G.R. No.

125078 May 30, 2011 (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
NAVIDA v. HON. DIZON these actions in his home country or the country in which his injury occurred. Any plaintiff desiring
to bring such an action will do so within 30 days after the entry of this Memorandum and Order;
(3) waived within 40 days after the entry of this Memorandum and Order any limitations-based
DECISION
defense that has matured since the commencement of these actions in the courts of Texas;
(4) stipulated within 40 days after the entry of this Memorandum and Order that any discovery
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: 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; and
Before the Court are consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of (5) submitted within 40 days after the entry of this Memorandum and Order an agreement binding
Court, which arose out of two civil cases that were filed in different courts but whose factual them to satisfy any final judgment rendered in favor of plaintiffs by a foreign court.
background and issues are closely intertwined. xxxx

The petitions in G.R. Nos. 1250781 and 1255982 both assail the Order3 dated May 20, 1996 of the Notwithstanding the dismissals that may result from this Memorandum and Order, in the event that
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of General Santos City, Branch 37, in Civil Case No. 5617. The said Order the highest court of any foreign country finally affirms the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of an action
decreed the dismissal of the case in view of the perceived lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over the commenced by a plaintiff in these actions in his home country or the country in which he was injured,
subject matter of the complaint. The petition in G.R. No. 125598 also challenges the Orders dated that plaintiff may return to this court and, upon proper motion, the court will resume jurisdiction
June 4, 19964 and July 9, 1996,5 which held that the RTC of General Santos City no longer had over the action as if the case had never been dismissed for [forum non conveniens].13
jurisdiction to proceed with Civil Case No. 5617.
Civil Case No. 5617 before the RTC of General Santos City and G.R. Nos. 125078 and 125598
On the other hand, the petitions in G.R. Nos. 126654,6 127856,7 and 1283988 seek the reversal of the
Order9 dated October 1, 1996 of the RTC of Davao City, Branch 16, in Civil Case No. 24,251-96, which In accordance with the above Memorandum and Order, a total of 336 plaintiffs from General Santos
also dismissed the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. City (the petitioners in G.R. No. 125078, hereinafter referred to as NAVIDA, et al.) filed a Joint
Complaint14 in the RTC of General Santos City on August 10, 1995. The case was docketed as Civil
G.R. Nos. 125078, 125598, 126654, 127856, and 128398 were consolidated in the Resolutions dated Case No. 5617. Named as defendants therein were: Shell Oil Co. (SHELL); Dow Chemical Co. (DOW);
February 10, 1997,10 April 28, 199711 and March 10, 1999.12 Occidental Chemical Corp. (OCCIDENTAL); Dole Food Co., Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Co., Standard Fruit
Co., Standard Fruit and Steamship Co. (hereinafter collectively referred to as DOLE); Chiquita Brands,
The factual antecedents of the petitions are as follows: Inc. and Chiquita Brands International, Inc. (CHIQUITA); Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A. and Del Monte
Tropical Fruit Co. (hereinafter collectively referred to as DEL MONTE); Dead Sea Bromine Co., Ltd.;
Ameribrom, Inc.; Bromine Compounds, Ltd.; and Amvac Chemical Corp. (The aforementioned
Proceedings before the Texas Courts defendants are hereinafter collectively referred to as defendant companies.)

Beginning 1993, a number of personal injury suits were filed in different Texas state courts by citizens Navida, et al., prayed for the payment of damages in view of the illnesses and injuries to the
of twelve foreign countries, including the Philippines. The thousands of plaintiffs sought damages for reproductive systems which they allegedly suffered because of their exposure to DBCP. They claimed,
injuries they allegedly sustained from their exposure to dibromochloropropane (DBCP), a chemical among others, that they were exposed to this chemical during the early 1970’s up to the early 1980’s
used to kill nematodes (worms), while working on farms in 23 foreign countries. The cases were when they used the same in the banana plantations where they worked at; and/or when they resided
eventually transferred to, and consolidated in, the Federal District Court for the Southern District of within the agricultural area where such chemical was used. Navida, et al., claimed that their illnesses
Texas, Houston Division. The cases therein that involved plaintiffs from the Philippines were "Jorge and injuries were due to the fault or negligence of each of the defendant companies in that they
Colindres Carcamo, et al. v. Shell Oil Co., et al.," which was docketed as Civil Action No. H-94-1359, produced, sold and/or otherwise put into the stream of commerce DBCP-containing products.
and "Juan Ramon Valdez, et al. v. Shell Oil Co., et al.," which was docketed as Civil Action No. H-95- According to NAVIDA, et al., they were allowed to be exposed to the said products, which the
1356. The defendants in the consolidated cases prayed for the dismissal of all the actions under the defendant companies knew, or ought to have known, were highly injurious to the former’s health
doctrine of forum non conveniens. and well-being.

