCELINO ANDIMAT.E-Library . VALENZUELA. VILLARBA. JR. CELSO M. ALFREDO L. LYNDON SUMAJIT. ARTEMIO ALEMAN. JOSE DULABAY. DONAYRE. ERNESTO G. EDUARDO G. VAFLOR. BARING. PEDRO G. JAIRO DUQUIZA. WALOG. JR. DOMINADO A. ALFREDO P. SOLOMON. BALTAZAR. JERSON ASUAL. RODOLFO YAMBAO. JULIAN J. No. VILLEGAS. MARGARITO BLANCO. VICTORINO M. CAPAROSO. ELPEDIO A. YBERA. ALONZO FAILOG. ANGELIA. TINAY. MANSUETO M. CESAR N. ORLANDO TINACO. PERIGRINO P. BATINGAL. ROBERTO BRINA. ANTONIO M. CONSTANCIO L. AND GRACIANO ZAMORA. VILLARAN. GABITO.. ENERIO R. JORGE ANDOY. PANTALEON T. [G. HENRY R. TAGOTO. MARINO BIBANCO. NESTOR G. BUSIA. URBANO. ZABALA. JIMMY C. CAINDOC. RODOLFO VIDAL. RODULFO G. SUMARAGO. CABALLES. TABAQUE. SEVILLA. ISABELO TORRES. FIDEL ALLERA. SOLA. JR. MAGNO E. DELFIN C. BONIFACIO L. SERAPIO TAHITIT. SUFICIENCIA. ALFREDO A. ERNESTO SUMILE. DEIPARIME. TATOY. ELISEO BRINA. BAHALLA. TORRIBIO. HENRY C. WILFREDO A. RUDIGELIO S. TICO. JAIME B.gov. CORNELIO AMORA. SAMUEL S. JOSE G. JESUS L. LEOPOLDO AMORADO. SARAOSOS. FRANKLIN CLARAS. GEROLAGA. SUMAJIT. SUMAJIT. VILLAVA. ALBERT G. AVELINO TAYAPAD. JR. AMORA.. GEROY. CANDIDO CALO. DANILO CARILLO. SERRANO. PEDRITO CAMPAS. RODOLFO L.. FERNANDO R. DIAZ.. FELIPE G. RICARADO C. RODOLFO C. 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . BALDAGO. FELIMON DEBUMA. GREGOTIO APRIANO. SUMOG-OY. COMPENDIO. RPDITO CABAGTE.judiciary. SARMIENTO. RICARDO A. WALTER VILLAFAÑE. JARLO SAYSON. JACINTO UDAL. COLLAMAT. SERAFIN T.

FELIPE G.. ENERIO LOOD. LADURA. FERNANDO P. CATALINO C. NESTOR B. INC. VICENTE URQUIZA. OTANA. CANILO TAJON. RAMON MAGDOSA. OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORP. DAVAO CITY. ALFREDO TILANDOCA.. MONTERO. CANULO P. RODRIGO REQUILMEN. ROMEO TAYCO. LEOPOLDO VILLAVITO AND SAMUEL M.. STANDARD FRUIT & STEAMSHIP CO. MAGNO QUIZON. LEOPOLDO AMORADO. VS. DEL MONTE TROPICAL FRUIT CO. JR. GLICERIO V. AURELIO A.judiciary. ROMEO D. CESAR B. MARO. VILLEGAS. PETITIONERS. IRENEO AGABATU. MARINO G. PETITIONERS. NAPITAN.E-Library . LUCIO B. SHELL OIL CO. SILVANO MONCANO.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 ROGELIO GONZAGA. LAGURA. TUNGKO. TEJERO. PEDRO PILAGO. TEOFILIO OMOSURA. No. DOMINGO B. PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT. INC.. FIDEL ALLERA.. ROLANDO GONZALES. AVELINO TATAPOD. ROSETE. DOLE FOOD CO. MARCELINO ANDIMAT. JORGE 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . OLEGARIO IYUMA. TINOY G. PEDRO LOCION.A. VILLARAIZ.. OLOY. ROLANDO LACNO. STANDARD FRUIT CO. LABASON. TIMA. PRIEGO. HECTOR GUMBAN. VS. VICENTE VILLA. NILO MAGLINTE. JORGE M.A. RENATO TAYCO. OMEO L. CLEMENTE NAKANO.R. ISIDRO RETANAL. ELADIO QUIBOL. VIRGILIO A. LASACA. PACITA SUYMAN. CRISOSTOMO R. DIONISIO RAMOS. CARLITO ROBLE. INC.. LAYAO. IGCALINOS. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF DAVAO CITY.. MARDENIO LAYAO. CHARLIE P. ROBERTO SIVA.. DOLE FRESH FRUIT CO. CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL. [G. MELCHOR SALIGUMBA. MAMERTO RANISES... PASTOR T. HERMONEGES TIRADOR. PASCUAL. ALFREDO P. JR. ROMAN.. DOROTEO S. DOW CHEMICAL CO. ENRIQUE LAQUERO.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 7 of 39 http://elibrary. RODRIGO H. ROLANDO A. VIVENCIO LAWANGON. SILVERIO E.. FRANCISCO LAMBAN. EMELIANO C. PADICA.. DOMINGO ALONZO. ANECITO LAYAN. PANA. QUIBOL. SUSANTO C. LECERIO IGBALIC. CONSTANCIO M. PALASPAS. MIJARES. TURCAL. ARTEMIO ALEMAN. AND CHIQUITA BRANDS. JR. JR. TEOFILO NUNEZ. CORNELIO ABELLA. EMILIO MONTAJES. JUANITO B. SISINO LAURDEN. CARLITO MANACAP. MIGUEL ORALO. NARON. EDUARDO JARGUE. DIOSDADO MADATE. MARASIGAN. SABINO. CAMILO HINAG. BRANCHES 16 AND 13. PRUDENCIO ALDEPOLIA. BIENVENIDO PAYAG. LUCIO NASAKA. AGAPITO TECSON. 127856] DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE N. RESURRECCION PENOS. AND DEL MONTE TROPICAL FRUIT CO. BRANCH 16. ERNESTO M. OMBRETE. JESUS D. LEANDRO B. ALFREDO INTOD. OLORVIDA. JAGMOC. MODESTO M. CORNELIO AMORA. CESAR MONAPCO. NEMENCIO C. JOSELITO TIRO.gov. AMORA. GODELOSAO.. CARLOS B. THE HON. NALAS. DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE N. CONRADO TECSON. RESPONDENTS. ROMEO PRESBITERO.. REBUYA. E. MALINAO. ANTONIO P. LINAO. SILVERIO SILANGAN.

CABALLES. JOSE DULABAY. MARINO BIBANCO. PALASPAS. CATALINO C. MARO. PEDRO LOCION. AVELINO TATAPOD. JAGMOC. DIAZ. 12/3/2015 10:02 AM .. TEOFILO NUNEZ. ENRIQUE LAQUERO. RODRIGO REQUILMEN. DOMINADO A. COLLAMAT. EMELIANO C. ENERIO R.E-Library . SISINO LAURDEN. MARCIANO NATINGAL. TIMA. ELPEDIO A. CAMILO HINAG. BARING. MODESTO M. ROLANDO LACNO. JAIRO DUQUIZA. ROSETE.. GEROY.. MIJARES. PRIEGO. CAINDOC. MAGNO QUIZON.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 ANDOY. CATALINO BONGO. EMILIO MONTAJES. BALTAZAR. ROLANDO GONZALES. JR. SUSANTO C. HECTOR GUMBAN. ARTIGAS. E. ALFREDO TILANDOCA. BONIFACIO L. ENERIO LOOD. PADICA. FERNANDO R.. JR. RICARDO A. BATINGAL. CARLOS B. ARARAO. ALONZO FAILOG. DANILO CARILLO. BADOY. REBUYA. ROLANDO A. DELUAO. GREGORIO S. RICARADO C.. CARLITO ROBLE. BALDAGO. CANILO TAJON. NAPITAN. GEMENTIZA. PEDRITO CAMPAS. ALFREDO INTOD. JR. CLEMENTE NAKANO. JR. COMPENDIO. MARGARITO R. OMEO L. OLOY. DAGAME. ROGELIO GONZAGA. TEOFILIO OMOSURA. VIVENCIO LAWANGON. CAPAROSO. CANDIDO CALO. TEJERO. MAMERTO RANISES. LINAO. RAMON MAGDOSA. JOSE F. ELADIO QUIBOL. CESAR MONAPCO. JUANITO B. DEIPARIME. EDUARDO L. MARDENIO LAYAO. IGCALINOS. ALFREDO P. RENATO TAYCO. TURCAL. BURGUINZO. LAYAO. DE LA PENA. BIENVENIDO PAYAG. OLORVIDA. JORGE M. ISIDRO RETANAL. LEANDRO BILIRAN. BONIFACIO M. OMBRETE. NILO MAGLINTE. JR. GABITO. FELIMON DEBUMA. ALFREDO ESPINOSA. JOSELITO TIRO. CARLITO MANACAP. MONTERO. ERNESTO M.. REYNALDO BAHAYA. JR. AURELIO A. ROMEO PRESBITERO. LUCIO B. JR. NALAS. GLICERIO V. LUCIO NASAKA. LUIS BUGHAO. TUNGKO. HERMONEGES TIRADOR. NEMENCIO C. PEDRO G. CELSO M. BAHALLA. CRISOSTOMO R. MELCHOR SALIGUMBA. ROBERTO BRINA. CESAR N. PASTOR T. RESURRECCION PENOS. RODRIGO H. OTANA. ROBERTO SIVA. AGAPITO TECSON. LEANDRO B. FRANKLIN CLARAS. CESAR B. PANA. VIRGILIO A. LADURA. MARGARITO BLANCO. LECERIO IGBALIC.gov. ANTONIO ENGBINO. MALINAO.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 8 of 39 http://elibrary. DONAYRE. CONRADO TECSON. NESTOR B. ANECITO LAYAN. LABASON. ANGELIA. CESAR G. SILVANO MONCANO.. QUIBOL. GODELOSAO. DOMINGO B. DIOSDADO MADATE. GEROLAGA.judiciary. JERSON ASUAL. DIONISIO RAMOS. CARLITO A. OLEGARIO IYUMA. PEDRO PILAGO. ROMAN. NARON. CHARLIE P. MIGUEL ORALO. ANTIPAS A. CORNELIO COSTILLAS. DOROTEO S. TINOY G. RPDITO CABAGTE. MELCHOR BRIGOLE. JAIME FEROLINO. PACITA SUYMAN. JOSE G. EDUARDO JARGUE. BUSIA. LAGURA. SERAFIN AZUCENA. FERNANDO P. ROMEO TAYCO. PASCUAL. VICENTE URQUIZA. SABINO. BERNARDO M. MARINO G. RODOLFO L. JULIAN J. ALFREDO A. CANULO P. RODULFO G. RICADO C. CONSTANCIO M. GREGOTIO APRIANO. LASACA. ANTONIO L. CATCHA. FRANCISCO LAMBAN. SILVERIO SILANGAN. JESUS D. FELIX M. SILVERIO E. QUINTINO DISIPULO. ELISEO BRINA.

FERNANDO P. VS. JAIRO DUQUIZA. IGCALINOS. BADOY. IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT.. MARINO BIBANCO. CRISOSTOMO R. AND CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL. LUIS BUGHAO. ALONZO FAILOG. OLORVIDA. FELIPE G. JR. CARLITO A. GREGOTIO APRIANO. MALINAO. LEANDRO BILIRAN. SILVANO MONCANO. MODESTO M. ELPEDIO A. MARDENIO LAYAO. SISINO LAURDEN. SERAFIN AZUCENA. CESAR G. JOSE F. VIVENCIO LAWANGON. GEROLAGA. ROLANDO GONZALES. ALFREDO INTOD. NEMENCIO C. JOSE DULABAY. ANTONIO P. BAHALLA. DIOSDADO MADATE. NAPITAN. CAMILO HINAG.gov. GEMENTIZA. RICADO C. PRUDENCIO ALDEPOLIA. CORNELIO ABELLA. MARINO G. CAPAROSO. RODULFO G. EMELIANO C. JR. JUANITO B. MIJARES.. LEOPOLDO VILLAVITO AND SAMUEL M. JAGMOC. ENERIO R. BALTAZAR. ALFREDO ESPINOSA. HECTOR GUMBAN. MELCHOR BRIGOLE. DEIPARIME. RICARADO C. COMPENDIO. ALFREDO A. ARTIGAS. ANGELIA. JULIAN J. JOSE G. JR. MARCIANO NATINGAL. PEDRITO CAMPAS. ARTEMIO ALEMAN. PEDRO G. CESAR N. OLOY. MARGARITO BLANCO. DOMINADO A. DANILO CARILLO. CAINDOC. NARON. MARGARITO R. ROLANDO LACNO. LECERIO IGBALIC.. CATALINO BONGO. JR. DIAZ.. LADURA.. [G. ENRIQUE LAQUERO. LINAO. LAYAO. AMORA. FRANKLIN CLARAS. PETITIONERS. DOMINGO B. RODOLFO L. ELISEO BRINA. RICARDO A. RESPONDENTS. BURGUINZO. ROBERTO BRINA. BERNARDO M. TEOFILO NUNEZ. VILLEGAS. NALAS. 128398] CHIQUITA BRANDS. LABASON. CABALLES. ROLANDO A. LUCIO B.. SILVERIO E. CONSTANCIO M. MARO. JAIME FEROLINO. CARLITO MANACAP. AURELIO A. CLEMENTE NAKANO. ANECITO LAYAN. NILO MAGLINTE. QUINTINO DISIPULO. GODELOSAO.. BATINGAL. ENERIO LOOD. OLEGARIO IYUMA. FERNANDO R. ANTONIO L. JORGE M. RPDITO CABAGTE. TEOFILIO OMOSURA. BALDAGO. PEDRO LOCION. FRANCISCO LAMBAN. DOROTEO S. CESAR B. GREGORIO S.E-Library . JR. EDUARDO L. MONTERO. EDUARDO JARGUE. FELIX M. FIDEL ALLERA. RAMON MAGDOSA. GEROY. HON. DOMINGO ALONZO. VIRGILIO A. BONIFACIO M. CELSO M. BARING. CORNELIO COSTILLAS. ARARAO. DONAYRE. BUSIA. No. GABITO. JR. MIGUEL ORALO. INC. CESAR MONAPCO.. JR. DE LA PENA.. RODRIGO H. DAGAME. CANULO P. COLLAMAT. BRANCH 13. VILLARAIZ. JERSON ASUAL. DAVAO CITY. REYNALDO BAHAYA. IRENEO AGABATU. JORGE ANDOY. LUCIO NASAKA. ROGELIO GONZAGA. CANDIDO CALO.R. EMILIO MONTAJES. SUSANTO C. 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . ANTIPAS A. LEOPOLDO AMORADO.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 9 of 39 http://elibrary. OMBRETE. LAGURA. FELIMON DEBUMA. CATCHA. INC. MARCELINO ANDIMAT.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 VICENTE VILLA.judiciary. CORNELIO AMORA. DELUAO. ANTONIO ENGBINO. LASACA. ANITA ALFELORALAGABAN. BONIFACIO L.

[10] April 28. VICENTE VILLA. MAMERTO RANISES.judiciary. which also dismissed the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 125598.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 OTANA. 1996[4] and July 9. E. 1999. RENATO TAYCO. CARLOS B.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 10 of 39 http://elibrary. PADICA.R.[7] and 128398[8] seek the reversal of the Order[9] dated October 1. VILLARAIZ. MAGNO QUIZON. 5617.[6] 127856. 1997. PASCUAL. TINOY G.E-Library . 5617. No. 1997[11] and March 10. ALFREDO P. including the Philippines. 1996 of the RTC of Davao City. in Civil Case No. GLICERIO V. RESURRECCION PENOS. CHARLIE P. The factual antecedents of the petitions are as follows: Proceedings before the Texas Courts Beginning 1993. SABINO. PRIEGO. PALASPAS. JR. OMEO L. VICENTE URQUIZA. LEANDRO B.R. ERNESTO M. in Civil Case No. Nos. AGAPITO TECSON.gov. a number of personal injury suits were filed in different Texas state courts by citizens of twelve foreign countries. and 128398 were consolidated in the [12] Resolutions dated February 10. ANTONIO P. REBUYA. TIMA.R. CONRADO TECSON. HERMONEGES TIRADOR. DIONISIO RAMOS. ISIDRO RETANAL. LEOPOLDO VILLAVITO AND SAMUEL M. VILLEGAS. PEDRO PILAGO.: Before the Court are consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. SILVERIO SILANGAN. 24. CARLITO ROBLE. 125078. Branch 16. J. DECISION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO. QUIBOL. 125598 also challenges the Orders dated June 4. PANA.251-96.R. ROSETE. TURCAL. ELADIO QUIBOL. BIENVENIDO PAYAG.[5] which held that the RTC of General Santos City no longer had jurisdiction to proceed with Civil Case No. The said Order decreed the dismissal of the case in view of the perceived lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject matter of the complaint. On the other hand. CATALINO C. ALFREDO TILANDOCA. 126654. NESTOR B. 126654. The petition in G. which arose out of two civil cases that were filed in different courts but whose factual background and issues are closely intertwined. AVELINO TATAPOD.. The thousands of plaintiffs sought damages for injuries they allegedly sustained from 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . 125078[1] and 125598[2] both assail the Order[3] dated May 20. RODRIGO REQUILMEN. Nos. ROMAN. MELCHOR SALIGUMBA. Nos. ROBERTO SIVA. 1996. ROMEO PRESBITERO. Branch 37. PASTOR T. JESUS D. PACITA SUYMAN. TUNGKO. 1996 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of General Santos City. RESPONDENTS. CANILO TAJON. ROMEO TAYCO. G. JOSELITO TIRO. the petitions in G. The petitions in G. TEJERO. 127856.