In a Memorandum and Order dated July 11, 1995, the Federal District Court conditionally granted Instead of answering the complaint, most of the defendant companies respectively filed their
the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Pertinently, the court ordered that: Motions for Bill of Particulars.15 During the pendency of the motions, on March 13, 1996, NAVIDA, et
al., filed an Amended Joint Complaint,16 excluding Dead Sea Bromine Co., Ltd., Ameribrom, Inc.,
Delgado, Jorge Carcamo, Valdez and Isae Carcamo will be dismissed 90 days after the entry of this Bromine Compounds, Ltd. and Amvac Chemical Corp. as party defendants.
Memorandum and Order provided that defendants and third- and fourth-party defendants have:
Again, the remaining defendant companies filed their various Motions for Bill of Particulars.17 On May
(1) participated in expedited discovery in the United States xxx; 15, 1996, DOW filed an Answer with Counterclaim.18
On May 20, 1996, without resolving the motions filed by the parties, the RTC of General Santos City Fourth, the trial court ascribed little significance to the voluntary appearance of the defendant
issued an Order dismissing the complaint. First, the trial court determined that it did not have companies therein, thus:
jurisdiction to hear the case, to wit:
THE DEFENDANTS’ SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION IS CONDITIONAL AS IT IS ILLUSORY
THE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FILED WITH THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT SHOULD BE DISMISSED
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Defendants have appointed their agents authorized to accept service of summons/processes in the
Philippines pursuant to the agreement in the U.S. court that defendants will voluntarily submit to the
xxxx jurisdiction of this court. While it is true that this court acquires jurisdiction over persons of the
defendants through their voluntary appearance, it appears that such voluntary appearance of the
The substance of the cause of action as stated in the complaint against the defendant foreign defendants in this case is conditional. Thus in the "Defendants’ Amended Agreement Regarding
companies cites activity on their part which took place abroad and had occurred outside and beyond Conditions of Dismissal for Forum Non Conveniens" (Annex to the Complaint) filed with the U.S.
the territorial domain of the Philippines. These acts of defendants cited in the complaint included the District Court, defendants declared that "(t)he authority of each designated representative to accept
manufacture of pesticides, their packaging in containers, their distribution through sale or other service of process will become effective upon final dismissal of these actions by the Court". The
disposition, resulting in their becoming part of the stream of commerce. decision of the U.S. District Court dismissing the case is not yet final and executory since both the
plaintiffs and defendants appealed therefrom (par. 3(h), 3(i), Amended Complaint). Consequently,
since the authority of the agent of the defendants in the Philippines is conditioned on the final
Accordingly, the subject matter stated in the complaint and which is uniquely particular to the
adjudication of the case pending with the U.S. courts, the acquisition of jurisdiction by this court over
present case, consisted of activity or course of conduct engaged in by foreign defendants outside
the persons of the defendants is also conditional. x x x.
Philippine territory, hence, outside and beyond the jurisdiction of Philippine Courts, including the
present Regional Trial Court.19
The appointment of agents by the defendants, being subject to a suspensive condition, thus produces
no legal effect and is ineffective at the moment.22
Second, the RTC of General Santos City declared that the tort alleged by Navida, et al., in their
complaint is a tort category that is not recognized in Philippine laws. Said the trial court:
Fifth, the RTC of General Santos City ruled that the act of NAVIDA, et al., of filing the case in the
Philippine courts violated the rules on forum shopping and litis pendencia. The trial court expounded:
THE TORT ASSERTED IN THE PRESENT COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT FOREIGN COMPANIES IS
NOT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BECAUSE IT IS
NOT A TORT CATEGORY WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE PHILIPPINE LAW THE JURISDICTION FROWNS UPON AND PROHIBITS FORUM SHOPPING