xxxx Notwithstanding the dismissals that may result from this Memorandum and Order. and "Juan Ramon Valdez. et al. Houston Division. Shell Oil Co. (2) either waived or accepted service of process and waived any other jurisdictional defense within 40 days after the entry of this Memorandum and Order in any action commenced by a plaintiff in these actions in his home country or the country in which his injury occurred.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 their exposure to dibromochloropropane (DBCP). et al.gov. H-95-1356. et al. v. (3) waived within 40 days after the entry of this Memorandum and Order any limitations-based defense that has matured since the commencement of these actions in the courts of Texas. the Federal District Court conditionally granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. the court ordered that: Delgado. H-94-1359. Shell Oil Co. The cases therein that involved plaintiffs from the Philippines were "Jorge Colindres Carcamo.judiciary. v. et al.and fourth-party defendants have: (1) participated in expedited discovery in the United States xxx. and consolidated in." which was docketed as Civil Action No. Valdez and Isae Carcamo will be dismissed 90 days after the entry of this Memorandum and Order provided that defendants and third.. Jorge Carcamo. Any plaintiff desiring to bring such an action will do so within 30 days after the entry of this Memorandum and Order. (4) stipulated within 40 days after the entry of this Memorandum and Order that any discovery conducted during the pendency of these actions may be used in any foreign proceeding to the same extent as if it had been conducted in proceedings initiated there... The cases were eventually transferred to. 1995.. In a Memorandum and Order dated July 11. Pertinently." which was docketed as Civil Action No. and (5) submitted within 40 days after the entry of this Memorandum and Order an agreement binding them to satisfy any final judgment rendered in favor of plaintiffs by a foreign court. a chemical used to kill nematodes (worms).Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 11 of 39 http://elibrary. The defendants in the consolidated cases prayed for the dismissal of all the actions under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. in the event that the highest court of any foreign country finally affirms the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of an action 12/3/2015 10:02 AM .E-Library . while working on farms in 23 foreign countries. the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

which the defendant companies knew. prayed for the payment of damages in view of the illnesses and injuries to the reproductive systems which they allegedly suffered because of their exposure to DBCP. They claimed.) Navida.. most of the defendant companies respectively filed their Motions for Bill of Particulars. or ought to have known. as party defendants. the court will resume jurisdiction over the action as if the case had never been dismissed for [forum non conveniens]. upon proper motion.[15] During the pendency of the motions.. Inc. and Amvac Chemical Corp. NAVIDA... a total of 336 plaintiffs from General Santos City (the petitioners in G. were highly injurious to the former's health and well-being. Occidental Chemical Corp. Del Monte Fresh Produce N. 125078. Standard Fruit and Steamship Co. on March 13. Chiquita Brands. Dead Sea Bromine Co. 1996. (hereinafter collectively referred to as DEL MONTE). Dole Food Co.) filed a Joint Complaint[14] in the RTC of General Santos City on August 10. Inc. Named as defendants therein were: Shell Oil Co. Bromine Compounds... DOW filed an Answer with Counterclaim. and Chiquita Brands International. (OCCIDENTAL). 5617. (The aforementioned defendants are hereinafter collectively referred to as defendant companies. 5617 before the RTC of General Santos City and G.gov.. Ameribrom. sold and/or otherwise put into the stream of commerce DBCP-containing products. (CHIQUITA). (SHELL). and Amvac Chemical Corp.[16] excluding Dead Sea Bromine Co.E-Library .R. and/or when they resided within the agricultural area where such chemical was used. that they were exposed to this chemical during the early 1970's up to the early 1980's when they used the same in the banana plantations where they worked at. hereinafter referred to as NAVIDA. Ltd. Ameribrom. Navida. Again. According to NAVIDA. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. among others.. that plaintiff may return to this court and.[13] Civil Case No. Inc.judiciary. et al. Inc.. claimed that their illnesses and injuries were due to the fault or negligence of each of the defendant companies in that they produced. Nos..[17] On May 15.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 12 of 39 http://elibrary. Ltd. Ltd. Bromine Compounds. 125078 and 125598 In accordance with the above Memorandum and Order. 1996. Dole Fresh Fruit Co... Standard Fruit Co. et al.[18] 12/3/2015 10:02 AM .. filed an Amended Joint Complaint.A. Instead of answering the complaint. (DOW). Inc.. they were allowed to be exposed to the said products.R. Ltd. the remaining defendant companies filed their various Motions for Bill of Particulars. et al.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 commenced by a plaintiff in these actions in his home country or the country in which he was injured. Dow Chemical Co. 1995. No. (hereinafter collectively referred to as DOLE). et al. and Del Monte Tropical Fruit Co.. et al.

their packaging in containers. Said the trial court: THE TORT ASSERTED IN THE PRESENT COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT FOREIGN COMPANIES IS NOT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT. without resolving the motions filed by the parties. it becomes stark clear that such averments describe and identify the category of specific tort known as product liability tort.judiciary. in their complaint is a tort category that is not recognized in Philippine laws. et al. This is necessarily so. consisted of activity or course of conduct engaged in by foreign defendants outside Philippine territory. hence. BECAUSE IT IS NOT A TORT CATEGORY WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE PHILIPPINE LAW The specific tort asserted against defendant foreign companies in the present complaint is product liability tort. which is asserted to be 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . Accordingly. These acts of defendants cited in the complaint included the manufacture of pesticides.gov. the RTC of General Santos City declared that the tort alleged by Navida. resulting in their becoming part of the stream of commerce. When the averments in the present complaint are examined in terms of the particular categories of tort recognized in the Philippine Civil Code. the RTC of General Santos City issued an Order dismissing the complaint. the trial court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.[19] Second.. 1996. their distribution through sale or other disposition.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 13 of 39 http://elibrary. the subject matter stated in the complaint and which is uniquely particular to the present case.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 On May 20. because it is the product manufactured by defendant foreign companies.E-Library . outside and beyond the jurisdiction of Philippine Courts. including the present Regional Trial Court. First. to wit: THE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FILED WITH THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION xxxx The substance of the cause of action as stated in the complaint against the defendant foreign companies cites activity on their part which took place abroad and had occurred outside and beyond the territorial domain of the Philippines.

inclusive of and comprehending the specific tort described in the complaint of the plaintiff workers. or a suppletory special law prescribes a product liability tort. courts. and in order to keep open to the plaintiffs the opportunity to return to the U.[20] Third. and the liability of the defendant foreign companies. if and only if the Civil Code of the Philippines. the trial court ascribed little significance to the voluntary appearance of the defendant companies therein. It is clear.S. court that defendants will voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of this court.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 the proximate cause of the damages sustained by the plaintiff workers. defendants declared that "(t)he authority of each designated representative to accept service of process will become effective upon final dismissal of these actions by the Court". therefore.S.S. that the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the present case. While it is true that this court acquires jurisdiction over persons of the defendants through their voluntary appearance.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 14 of 39 http://elibrary.E-Library .. District Court. District Court's Order dated July 11. merely to comply with the U.[21] Fourth. since the authority of the agent of the defendants in the Philippines is conditioned on the final adjudication of the case pending with the U. 1995. but rather were coerced to do so.S. is premised on being the manufacturer of the pesticides.S. The decision of the U. were coerced into submitting their case to the Philippine courts.S. viz: FILING OF CASES IN THE PHILIPPINES . Consequently. thus: THE DEFENDANTS' SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION IS CONDITIONAL AS IT IS ILLUSORY Defendants have appointed their agents authorized to accept service of summons/processes in the Philippines pursuant to the agreement in the U. the acquisition 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . District Court. the RTC of General Santos City adjudged that Navida. et al. 3(h).COERCED AND ANOMALOUS The Court views that the plaintiffs did not freely choose to file the instant action. District Court dismissing the case is not yet final and executory since both the plaintiffs and defendants appealed therefrom (par. 3(i).gov. it appears that such voluntary appearance of the defendants in this case is conditional. Amended Complaint).judiciary. Thus in the "Defendants' Amended Agreement Regarding Conditions of Dismissal for Forum Non Conveniens" (Annex to the Complaint) filed with the U.

the case filed in the U. Applying the foregoing [precept] to the case-at-bar. the U. The court would like to emphasize that in accordance with the rule on litis pendencia x x x. et al. District court dismissing the case filed thereat. concurrent jurisdiction with this court over the subject matter of this case. x x x. courts divested this court of its own jurisdiction. this court concludes that since the 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . District Court did not decline jurisdiction over the cause of action. same rights and interests. xxxx THE FILING OF THE CASE IN U. violates the rule on `forum shopping' so abhorred in this jurisdiction. in essence. It is settled that initial acquisition of jurisdiction divests another of its own jurisdiction.judiciary. xxxx THIS CASE IS BARRED BY THE RULE OF "LITIS PENDENCIA" Furthermore. the filing of the case in the U. This court takes note that the U. To allow the parties to litigate in this court when they are actively pursuing the same cases in another forum. The trial court expounded: THE JURISDICTION FROWNS UPON AND PROHIBITS FORUM SHOPPING This court frowns upon the fact that the parties herein are both vigorously pursuing their appeal of the decision of the U.S. the RTC of General Santos City ruled that the act of NAVIDA. as in this case. The case was dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 15 of 39 http://elibrary. court involves the same parties. the subsequent case must be dismissed. The appointment of agents by the defendants. DIVESTED THIS COURT OF ITS OWN JURISDICTION Moreover. thus produces no legal effect and is ineffective at the moment. x x x. District Court has.E-Library .S.S. By taking cognizance of the case. x x x.S.gov.. There exists litis pendencia since there are two cases involving the same parties and interests.[22] Fifth.S.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 of jurisdiction by this court over the persons of the defendants is also conditional.S. which is really a matter of venue. being subject to a suspensive condition. of filing the case in the Philippine courts violated the rules on forum shopping and litis pendencia.

the trial court held that: It behooves this Court. This evaluation and action is made not on account of but rather with due consideration to the fact that the dismissal of this case does not necessarily deprive the parties . the RTC of General Santos City declared that it had already lost its jurisdiction over the case as it took into consideration the Manifestation of the counsel of NAVIDA. No. NAVIDA. then this case is barred by the rule on "litis pendencia. 1996.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 16 of 39 http://elibrary. CHIQUITA and SHELL filed their motions for reconsideration[30] of the above order. might accord this court a charming appearance. 1996. 1996. 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . On July 11. the RTC of General Santos City likewise issued an Order.[25] dismissing DOW's Answer with Counterclaim. which was docketed as G. et al. et al. DEL MONTE and SHELL each filed a motion for reconsideration[26] of the RTC Order dated May 20. 125078. 1996. is still pending.R.of their possible remedies.[24] On June 4. which merely noted the incidents still pending in Civil Case No.S. 5617 and reiterated that it no longer had any jurisdiction over the case. while DOW filed a motion for reconsideration[27] of the RTC Order dated June 4. CHIQUITA. this case is now considered DISMISSED. in view of the foregoing considerations. would be violative of the constitutional provision on the Bill of Rights guaranteeing speedy disposition of cases (Ref.. 1996. which stated that the latter had already filed a petition for review on certiorari before this Court. But the same insistence would actually thwart the very ends of justice which it seeks to achieve. then to dismiss this case. as it is now presented. Constitution). WHEREFORE. In an Order[29] dated July 9. To insist on further proceedings with this case. The court has no other choice.gov.. Article III. 1996. filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari in order to assail the RTC Order dated May 20. For to continue with these proceedings. 1996. The court is cognizant that the Federal Court may resume proceedings of that earlier case between the herein parties involving the same acts or omissions as in this case. The RTC of General Santos City then issued an Order[31] dated August 14.especially the plaintiffs ."[23] In fine. Sec.E-Library . DOW and OCCIDENTAL also filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration[28] of the RTC Order dated May 20. 1996.judiciary. Subsequently.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 case between the parties in the U. 16.

this Court resolved to consolidate G. distributed.judiciary. and without providing instructions on its proper use and application. CHIQUITA filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari. 1996 and July 9. and/or made available in commerce.) amended their Joint-Complaint on May 21. June 4. and 128398 Another joint complaint for damages against SHELL. 1996. et al. CHIQUITA filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC of Davao City. 1996. sterility and severe injuries to their reproductive capacities. OCCIDENTAL. 126018. Nos. Except for DOW. had they exercised ordinary care and prudence. 24. DBCP without warning the users of its hazardous effects on health. No. 1996. sold. 126654. et al. DOW and OCCIDENTAL filed their Petition for Review on Certiorari. hereinafter referred to as ABELLA.. et al. which the defendant companies knew or ought to have known. No. claimed that the defendant companies manufactured. No. filed their opposition. which contained the chemical DBCP. et al.R.251-96.gov. alleged that. 24. Their petition was docketed as G.[38] Similar to the complaint of NAVIDA. In a Resolution[35] dated November 13. This case was docketed as Civil Case No. et al.R. 1996. No. the other defendant companies filed their respective motions for bill of particulars to which ABELLA.. DOW and DEL MONTE filed their respective Answers dated May 17. 1996 and August 14. such exposure resulted in "serious and permanent injuries to their health.[34] which sought the reversal of the RTC Orders dated May 20. 1996. No. 1996. but not limited to.E-Library . as workers in the banana plantation and/or as residents near the said plantation. ABELLA. Civil Case No. DOW and OCCIDENTAL aver that the RTC of General Santos City erred in ruling that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case as well as the persons of the defendant companies. including. 125598 with G.R.. 1996. The petition was docketed as G. 1996 and June 24. however. DOLE. used.. they were made to use and/or were exposed to nematocides. 125598. 1996.R.[32] challenging the orders of the RTC of General Santos City dated May 20.. In a Resolution[33] dated October 7. et al. According to ABELLA. and CHIQUITA was filed before Branch 16 of the RTC of Davao City by 155 plaintiffs from Davao City. DEL MONTE."[39] ABELLA.R. 24. DOW. July 9. junked Civil Case No. These plaintiffs (the petitioners in G.251-96 in its Order dated 12/3/2015 10:02 AM .R. produced.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 On August 30.[36] but the same was denied through a Resolution[37] dated January 27. 127856. 125078. 1997. 126654. 1996. the Court dismissed the aforesaid petition for failure of CHIQUITA to show that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. In their petition.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 17 of 39 http://elibrary.251-96 before the RTC of Davao City and G.

12/3/2015 10:02 AM . the Federal District Court issued a Memorandum and Order conditionally dismissing several of the consolidated actions including those filed by the Filipino complainants. Standard Fruit Company.. 1996. DOLE Fresh Fruit Company. Inc. and Del Monte Tropical Fruits Co. Standard Fruit and Steamship.A. 19). upon proper motion.A.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 October 1. Reply to Opposition dated July 22. is convinced that plaintiffs "would have this Honorable Court dismiss the case to pave the way for their getting an affirmance by the Supreme Court" (#10 of Defendants' Del Monte Fresh Produce. 27). as correctly pointed out by one of the defendants. as plaintiffs. they have no agents as well (par. One of the conditions imposed was for the plaintiffs to file actions in their home countries or the countries in which they were injured x x x. S. USA. N. the Memorandum and [O]rder further provided that should the highest court of any foreign country affirm the dismissal for lack of jurisdictions over these actions filed by the plaintiffs in their home countries [or] the countries where they were injured. Notwithstanding. Chiquita Brands.. which. said petition was provisionally dismissed on condition that these cases be filed in the Philippines or before 11 August 1995 (Philippine date. DOW Chemicals Company. a petition was filed by same plaintiffs against same defendants in the Courts of Texas. reads: Upon a thorough review of the Complaint and Amended Complaint For: Damages filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants Shell Oil Company. Chiquita Brands International. conspiracy and international tort theories (par. Occidental Chemical Corporation.judiciary. after having elected to sue in the place of defendants' residence. plaintiffs are suing the defendants for tortuous acts committed by these foreign corporations on their respective countries. plaintiffs aver that: on 11 July 1995. in its entirety.) 11. are now compelled by a decision of a Texas District Court to file cases under torts in this jurisdiction for causes of actions which occurred abroad (par.E-Library . DOLE Food Company. the said plaintiffs may return to that court and. Courts will reassume jurisdiction. Del Monte Fresh Produce. the Court will resume jurisdiction as if the case had never been dismissed for forum non conveniens.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 18 of 39 http://elibrary. 18). strict liability. and Del Monte Tropical Fruit Co. N. the Court.. In the Amended Joint Complaint. 1996). the U. all foreign corporations with Philippine Representatives. plaintiffs seeking for payment of damages based on negligence. plaintiffs state that: defendants have no properties in the Philippines. Should the Philippine Courts refuse or deny jurisdiction.gov. Consider these: 1) In the original Joint Complaint. upon defendants' Motion to Dismiss on Forum non [conveniens].

et al. assails before this Court the above-quoted order of the RTC of Davao City. 3.. ABELLA.. 1996 by ABELLA.R.E-Library . This means there is no available evidence which will prove and disprove the relation between sterility and DBCP. filed on November 12. based on the opinions of legal luminaries reported in a newspaper." to wit: 1. the RTC of Davao City has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case since Articles 2176 and 2187 of the Civil Code are broad enough to cover the acts complained of and to support their claims for damages.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 The Court however is constrained to dismiss the case at bar not solely on the basis of the above but because it shares the opinion of legal experts given in the interview made by the Inquirer in its Special report "Pesticide Cause Mass Sterility. No. et al. There has been no decided case in Philippine Jurisprudence awarding to those adversely affected by DBCP. claim that the RTC of Davao City erred in dismissing Civil Case No. 24. According to ABELLA. Retired High Court Justice Rodolfo Nocom stated that there is simply an absence of doctrine here that permits these causes to be heard. Former Justice Secretary Demetrio Demetria in a May 1995 opinion said: The Philippines should be an inconvenient forum to file this kind of damage suit against foreign companies since the causes of action alleged in the petition do not exist under Philippine laws.. their cause of action is based on quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. They also maintain that the absence of jurisprudence regarding the award of damages in favor of those adversely affected by the DBCP does not preclude them from presenting evidence to prove their allegations that their exposure to DBCP caused their sterility and/or infertility.251-96 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Mass sterility will not qualify as a class suit injury within the contemplation of Philippine statute.gov. Case ordered dismissed. According to them. Retired Supreme Court Justice Abraham Sarmiento opined that while a class suit is allowed in the Philippines the device has been employed strictly.[40] Docketed as G.. et al.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 19 of 39 http://elibrary. 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . 126654. the petition for review.judiciary. 2. by the RTC of Davao City is bereft of basis. et al. No product liability ever filed or tried here. ABELLA. further aver that the dismissal of the case.

Thus. acted beyond its authority when it dismissed the case motu proprio or without any motion to dismiss from any of the parties to the case. The presiding judge of Branch 16 then issued an Order[41] dated December 2. No. 127856. In its petition. 1997. voluntarily inhibiting himself from trying the case. filed a motion for reconsideration. dismissed the petition filed by CHIQUITA for submitting a defective certificate against forum shopping. and denied the respective motions for reconsideration filed by defendant companies. Its petition was docketed as G. 1997. 1996.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 20 of 39 http://elibrary. 1997. No. DEL MONTE also filed its petition for review on certiorari before this Court assailing the above-mentioned orders of the RTC of Davao City. 126654. questioning the Orders dated October 1. CHIQUITA filed a Petition for Review dated March 5. this Court in its Resolution[43] dated July 28. CHIQUITA argues that the RTC of Davao City erred in dismissing the case motu proprio as it acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case as well as over the persons of the defendant companies which voluntarily appeared before it. and SHELL as Party-Respondents filed by NAVIDA. the case was re-raffled to Branch 13 of the RTC of Davao City. later. et al. however. 1997. which contained an additional motion for the inhibition of the presiding judge. therefore. According to DEL MONTE. April 28. In an Order[42] dated December 16.gov. OCCIDENTAL. On March 7. et al.E-Library . CHIQUITA also claims that the RTC of Davao City cannot dismiss the case simply on the basis of opinions of alleged legal experts appearing in a newspaper article. DEL MONTE also filed its motion for reconsideration. the RTC of Davao City.R. and 128398. the RTC of Davao City affirmed the Order dated October 1. 1999. 1997. Initially. which was granted by this Court in the Resolution[44] dated October 8.judiciary.R. and CHIQUITA each filed their respective motions for reconsideration of the Order dated October 1. and ABELLA. 1996. CHIQUITA. The Consolidated Motion to Drop DOW. In the Resolutions dated February 10. 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . 24. and March 10. 1996 of the RTC of Davao City. 128398. Nos. 1996 and December 16. 1996. an answer to the complaint.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 SHELL. Thereafter. DEL MONTE claims that the RTC of Davao City has jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 125078.R. as defined under the law and that the said court already obtained jurisdiction over its person by its voluntary appearance and the filing of a motion for bill of particulars and. 127856. this Court consolidated G.251-96. 1997. 125598. DOW. 1996 of the RTC of Davao City. This case was docketed as G.