The specific tort asserted against defendant foreign companies in the present complaint is product This court frowns upon the fact that the parties herein are both vigorously pursuing their appeal of
liability tort. When the averments in the present complaint are examined in terms of the particular the decision of the U.S. District court dismissing the case filed thereat. To allow the parties to litigate
categories of tort recognized in the Philippine Civil Code, it becomes stark clear that such averments in this court when they are actively pursuing the same cases in another forum, violates the rule on
describe and identify the category of specific tort known as product liability tort. This is necessarily ‘forum shopping’ so abhorred in this jurisdiction. x x x.
so, because it is the product manufactured by defendant foreign companies, which is asserted to be
the proximate cause of the damages sustained by the plaintiff workers, and the liability of the xxxx
defendant foreign companies, is premised on being the manufacturer of the pesticides.
THE FILING OF THE CASE IN U.S. DIVESTED THIS COURT OF ITS OWN JURISDICTION
It is clear, therefore, that the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the present case, if and only if
the Civil Code of the Philippines, or a suppletory special law prescribes a product liability tort, Moreover, the filing of the case in the U.S. courts divested this court of its own jurisdiction. This court
inclusive of and comprehending the specific tort described in the complaint of the plaintiff workers.20 takes note that the U.S. District Court did not decline jurisdiction over the cause of action. The case
was dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens, which is really a matter of venue. By taking
Third, the RTC of General Santos City adjudged that Navida, et al., were coerced into submitting their cognizance of the case, the U.S. District Court has, in essence, concurrent jurisdiction with this court
case to the Philippine courts, viz: over the subject matter of this case. It is settled that initial acquisition of jurisdiction divests another
of its own jurisdiction. x x x.
FILING OF CASES IN THE PHILIPPINES - COERCED AND ANOMALOUS
xxxx
The Court views that the plaintiffs did not freely choose to file the instant action, but rather were
coerced to do so, merely to comply with the U.S. District Court’s Order dated July 11, 1995, and in THIS CASE IS BARRED BY THE RULE OF "LITIS PENDENCIA"
order to keep open to the plaintiffs the opportunity to return to the U.S. District Court.21
Furthermore, the case filed in the U.S. court involves the same parties, same rights and interests, as In their petition, DOW and OCCIDENTAL aver that the RTC of General Santos City erred in ruling that
in this case. There exists litis pendencia since there are two cases involving the same parties and it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case as well as the persons of the defendant
interests. The court would like to emphasize that in accordance with the rule on litis pendencia x x x; companies.
the subsequent case must be dismissed. Applying the foregoing [precept] to the case-at-bar, this
court concludes that since the case between the parties in the U.S. is still pending, then this case is In a Resolution33 dated October 7, 1996, this Court resolved to consolidate G.R. No. 125598 with G.R.
barred by the rule on "litis pendencia."23 No. 125078.

In fine, the trial court held that: CHIQUITA filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari,34 which sought the reversal of the RTC Orders
dated May 20, 1996, July 9, 1996 and August 14, 1996. The petition was docketed as G.R. No. 126018.
It behooves this Court, then to dismiss this case. For to continue with these proceedings, would be In a Resolution35 dated November 13, 1996, the Court dismissed the aforesaid petition for failure of
violative of the constitutional provision on the Bill of Rights guaranteeing speedy disposition of cases CHIQUITA to show that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. CHIQUITA filed a Motion for
(Ref. Sec. 16, Article III, Constitution). The court has no other choice. To insist on further proceedings Reconsideration,36 but the same was denied through a Resolution37 dated January 27, 1997.
with this case, as it is now presented, might accord this court a charming appearance. But the same
insistence would actually thwart the very ends of justice which it seeks to achieve. Civil Case No. 24,251-96 before the RTC of Davao City and G.R. Nos. 126654, 127856, and 128398