should be retained as defendants for purposes of prosecuting the cross-claims of DOLE.[48] DOLE filed its Memorandum on October 12. No.judiciary. et al. and SHELL.gov. et al. as well as the settlement entered into between the plaintiff claimants and DOW.R. 1998. 2004. The Memoranda of the Parties Considering the allegations. DOW and OCCIDENTAL added that they have fully complied with their obligations set forth in the 1997 Compromise Agreements. Pursuant to said agreement.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 On September 26. OCCIDENTAL. 5617 had already been amicably settled by the parties in 1997. This settlement agreement was evidenced by facsimiles of the "Compromise Settlement. NAVIDA.[50] NAVIDA. and further stating that they maintain their position that DOW and OCCIDENTAL. DOLE. and SHELL. 1999.[47] SHELL asked to be excused from the filing of a memorandum alleging that it had already executed a compromise agreement with the plaintiff claimants. this Court. DOW and OCCIDENTAL filed a Motion to Withdraw Petition for Review in G.E-Library .. 1999.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 21 of 39 http://elibrary. No. 2004. 125598 has become moot and academic because Civil Case No.[54] interposing no objection to the withdrawal of the petition.. however. in the event that the complaint below is reinstated. 125598.[55] stating that they agree with the view of DOW and OCCIDENTAL that the petition in G. No. NAVIDA. issues.[51] and DOW and OCCIDENTAL jointly filed a Memorandum on December 23. as well as other settling defendant companies." which were attached to the said motion. in a Resolution dated June 22. 1998. et al.[45] The plaintiff claimants alleged that they had amicably settled their cases with DOW. and Hold Harmless Agreement. OCCIDENTAL. filed their Consolidated Memorandum on February 3. DEL MONTE and CHIQUITA.. et al. also filed their Comment dated September 14. et al. filed before this Court a Consolidated Motion (to Drop Party-Respondents). 1997. and SHELL sometime in July 1997. 1998[49] while DEL MONTE filed on October 13. and arguments adduced by the parties. CHIQUITA filed its Memorandum on August 28. the plaintiff claimants sought to withdraw their petitions as against DOW.. [53] explaining that the said petition "is already moot and academic and no longer presents a justiciable controversy" since they have already entered into an amicable settlement with NAVIDA. 1998. 2004. DOLE filed its Manifestation dated September 6.R.[52] The Motion to Withdraw Petition for Review in G. and ABELLA. OCCIDENTAL. and ABELLA. et al. 12/3/2015 10:02 AM .R. 125598 On July 13.[46] required all the parties to submit their respective memoranda.. opposed the motion. Indemnity.

[56] stating that it has no objections to the withdrawal of the petition filed by DOW and OCCIDENTAL in G.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 On September 27.. Assumption of jurisdiction by the U. DEL MONTE filed its Comment on Motion to Withdraw Petition for Review Filed by Petitioners in G. a) The court did not simply dismiss the case because it was filed in bad faith with petitioners intending to have the same dismissed and returned to the Texas court.judiciary. Art. 2004.. THE COURT DISMISSED THE CASE DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION. The acts complained of occurred within Philippine territory. 2004. a. THE TRIAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE. et al. b. presented the following issues for our consideration: IN REFUTATION I. Del Monte and Chiquita.R. No. the motion to withdraw petition for review filed by DOW and OCCIDENTAL. IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION II. 125598. b) The court dismissed the case because it was convinced that it did not have jurisdiction. In a Resolution[57] dated October 11. 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines is broad enough to cover the acts complained of.[58] DISCUSSION 12/3/2015 10:02 AM .E-Library . and ABELLA. c. this Court granted. 125598.gov. Occidental and Shell does not unjustifiably prejudice remaining respondents Dole.R. NAVIDA.S. No. THE ISSUES In their Consolidated Memorandum. The Compromise Agreement and the subsequent Consolidated Motion to Drop Party Respondents Dow. d. District Court over petitioner[s'] claims did not divest Philippine [c]ourts of jurisdiction over the same. et al.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 22 of 39 http://elibrary. among others.

et al... The court may still resolve the case.251-96. et al. Article 9 of the Civil Code dictates that a judge may not refuse to render a decision on the ground of insufficiency of the law. Federal District Court to re-assume jurisdiction over the 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . applying the customs of the place and. Said fact allegedly constitutes reasonable basis for our courts to assume jurisdiction over the case.. argue that the allegedly tortious acts and/or omissions of defendant companies occurred within Philippine territory. Likewise. are broad enough to cover their claim for damages. DOLE similarly maintains that the acts attributed to defendant companies constitute a quasi-delict.. Finally. none of the parties to this case claims that the courts a quo are bereft of jurisdiction to determine and resolve the above-stated cases. respectively. DOLE states that if there were no actionable wrongs committed under Philippine law. point to their alleged exposure to DBCP which occurred in the Philippines. NAVIDA. given that plaintiff claimants merely prosecuted the cases with the sole intent of securing a dismissal of the actions for the purpose of convincing the U. opines that the dismissal of Civil Case Nos. DOLE.. NAVIDA. DOLE adds that the RTC of Davao City gravely erred in relying upon newspaper reports in dismissing Civil Case No. et al. as the cause of the sterility and other reproductive system problems that they allegedly suffered.E-Library ..251-96 be reversed and that the said cases be remanded to the courts a quo for further proceedings. et al. the crux of the controversy in the petitions at bar is whether the RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao City erred in dismissing Civil Case Nos.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 23 of 39 http://elibrary. in the absence thereof. et al. Furthermore. without any notice to the parties.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 On the issue of jurisdiction Essentially. DOLE also argues that if indeed there is no positive law defining the alleged acts of defendant companies as actionable wrong. et al. All parties contend that the RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao City have jurisdiction over the action for damages. which falls under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. stated no cause of action against the defendant companies.. 5617 and 24. and ABELLA. and ABELLA. Specifically.. the alleged legal opinions cited in the newspaper reports were taken judicial notice of.. and ABELLA. et al. distributed or otherwise put into the stream of commerce by defendant companies happened in the Philippines.251-96 was proper. the general principles of law.7 million for each of the plaintiff claimants.251-96 given that newspaper articles are hearsay and without any evidentiary value. 5617 and 24. Thus. et al. the courts a quo should have dismissed the civil cases on the ground that the Amended Joint-Complaints of NAVIDA. the use of and exposure to DBCP that was manufactured.S. 24. et al. assert that the provisions of Chapter 2 of the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code. 5617 and 24. as well as Article 2176 thereof. pray that the respective rulings of the RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao City in Civil Case Nos. DOLE posits that the Philippines is the situs of the tortious acts allegedly committed by defendant companies as NAVIDA. and ABELLA. NAVIDA. specifically for approximately P2. and ABELLA. Remarkably. however.judiciary.gov.. for lack of jurisdiction. In addition. et al.

which states that the law of the place where the alleged wrong was committed will govern the action. packaging. as amended by Republic Act No. not the place of manufacture. CHIQUITA argues that the courts a quo had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the cases filed before them. the jurisdiction of the RTC in civil cases under Batas Pambansa Blg. 09-94. Jurisdiction in civil cases. and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100. where the demand. thus.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 24 of 39 http://elibrary. on a particular court or body. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. The RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao City have jurisdiction over Civil Case Nos. CHIQUITA. distribution.[60] Corollary thereto. litigation expenses. damages of whatever kind. irrespective of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein. which amount falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC.251-96 to the RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao City. . The Amended Joint-Complaints sought approximately P2. CHIQUITA and the other defendant companies also submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the RTC by making voluntary appearances and seeking for affirmative reliefs during the course of the proceedings. prays for the remand of Civil Case Nos. CHIQUITA avers that the pertinent matter is the place of the alleged exposure to DBCP.E-Library .00) or. At the time of the filing of the complaints.judiciary. respectively The rule is settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought. This is in consonance with the lex loci delicti commisi theory in determining the situs of a tort. 19. was: SEC.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 cases. None of the defendant companies ever objected to the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts a quo over their persons. 5617 and 24. in such other cases in Metro Manila.7 million in damages for each plaintiff claimant. 7691.000. exclusive of the abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (P200.gov.. 129.000. etc. attorney's fees. states: 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . of the said chemical.00). respectively.251-96.Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: xxxx (8) In all other cases in which the demand. exclusive of interest.[59] Once vested by law. the jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action cannot be dislodged by anybody other than by the legislature through the enactment of a law. sale. In a similar vein. 5617 and 24.

et al.[61] From the foregoing. Blg. et al. commonly known as DBCP. 7691.00) each. the following prayer: PRAYER WHEREFORE. The Defendants manufactured. 129. The exclusion of the term "damages of whatever kind" in determining the jurisdictional amount under Section 19 (8) and Section 33 (1) of B. it is most respectfully prayed that after hearing.7 million for each of the plaintiff claimants.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 25 of 39 http://elibrary. distributed. judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiffs ordering the defendants: a) TO PAY EACH PLAINTIFF moral damages in the amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1.00). and ABELLA.. applies to cases where the damages are merely incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of action. Here. THE CHEMICAL WAS 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . However. The RTCs unmistakably have jurisdiction over the cases filed in General Santos City and Davao City.000. c) TO PAY EACH PLAINTIFF exemplary damages in the amount of Six Hundred Thousand Pesos (P600. as both claims by NAVIDA.E-Library .000. and e) TO PAY THE COSTS of the suit.00. as amended by R.000. it is clear that the claim for damages is the main cause of action and that the total amount sought in the complaints is approximately P2. NAVIDA. AND/OR MADE AVAILABLE IN COMMERCE nematocides containing the chemical dibromochloropropane. the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court. 129.. in cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of action. No.A. premises considered. sought in their similarly-worded Amended Joint-Complaints filed before the courts a quo.P..judiciary.. et al. or one of the causes of action. and ABELLA. b) TO PAY EACH PLAINTIFF nominal damages in the amount of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400. fall within the purview of the definition of the jurisdiction of the RTC under Batas Pambansa Blg. sold.gov.00).00). Moreover. et al.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 2. used.500. the allegations in both Amended Joint-Complaints narrate that: THE CAUSES OF ACTION 4. d) TO PAY EACH PLAINTIFF attorneys fees of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200.