This evaluation and action is made not on account of but rather with due consideration to the fact Another joint complaint for damages against SHELL, DOW, OCCIDENTAL, DOLE, DEL MONTE, and
that the dismissal of this case does not necessarily deprive the parties – especially the plaintiffs – of CHIQUITA was filed before Branch 16 of the RTC of Davao City by 155 plaintiffs from Davao City. This
their possible remedies. The court is cognizant that the Federal Court may resume proceedings of case was docketed as Civil Case No. 24,251-96. These plaintiffs (the petitioners in G.R. No. 126654,
that earlier case between the herein parties involving the same acts or omissions as in this case. hereinafter referred to as ABELLA, et al.) amended their Joint-Complaint on May 21, 1996.38

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, this case is now considered DISMISSED. 24 Similar to the complaint of NAVIDA, et al., ABELLA, et al., alleged that, as workers in the banana
plantation and/or as residents near the said plantation, they were made to use and/or were exposed
On June 4, 1996, the RTC of General Santos City likewise issued an Order,25 dismissing DOW’s Answer to nematocides, which contained the chemical DBCP. According to ABELLA, et al., such exposure
with Counterclaim. resulted in "serious and permanent injuries to their health, including, but not limited to, sterility and
severe injuries to their reproductive capacities."39 ABELLA, et al., claimed that the defendant
CHIQUITA, DEL MONTE and SHELL each filed a motion for reconsideration 26 of the RTC Order dated companies manufactured, produced, sold, distributed, used, and/or made available in commerce,
May 20, 1996, while DOW filed a motion for reconsideration27 of the RTC Order dated June 4, 1996. DBCP without warning the users of its hazardous effects on health, and without providing instructions
Subsequently, DOW and OCCIDENTAL also filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration28 of the RTC Order on its proper use and application, which the defendant companies knew or ought to have known,
dated May 20, 1996. had they exercised ordinary care and prudence.

In an Order29 dated July 9, 1996, the RTC of General Santos City declared that it had already lost its Except for DOW, the other defendant companies filed their respective motions for bill of particulars
jurisdiction over the case as it took into consideration the Manifestation of the counsel of NAVIDA, to which ABELLA, et al., filed their opposition. DOW and DEL MONTE filed their respective Answers
et al., which stated that the latter had already filed a petition for review on certiorari before this dated May 17, 1996 and June 24, 1996.
Court.
The RTC of Davao City, however, junked Civil Case No. 24,251-96 in its Order dated October 1, 1996,
CHIQUITA and SHELL filed their motions for reconsideration30 of the above order. which, in its entirety, reads:

On July 11, 1996, NAVIDA, et al., filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari in order to assail the RTC Upon a thorough review of the Complaint and Amended Complaint For: Damages filed by the
Order dated May 20, 1996, which was docketed as G.R. No. 125078. plaintiffs against the defendants Shell Oil Company, DOW Chemicals Company, Occidental Chemical
Corporation, Standard Fruit Company, Standard Fruit and Steamship, DOLE Food Company, DOLE
Fresh Fruit Company, Chiquita Brands, Inc., Chiquita Brands International, Del Monte Fresh Produce,
The RTC of General Santos City then issued an Order31 dated August 14, 1996, which merely noted
N.A. and Del Monte Tropical Fruits Co., all foreign corporations with Philippine Representatives, the
the incidents still pending in Civil Case No. 5617 and reiterated that it no longer had any jurisdiction
Court, as correctly pointed out by one of the defendants, is convinced that plaintiffs "would have this
over the case.
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, N.A. and Del Monte Tropical Fruit Co., Reply to
On August 30, 1996, DOW and OCCIDENTAL filed their Petition for Review on Certiorari,32 challenging Opposition dated July 22, 1996). Consider these:
the orders of the RTC of General Santos City dated May 20, 1996, June 4, 1996 and July 9, 1996. Their
petition was docketed as G.R. No. 125598.
1) In the original Joint Complaint, plaintiffs state that: defendants have no properties in the
Philippines; they have no agents as well (par. 18); plaintiffs are suing the defendants for tortuous acts
committed by these foreign corporations on their respective countries, as plaintiffs, after having ABELLA, et al., further aver that the dismissal of the case, based on the opinions of legal luminaries
elected to sue in the place of defendants’ residence, are now compelled by a decision of a Texas reported in a newspaper, by the RTC of Davao City is bereft of basis. According to them, their cause
District Court to file cases under torts in this jurisdiction for causes of actions which occurred abroad of action is based on quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. They also maintain that the
(par. 19); a petition was filed by same plaintiffs against same defendants in the Courts of Texas, USA, absence of jurisprudence regarding the award of damages in favor of those adversely affected by the
plaintiffs seeking for payment of damages based on negligence, strict liability, conspiracy and DBCP does not preclude them from presenting evidence to prove their allegations that their exposure
international tort theories (par. 27); upon defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on Forum non [conveniens], to DBCP caused their sterility and/or infertility.
said petition was provisionally dismissed on condition that these cases be filed in the Philippines or
before 11 August 1995 (Philippine date; Should the Philippine Courts refuse or deny jurisdiction, the SHELL, DOW, and CHIQUITA each filed their respective motions for reconsideration of the Order
U. S. Courts will reassume jurisdiction.) dated October 1, 1996 of the RTC of Davao City. DEL MONTE also filed its motion for reconsideration,
which contained an additional motion for the inhibition of the presiding judge.
11. In the Amended Joint Complaint, plaintiffs aver that: on 11 July 1995, the Federal District Court
issued a Memorandum and Order conditionally dismissing several of the consolidated actions The presiding judge of Branch 16 then issued an Order41 dated December 2, 1996, voluntarily
including those filed by the Filipino complainants. One of the conditions imposed was for the plaintiffs inhibiting himself from trying the case. Thus, the case was re-raffled to Branch 13 of the RTC of Davao
to file actions in their home countries or the countries in which they were injured x x x. City.
Notwithstanding, 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
In an Order42 dated December 16, 1996, the RTC of Davao City affirmed the Order dated October 1,
plaintiffs in their home countries [or] the countries where they were injured, the said plaintiffs may
1996, and denied the respective motions for reconsideration filed by defendant companies.
return to that court and, upon proper motion, the Court will resume jurisdiction as if the case had
never been dismissed for forum non conveniens.
Thereafter, CHIQUITA filed a Petition for Review dated March 5, 1997, questioning the Orders dated
October 1, 1996 and December 16, 1996 of the RTC of Davao City. This case was docketed as G.R. No.
The Court however is constrained to dismiss the case at bar not solely on the basis of the above but
128398.
because it shares the opinion of legal experts given in the interview made by the Inquirer in its Special
report "Pesticide Cause Mass Sterility," to wit:
In its petition, 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
1. Former Justice Secretary Demetrio Demetria in a May 1995 opinion said: The Philippines should
defendant companies which voluntarily appeared before it. CHIQUITA also claims that the RTC of
be an inconvenient forum to file this kind of damage suit against foreign companies since the
Davao City cannot dismiss the case simply on the basis of opinions of alleged legal experts appearing
causes of action alleged in the petition do not exist under Philippine laws. There has been no
in a newspaper article.
decided case in Philippine Jurisprudence awarding to those adversely affected by DBCP. This
means there is no available evidence which will prove and disprove the relation between sterility
and DBCP. Initially, this Court in its Resolution43 dated July 28, 1997, dismissed the petition filed by CHIQUITA
for submitting a defective certificate against forum shopping. CHIQUITA, however, filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was granted by this Court in the Resolution44 dated October 8, 1997.
2. Retired Supreme Court Justice Abraham Sarmiento opined that while a class suit is allowed in
the Philippines the device has been employed strictly. Mass sterility will not qualify as a class suit
injury within the contemplation of Philippine statute. On March 7, 1997, DEL MONTE also filed its petition for review on certiorari before this Court assailing
the above-mentioned orders of the RTC of Davao City. Its petition was docketed as G.R. No. 127856.
3. Retired High Court Justice Rodolfo Nocom stated that there is simply an absence of doctrine
here that permits these causes to be heard. No product liability ever filed or tried here. DEL MONTE claims that the RTC of Davao City has jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 24,251-96, 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, later, an answer to the
Case ordered dismissed.40
complaint. According to DEL MONTE, the RTC of Davao City, therefore, acted beyond its authority
when it dismissed the case motu proprio or without any motion to dismiss from any of the parties to
Docketed as G.R. No. 126654, the petition for review, filed on November 12, 1996 by ABELLA, et al., the case.
assails before this Court the above-quoted order of the RTC of Davao City.
In the Resolutions dated February 10, 1997, April 28, 1997, and March 10, 1999, this Court
ABELLA, et al., claim that the RTC of Davao City erred in dismissing Civil Case No. 24,251-96 on the consolidated G.R. Nos. 125078, 125598, 126654, 127856, and 128398.
ground of lack of jurisdiction.
The Consolidated Motion to Drop DOW, OCCIDENTAL, and SHELL as Party-Respondents filed by
According to ABELLA, et al., the RTC of Davao City has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case NAVIDA, et al. and ABELLA, et al.
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.
On September 26, 1997, NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., filed before this Court a Consolidated In their Consolidated Memorandum, NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., presented the following
Motion (to Drop Party-Respondents).45 The plaintiff claimants alleged that they had amicably settled issues for our consideration:
their cases with DOW, OCCIDENTAL, and SHELL sometime in July 1997. This settlement agreement
was evidenced by facsimiles of the "Compromise Settlement, Indemnity, and Hold Harmless IN REFUTATION
Agreement," which were attached to the said motion. Pursuant to said agreement, the plaintiff
claimants sought to withdraw their petitions as against DOW, OCCIDENTAL, and SHELL.
I. THE COURT DISMISSED THE CASE DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION.

DOLE, DEL MONTE and CHIQUITA, however, opposed the motion, as well as the settlement entered
a) The court did not simply dismiss the case because it was filed in bad faith with petitioners
into between the plaintiff claimants and DOW, OCCIDENTAL, and SHELL.
intending to have the same dismissed and returned to the Texas court.
b) The court dismissed the case because it was convinced that it did not have jurisdiction.
The Memoranda of the Parties
IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced by the parties, this Court, in a Resolution
dated June 22, 1998,46 required all the parties to submit their respective memoranda.
II. THE TRIAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE.

CHIQUITA filed its Memorandum on August 28, 1998;47 SHELL asked to be excused from the filing of
a. The acts complained of occurred within Philippine territory.
a memorandum alleging that it had already executed a compromise agreement with the plaintiff
b. Art. 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines is broad enough to cover the acts complained of.
claimants.48 DOLE filed its Memorandum on October 12, 1998 49 while DEL MONTE filed on October
c. Assumption of jurisdiction by the U.S. District Court over petitioner[s’] claims did not divest
13, 1998.50 NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., filed their Consolidated Memorandum on February 3,
Philippine [c]ourts of jurisdiction over the same.
1999;51 and DOW and OCCIDENTAL jointly filed a Memorandum on December 23, 1999.52
d. The Compromise Agreement and the subsequent Consolidated Motion to Drop Party
Respondents Dow, Occidental and Shell does not unjustifiably prejudice remaining respondents
The Motion to Withdraw Petition for Review in G.R. No. 125598 Dole, Del Monte and Chiquita.58