MADE AVAILABLE OR PUT DBCP INTO THE STREAM OF COMMERCE were negligent OR AT FAULT in that they. SOLD. adopt and enforce a safety plan and a safe method of handling and applying DBCP. the plaintiffs suffered serious and permanent injuries TO THEIR HEALTH. INCLUDING THOSE in the Philippines. AMONG OTHERS: a. produced.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 26 of 39 http://elibrary. or in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence ought to have known. Failed to adequately warn Plaintiffs of the dangerous characteristics of DBCP. DBCP-containing materials which THEY knew. to protect plaintiffs from the harmful effects of exposure to DBCP.gov. or to cause their subsidiaries or affiliates to do so. d. sold. 7. PRODUCED. PUT THE SAME into the stream of commerce. or to cause their subsidiaries or affiliates to do so. and/or USED DBCP and/or otherwise. DBCP not only destroyed nematodes. 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . STERILITY and severe injuries to their reproductive capacities. or to cause their subsidiaries or affiliates to so warn plaintiffs. in a language understandable to the worker.judiciary.E-Library . were highly harmful and injurious to the Plaintiffs' health and well-being. The Defendants WHO MANUFACTURED. The plaintiffs were exposed to DBCP in the 1970s up to the early 1980s WHILE (a) they used this product in the banana plantations WHERE they were employed. and/or (b) they resided within the agricultural area WHERE IT WAS USED. on containers of DBCP-containing materials to warn of the dangers to health of coming into contact with DBCP.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 USED AGAINST the parasite known as the nematode. Failed to provide plaintiffs with information as to what should be reasonably safe and sufficient clothing and proper protective equipment and appliances. c. if any. 5. THE DEFENDANTS WERE AT FAULT OR WERE NEGLIGENT IN THAT THEY MANUFACTURED. THEY allowed Plaintiffs to be exposed to. but not limited to. Failed to take reasonable precaution or to exercise reasonable care to publish. AS IT TURNED OUT. b. DISTRIBUTED. including. 6. Failed to place adequate warnings. IT ALSO CAUSED ILL-EFFECTS ON THE HEALTH OF PERSONS EXPOSED TO IT AFFECTING the human reproductive system as well. or to cause their subsidiaries or affiliates to do so. which plagued banana plantations. As a result of such exposure. WITHOUT INFORMING THE USERS OF ITS HAZARDOUS EFFECTS ON HEALTH AND/OR WITHOUT INSTRUCTIONS ON ITS PROPER USE AND APPLICATION.

et al. et al.judiciary. and f. in that they failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent each plaintiff's harmful exposure to DBCP-containing products which defendants knew or should have known were hazardous to each plaintiff in that they. and ABELLA. such exposure to the said chemical caused ill effects. governmental agencies and the public.. Inc. Failed to place adequate labels on containers of said products to warn them of the damages of said products. Inc.E-Library . Failed to reveal the results of tests conducted on DBCP to each plaintiff. Failed to monitor the health of plaintiffs exposed to said products. or to cause their subsidiaries or affiliates to do so.gov. e. b. et al. injuries and illnesses. Failed to adequately supervise and instruct Plaintiffs in the safe and proper application of DBCP-containing products.. and h. or to cause their subsidiaries or affiliate to do so. et al. and Chiquita Brands International. AMONG OTHERS: a. Concealed from Plaintiffs information concerning the observed effects of said products on Plaintiffs. c. and ABELLA. or to cause said products to be tested. 8.. Dole Fresh Fruit Company.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 27 of 39 http://elibrary. Failed to test DBCP prior to releasing these products for sale. Failed to test said products for adverse health effects. g. Failed to use substitute nematocides for said products or to cause such substitutes to [be] used.[62] (Emphasis supplied and words in brackets ours. f. According to NAVIDA. d. attribute to defendant companies certain acts and/or omissions which led to their exposure to nematocides containing the chemical DBCP.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 e. specifically to their reproductive system.) Quite evidently. 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . Failed to warn Plaintiffs of the hazards of exposure to said products or to cause them to be so warned.. Chiquita Brands. or to cause such to be implemented.. the allegations in the Amended Joint-Complaints of NAVIDA. Inc. Dole Food Company. Failed to implement proper methods and techniques of application of said products. The illnesses and injuries of each plaintiff are also due to the FAULT or negligence of defendants Standard Fruit Company.

v.. producing. Court of Appeals.a quasi-delict. error on the part of the courts a quo when they dismissed the cases on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the mistaken assumption that the cause of 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . therefore. point to the acts and/or omissions of the defendant companies in manufacturing. et al. Whoever by act or there being fault or negligence. et al. The averments therein and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. which obviously falls within the purview of the civil action jurisdiction of the RTCs. et al. which under the Civil Code is defined as an act. The jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss.. in Citibank.. the acts and/or omissions attributed to the defendant companies constitute a quasi-delict which is the basis for the claim for damages filed by NAVIDA. the injuries and illnesses." [63] Verily. What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. obliged to pay for the damage done. Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides: Article 2176. which undeniably occurred in the Philippines. the question of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the defendants. Clearly then. allegedly suffered resulted from their exposure to DBCP while they were employed in the banana plantations located in the Philippines or while they were residing within the agricultural areas also located in the Philippines. is no pre-existing contractual relation quasi-delict and is governed by the As specifically enumerated in the amended complaints. nematocides which contain DBCP.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 28 of 39 http://elibrary. and ABELLA.. N.[64] this Court has always reminded that jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the complaint. or omission which causes damage to another. if there between the parties. and/or otherwise putting into the stream of commerce.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 Thus. is Such fault or negligence.7 million for each plaintiff claimant. which NAVIDA. The factual allegations in the Amended Joint-Complaints all point to their cause of action. et al. et al. there being fault or negligence. using..A. is called a provisions of this Chapter. Moreover. these allegations in the complaints constitute the cause of action of plaintiff claimants . selling. with individual claims of approximately P2. omission causes damage to another. To be precise. The RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao City obviously have reasonable basis to assume jurisdiction over the cases. et al.gov..E-Library . irrespective of whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. and ABELLA. for otherwise. "without informing the users of its hazardous effects on health and/or without instructions on its proper use and application. NAVIDA. and ABELLA.judiciary. It is.

outside the jurisdiction of the RTCs. all the defendant companies designated and authorized representatives to receive summons and to represent them in the 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . would be determinative of jurisdiction and venue for trial of cases.. and ABELLA.E-Library . et al. would be easier to gather in the Philippines. where he may be found. where any of the plaintiffs or defendants resides.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 29 of 39 http://elibrary. their packaging in containers. et al. such as claims for payment of damages.. hence. the Rules of Court allow the action to be commenced and tried in the appropriate court. First. and ABELLA.[67] The RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao City validly acquired jurisdiction over the persons of all the defendant companies It is well to stress again that none of the parties claims that the courts a quo lack jurisdiction over the cases filed before them. Considering the great number of plaintiff claimants involved in this case.e. In personal civil actions. coupled with the fact that the alleged cause of action of NAVIDA. the convenient fora for trying these cases. apart from the RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao City having jurisdiction over the subject matter in the instant civil cases. resulting in their becoming part of the stream of commerce."[65] and.. most of the evidence required to prove the claims of NAVIDA. they are. "the manufacture of the pesticides. et al. or the situs of the act complained of. unconditionally and knowingly appeared and submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the courts a quo. the cases below are not criminal cases where territoriality. All parties are one in asserting that the RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao City have validly acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the defendant companies in the action below. plaintiff claimants are all residents of the Philippines. et al. et al.. demonstrate that.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 action narrated by NAVIDA. i. Thus. the specific areas where they were allegedly exposed to the chemical DBCP are within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts a quo wherein NAVIDA.. their distribution through sale or other disposition. are available only in the Philippines. and ABELLA. Section 20 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[t]he defendant's voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons. at the election of the plaintiff. and ABELLA... initially filed their claims for damages. family members and other members of the community. these additional factors. co-workers. against the defendant companies for damages occurred in the Philippines. Second. All parties voluntarily.gov. Rule 14." In this connection. either in General Santos City or in Davao City. such as doctors. it is not far-fetched to assume that voluminous records are involved in the presentation of evidence to support the claim of plaintiff claimants. et al. Third. Certainly. et al..[66] In a very real sense. indeed. or in the case of a non-resident defendant. et al.judiciary.. took place abroad and had occurred outside and beyond the territorial boundaries of the Philippines. the testimonial and documentary evidence from important witnesses.

ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 proceedings before the courts a quo. Accordingly. not fancies." Jurisdiction refers to the authority to decide a case. where a court has jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants and the subject matter. as in the case of the courts a quo.E-Library . When this Court acts on appearances instead of realities. In line herewith. Sandiganbayan. This Court does not rule on allegations which are manifestly conjectural. and will bar said party from later on impugning the court or body's jurisdiction. not appearances. the active participation of a party in the proceedings is tantamount to an invocation of the court's jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case. This Court deals with facts. and by actively participating during the course of the proceedings below. much less divest the court of the jurisdiction over the case. considering the fact that the RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao City have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the amended complaints filed 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . the RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao City have validly acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the defendant companies. What is more. not the orders or the decision rendered therein. in Meat Packing Corporation of the Philippines v.[69] Thus. as these may not exist at all. the decision on all questions arising therefrom is but an exercise of such jurisdiction.[68] held that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in civil cases is acquired either by his voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority or by service of summons. on realities.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 30 of 39 http://elibrary. All the defendant companies submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the courts a quo by making several voluntary appearances. by praying for various affirmative reliefs.[72] In sum. as well as over the subject matter of the instant case. continues until the termination of the proceedings. It must be remembered that this Court does not rule on allegations that are unsupported by evidence on record. Any error that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is merely an error of judgment. justice and law will be short-lived. It may also be pertinently stressed that "jurisdiction" is different from the "exercise of jurisdiction. Furthermore. which has been acquired and has been vested on the courts a quo. which does not affect its authority to decide the case.[71] This is especially true with respect to allegations of bad faith.judiciary.[70] Plaintiffs' purported bad faith in filing the subject civil cases in Philippine courts Anent the insinuation by DOLE that the plaintiff claimants filed their cases in bad faith merely to procure a dismissal of the same and to allow them to return to the forum of their choice.gov. this Court. this Court finds such argument much too speculative to deserve any merit. this jurisdiction. in line with the basic rule that good faith is always presumed and bad faith must be proved.

to drop DOW. therefore. are further praying that DOW. et al. 5617 and 24. respectively.251-96 to the RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao City. et al.. NAVIDA.judiciary. 125078 and 126654. et al. 5617 and 24. This solidary obligation on the part of all the defendants allegedly gives any co-defendant the statutory right to proceed against the other co-defendants for the payment of their respective shares.. NAVIDA. behooves this Court to order the remand of Civil Case Nos.[74] DEL MONTE specified therein that there were "only four (4) plaintiffs in Civil Case No.. Should the subject motion of NAVIDA. and ABELLA.E-Library . and ABELLA. Attached to the said manifestation were copies of the Compromise Settlement. would only unduly delay and complicate the proceedings. et al. stating that similar settlement agreements were allegedly executed by the plaintiff claimants with DEL MONTE and CHIQUITA sometime in 1999. The non-settling defendants allegedly manifested that they intended to file their cross-claims against their co-defendants who entered into compromise agreements. and ABELLA. On the issue of the dropping of DOW.. as well as in Civil Case Nos.. Moreover. as well as in Civil Case Nos. 5617 and 24. and Hold Harmless Agreement between DEL MONTE and the settling plaintiffs.251-96. CHIQUITA and DOLE would allegedly be deprived of their right to prosecute their cross-claims against their other co-defendants. and ABELLA. Nos. et al.R. et al. and ABELLA. according to CHIQUITA.. 5617 and 24. as well as the Release in Full executed by the latter. Indemnity. et al.251-96. assert that the cross-claims are already barred. 2007. 5617 who are claiming against the Del 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . a third party complaint or a separate trial. et al.. be denied. et al. be granted.. CHIQUITA and DOLE are opposing the above motion of NAVIDA. et al. argue that the non-settling defendants did not aver any cross-claim in their answers to the complaint and that they subsequently sought to amend their answers to plead their cross-claims only after the settlement between the plaintiff claimants and DOW. it therefore. 125078 and 126654.gov. and SHELL were executed. OCCIDENTAL and SHELL as respondents in view of their amicable settlement with NAVIDA. and the Court subsequently orders the remand of the action to the trial court for continuance. CHIQUITA and DOLE similarly insist that the motion of NAVIDA.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 by NAVIDA. and that the courts a quo have also acquired jurisdiction over the persons of all the defendant companies. et al.. and ABELLA. OCCIDENTAL.. In their Memoranda. on April 2.. Purportedly included in the agreements were Civil Case Nos. and ABELLA. et al. Nos. et al.. after the parties have submitted their respective memoranda. et al. Incidentally. and ABELLA.. OCCIDENTAL and SHELL be dropped as respondents in G.R. since the latter's Amended Complaints cited several instances of tortious conduct that were allegedly committed jointly and severally by the defendant companies. SHELL and OCCIDENTAL as respondents in G.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 31 of 39 http://elibrary. DEL MONTE filed a Manifestation and Motion[73] before the Court.251-96. et al. et al... NAVIDA.

Under Article 2028 of the Civil Code. by making reciprocal concessions.judiciary. 5617.. avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced. respectively. and ABELLA. et al.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 Monte parties"[75] and that the latter have executed amicable settlements which completely satisfied any claims against DEL MONTE. 24. only pertained to DOW.. 5617. the 336 plaintiff claimants in Civil Case No. et al. in subsequent developments. DEL MONTE sought the dismissal of the Amended Joint-Complaint in the said civil case. et al. It is a consensual contract. However.[76] Judicial approval is not required for its perfection. DEL MONTE and CHIQUITA supposedly reached their own amicable settlements with the plaintiff claimants.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 32 of 39 http://elibrary. Having adjudged that Civil Case Nos. DEL MONTE stated that it no longer wished to pursue its petition in G. No. in view of the above settlement agreements with ABELLA.R. as a binding contract. In accordance with the alleged compromise agreements with the four plaintiffs in Civil Case No. should likewise be referred to the said trial courts for appropriate disposition.. OCCIDENTAL and SHELL in view of the latter companies' alleged compromise agreements with the plaintiff claimants. the latter being manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. 5617 and 24. The Court notes that the Consolidated Motions (to Drop Party-Respondents) that was filed by NAVIDA. 127856 and accordingly prayed that it be allowed to withdraw the same.. Significantly. However.[77] A [78] compromise has upon the parties the effect and authority of res judicata and this [79] holds true even if the agreement has not been judicially approved. an extrajudicial compromise agreement is not excepted from rules and principles of a contract. but DEL MONTE qualified that it entered into a settlement agreement with only four of the plaintiff claimants in Civil Case No. not one plaintiff claimant filed a motion for the removal of either DEL MONTE or CHIQUITA as defendants in Civil 12/3/2015 10:02 AM ." Like any other contract. the Court deems that the Consolidated Motions (to Drop Party-Respondents) filed by NAVIDA. and ABELLA. In addition.251-96.[80] In light of the foregoing legal precepts. Indemnity. These four plaintiff claimants were allegedly the only ones who were asserting claims against DEL MONTE. 5617 jointly filed a complaint without individually specifying their claims against DEL MONTE or any of the other defendant companies.251-96 should be remanded to the RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao City. et al. "[a] compromise is a contract whereby the parties. the RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao City should first receive in evidence and examine all of the alleged compromise settlements involved in the cases at bar to determine the propriety of dropping any party as a defendant therefrom. et al. perfected by mere consent. the said allegation of DEL MONTE was simply stipulated in their Compromise Settlement. Furthermore. Furthermore. in Civil Case No. and Hold Harmless Agreement and its truth could not be verified with certainty based on the records elevated to this Court. a compromise agreement determines the rights and obligations of only the parties to it.gov..E-Library .

the paying debtor's right of reimbursement is provided for under Article 1217 of the Civil Code. however."[83] In the cases at bar. For this purpose. and each of the creditors is entitled to demand the satisfaction of the whole obligation from any or all of the debtors. is the operative fact which will entitle either of the solidary debtors to seek reimbursement for the share which corresponds to each of the [other] debtors. with the interest for the payment already made. on the basis of the records of the cases at bar and the additional evidence submitted by the parties. the responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for the same quasi-delict is solidary. 1217. no interest for the intervening period may be demanded. in any other manner. If two or more solidary debtors offer to pay. Payment made by one of the solidary debtors extinguishes the obligation. 5617 and 24.[82] "[p]ayment. The above right of reimbursement of a paying debtor. will only arise. a primary need to establish who the specific parties to the alleged compromise agreements are. Thereafter.E-Library . if any. As succinctly held in Lapanday Agricultural Development Corporation v. If the payment is made before the debt is due. 12/3/2015 10:02 AM .gov. A trial on the merits must necessarily be conducted first in order to establish whether or not defendant companies are liable for the claims for damages filed by the plaintiff claimants. if a solidary debtor who is made to answer for an obligation actually delivers payment to the creditor. such share shall be borne by all his co-debtors.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 33 of 39 http://elibrary. of the obligation. He who made the payment may claim from his co-debtors only the share which corresponds to each. because of his insolvency. Court of Appeals. reimburse his share to the debtor paying the obligation. It is true that. the creditor may choose which offer to accept. and the corresponding liability of the co-debtors to reimburse. the trial courts can then determine who among the defendants may be dropped from the said cases. thus.251-96. in proportion to the debt of each.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 Case Nos. A solidary obligation is one in which each of the debtors is liable for the entire obligation. which would necessarily give rise to an obligation to pay on the part of the defendants. which means not only the delivery of money but also the performance. as well as their corresponding rights and obligations therein. There is. under Article 2194 of the Civil Code.[81] In solidary obligations.judiciary. When one of the solidary debtors cannot. to wit: Art. there is no right of reimbursement to speak of as yet. the courts a quo may require the presentation of additional evidence from the parties.

We REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Order dated May 20.* and Perez.. C. in Civil Case No. along with the parties to the compromise.R.. 1996 of the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City. no crossclaims have been interposed by any defendant against another defendant. In Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutual Benefit Association. v. if proper.R. Court of Appeals. both G.. it is within the discretion of the trial court to determine the propriety of allowing such a cross-claim and if the settling defendant must remain a party to the case purely in relation to the cross claim.judiciary. No pronouncement as to costs. Inc.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 At the point in time where the proceedings below were prematurely halted.E-Library . should not be precluded from invoking in the same proceedings an adequate relief therefor. with some of the defendant companies. Nos. 1996 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City. (Chairperson).R. is not affected by the compromise agreements allegedly entered into by NAVIDA. and 128398. 127856 and 125598 are considered CLOSED AND TERMINATED. SO ORDERED.J.251-96. and its subsequent Order dated December 16. Velasco. 125078.[86] the Court upheld the ruling of the trial court that. 127856. v. the right of the remaining defendant(s) to seek reimbursement in the above situation. 12/3/2015 10:02 AM .. No. the Court hereby GRANTS the petitions for review on certiorari in G. Nos. Corona. and REMAND the records of this case to the respective Regional Trial Courts of origin for further and appropriate proceedings in line with the ruling herein that said courts have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the amended complaints in Civil Case Nos. Inc. concur. the paying debtor may file a third-party complaint and/or a cross-claim to enforce his right to seek contribution from his co-debtors. and the Order dated October 1. in a joint and solidary obligation.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 34 of 39 http://elibrary. et al. If and when such a cross-claim is made by a non-settling defendant against a settling defendant.[84] the Court had the occasion to state that "where there are. 24. Branch 37. other persons involved in the litigation who have not taken part in concluding the compromise agreement but are adversely affected or feel prejudiced thereby. Branch 16. 5617 and 24.R."[85] Relevantly. JJ. Jr. In view of the previous grant of the motion to withdraw the petition in G. and ABELLA. et al. 125598. Hence. The Court likewise GRANTS the motion filed by Del Monte to withdraw its petition in G. No.. in Philippine International Surety Co. 126654. Gonzales. 1996 denying reconsideration in Civil Case No. 5617.gov.251-96. Peralta.. WHEREFORE.

gov. pp. 2011. Vol. 720-735. Jr. 1996 (id. [7] Rollo (G. [1] Rollo (G. pp. at 935-938). No. 699-714) and CHIQUITA filed its motion on February 29. No. No. Vol. [9] Rollo (G. 125078). 994 dated May 27. at 669-674). No.R. 92-98. Vol. 72-85. at 581-586).R. 527-535). [5] Id. 238. penned by Judge Romeo D. Dizon. at 1100-1105). DEL MONTE filed its motion on February 29. at 895-901. pp. [14] Id. pp. 126654). pp. 1996 (Records. II. No. 126654).ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 Per Special Order No. 1996 (id. p. 17-42. at 1-12. I. p. while SHELL filed its own motion on February 12. Vol. Vol. [8] Rollo (G. [6] Rollo (G. No. No.judiciary. 127856).R. 12-36. 1996 (Records. at 940-956). DOW and DOLE also filed their separate Motions for Bill of Particulars (id.R. 34-35. Marasigan. II. [16] Records. [11] Rollo (G. I. CHIQUITA filed its motion on April 8. at 224. 1995 (Records.R.E-Library . [10] Id. 39-71. [15] DOLE filed its motion on December 28. penned by Judge Teodoro A. [2] Rollo (G.R.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 35 of 39 * http://elibrary. pp. 128398). 127856). pp. No. On even date. pp.R. 125078). 125598). 125598). at 716-719). pp. 128398). 1996 (id. 16-31. [17] SHELL filed a Manifestation with Second Motion for Bill of Particulars on April 3. pp. II. at 77-78. No. while DEL MONTE filed its motion on April 12. 1996 (id. Vol. 1996 (id. 104. pp.R. [12] Rollo (G. I. I. Vol. 10-59. [3] Rollo (G. 903-911). [13] Records.R. DOW filed a similar motion on January 22. 1996 (id. 75-76. OCCIDENTAL filed its motion on May 15. pp. No. 879-882).R. pp. 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . [4] Rollo (G.

[22] Id. [23] Id. at 158. 1243-1257. was dropped in the amended joint complaint. [37] Id. at 78. No. at 77. at 1669-1674.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 36 of 39 http://elibrary. 125078). at 79-80. pp. [32] Rollo (G. at 2474-2485. II. [31] Records. 47. at 1303-1307. 74A-75. at 1410-1411. [24] Id. [27] Id. 125598). at 2512. 1205-1206. 126654). pp. III.judiciary. pp. [36] Id. at 82-84. at 1222-1241. Vol.gov. IV. at 2465-2466. pp. at 37-38. No. [21] Id.E-Library . at 85. Vol. pp. [38] Jesus Abayon. 1258-1278.R. Vol. [30] Id. 1085-1092. 1689-1692. [33] Id. 10-59. Vol. 1931-1969. [25] Records. the first plaintiff named in the original complaint.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 [18] Records. [35] Id. [34] Records. [20] Id. 2064-2066. 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . [39] Rollo (G. IV. [19] Rollo (G. [29] Id.R. [40] Id. I. pp. [26] Id. No. [28] Id. at 1867-1879. Vol. p.R.

[42] Id. 125598). 33(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. [50] Id. 1148-1190. No. 796-804. [58] Rollo (G. pp. at 211-212.R. 125598). [46] Rollo (G. After five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act. at 2916-2921. v.R. No. Vol. and (8). No. [44] Id. Vol. 7691. and Sec.R. 128398). pp. 238-240. p. the jurisdictional amounts mentioned in Sec. [48] Rollo (G. pp. 2496.R. Vol. No. Inc. 5.R. 125078).R.E-Library . No. pp.R. 392. [51] Id.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 37 of 39 http://elibrary. 66 (2002). the jurisdictional amounts in civil cases would later be adjusted as provided in Section 5. 129 as amended by this Act. Court of Appeals. II.gov. 125078). Vol. pp. Vol. 435 Phil. No. Radio Communications of the Philippines. shall be 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . [53] Rollo (G. 396 (2005). [49] Rollo (G. 2289-2411.R. [47] Rollo (G. [59] Barangay Piapi v. 125078). pp. 19(3). [52] Id. pp.. 126654).judiciary. [60] Under Republic Act No. Talip. 81. 2551-2559. No. [55] Rollo (G. (4). p. [45] Rollo (G. [56] Id. 125078). 777-781. at 2486-2511. at 807-811. pp.R. 128398). 125078). to wit: SEC. II. I. I. No. I. Vol. [57] Rollo (G. No. 62. pp. at 82. [43] Id. at 2421-2460. [54] Id.R. I. 812-813. at 106-107.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 [41] Rollo (G. 2901-2903. 506 Phil. 1053-1056. No.

pp. 47.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 38 of 39 http://elibrary.00). such jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted further to Three hundred thousand pesos (P300.E-Library . [61] Rollo (G. 345 Phil. Court of Appeals. 163 (1999). Jr. 719. [77] Sanchez v. Vol. [62] Id. 99-100. Vol. The Release in Full under the name of Bernabe Navida [Rollo (G. [66] Rules of Court. No. Edgar M. pp. 3220-3234.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 adjusted to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200. Panlilio. 2007. Inc. The Honorable Executive Secretary Ermita. Court of Appeals. Dizon. v. 3390-3404] was attached to DEL MONTE's Supplement to Manifestation and Motion dated April 2.gov. 43 (2001). Court of Appeals. 105 (1998). at 977-978. Court of Appeals. No. 116 (2005). [70] Platinum Tours and Travel. 125078). [68] 411 Phil.000. 150. I. [63] Rollo (G. Section 2.judiciary. [74] Id. Inc. [75] The Release In Full bore the names of plaintiffs Leoncio Serdoncillo.00): Provided. at 95-98.R.000. 457 Phil. 125078). [71] ABAKADA Guro Party List Officers Alcantara & Albano v.R. however. 30. 182 (1997). [73] Rollo (G. [76] Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutual Benefit Association. [64] 359 Phil. 72-86. pp.00). II. 961. 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . 959 (2001). [65] Order dated May 20. 370 Phil. 1. 125078). 155. Rule 4. Penaranda and Leonardo Burdeos. v. [72] Andrade v. No. Vol. II. 126654). the abovementioned jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted after five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400. Rollo (G.000. 1996 of the General Santos City RTC. 727 (1998).R. 358 Phil. I. penned by Judge Teodoro A. 967-968 (2003). Jr. at 3235-3272. p.R. [67] See Saudi Arabian Airlines v. pp. [69] Id. No. 423 Phil. Five (5) years thereafter. 506 Phil. No.R. That in the case of Metro Manila. Vol. 125078).

but there shall be no execution except in compliance with a judicial compromise. A compromise has upon the parties the effect and authority of res judicata. Inc. 447.judiciary. 463 Phil. 710 (2003). Source: Supreme Court E-Library This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS) 12/3/2015 10:02 AM . [79] Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation. [83] Id. at 52-53. 373. [85] Id.Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 39 of 39 [78] http://elibrary. [84] Supra note 76..gov. 689. 376-377 (1961). [86] 113 Phil. [81] PH Credit Corporation v. v. [80] California Bus Lines. 484 Phil. 2037. Court of Appeals. 455 (2004). Inc.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51293 Article 2037 of the Civil Code reads: Art. at 164. v. 421 Phil. 41 (2000). 832 (2001). Santos. State Investment House. [82] 381 Phil. Inc.E-Library . 821.