On July 13, 2004, DOW and OCCIDENTAL filed a Motion to Withdraw Petition for Review in G.R. No. DISCUSSION
125598, 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,
On the issue of jurisdiction
et al. DOW and OCCIDENTAL added that they have fully complied with their obligations set forth in
the 1997 Compromise Agreements.
Essentially, 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. 5617 and 24,251-96, respectively,
DOLE filed its Manifestation dated September 6, 2004,54 interposing no objection to the withdrawal
for lack of jurisdiction.
of the petition, and further stating that they maintain their position that DOW and OCCIDENTAL, as
well as other settling defendant companies, should be retained as defendants for purposes of
prosecuting the cross-claims of DOLE, in the event that the complaint below is reinstated. Remarkably, 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. All parties contend that the RTC of General Santos
City and the RTC of Davao City have jurisdiction over the action for damages, specifically for
NAVIDA, et al., also filed their Comment dated September 14, 2004,55 stating that they agree with
approximately ₱2.7 million for each of the plaintiff claimants.
the view of DOW and OCCIDENTAL that the petition in G.R. No. 125598 has become moot and
academic because Civil Case No. 5617 had already been amicably settled by the parties in 1997.
NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., argue that the allegedly tortious acts and/or omissions of
defendant companies occurred within Philippine territory. Specifically, the use of and exposure to
On September 27, 2004, DEL MONTE filed its Comment on Motion to Withdraw Petition for Review
DBCP that was manufactured, distributed or otherwise put into the stream of commerce by
Filed by Petitioners in G.R. No. 125598,56 stating that it has no objections to the withdrawal of the
defendant companies happened in the Philippines. Said fact allegedly constitutes reasonable basis
petition filed by DOW and OCCIDENTAL in G.R. No. 125598.
for our courts to assume jurisdiction over the case. Furthermore, NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al.,
assert that the provisions of Chapter 2 of the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code, as well as Article
In a Resolution57 dated October 11, 2004, this Court granted, among others, the motion to withdraw 2176 thereof, are broad enough to cover their claim for damages. Thus, NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA,
petition for review filed by DOW and OCCIDENTAL. et al., pray that the respective rulings of the RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao City in
Civil Case Nos. 5617 and 24,251-96 be reversed and that the said cases be remanded to the courts a
THE ISSUES quo for further proceedings.
DOLE similarly maintains that the acts attributed to defendant companies constitute a quasi-delict, (8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s
which falls under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. In addition, DOLE states that if there were no fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds One hundred
actionable wrongs committed under Philippine law, the courts a quo should have dismissed the civil thousand pesos (₱100,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand, exclusive
cases on the ground that the Amended Joint-Complaints of NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., stated of the abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (₱200,000.00).60
no cause of action against the defendant companies. DOLE also argues that if indeed there is no
positive law defining the alleged acts of defendant companies as actionable wrong, Article 9 of the Corollary thereto, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 09-94, states:
Civil Code dictates that a judge may not refuse to render a decision on the ground of insufficiency of
the law. The court may still resolve the case, applying the customs of the place and, in the absence
2. The exclusion of the term "damages of whatever kind" in determining the jurisdictional amount
thereof, the general principles of law. DOLE posits that the Philippines is the situs of the tortious acts
under Section 19 (8) and Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, applies to cases
allegedly committed by defendant companies as NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., point to their
where the damages are merely incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of action. However,
alleged exposure to DBCP which occurred in the Philippines, as the cause of the sterility and other
in cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the
reproductive system problems that they allegedly suffered. Finally, DOLE adds that the RTC of Davao
amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court.
City gravely erred in relying upon newspaper reports in dismissing Civil Case No. 24,251-96 given that
newspaper articles are hearsay and without any evidentiary value. Likewise, the alleged legal
opinions cited in the newspaper reports were taken judicial notice of, without any notice to the Here, NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., sought in their similarly-worded Amended Joint-Complaints
parties. DOLE, however, opines that the dismissal of Civil Case Nos. 5617 and 24,251-96 was proper, filed before the courts a quo, the following prayer:
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.S. Federal District Court to re-assume jurisdiction PRAYER
over the cases.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that after hearing, judgment be
In a similar vein, CHIQUITA argues that the courts a quo had jurisdiction over the subject matter of rendered in favor of the plaintiffs ordering the defendants:
the cases filed before them. The Amended Joint-Complaints sought approximately ₱2.7 million in
damages for each plaintiff claimant, which amount falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC. CHIQUITA a) TO PAY EACH PLAINTIFF moral damages in the amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand
avers that the pertinent matter is the place of the alleged exposure to DBCP, not the place of Pesos (₱1,500,00.00);
manufacture, packaging, distribution, sale, etc., of the said chemical. This is in consonance with the b) TO PAY EACH PLAINTIFF nominal damages in the amount of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos
lex loci delicti commisi theory in determining the situs of a tort, which states that the law of the place (₱400,000.00) each;
where the alleged wrong was committed will govern the action. CHIQUITA and the other defendant c) TO PAY EACH PLAINTIFF exemplary damages in the amount of Six Hundred Thousand Pesos
companies also submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the RTC by making voluntary appearances (₱600,000.00);
and seeking for affirmative reliefs during the course of the proceedings. None of the defendant d) TO PAY EACH PLAINTIFF attorneys fees of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱200,000.00); and
companies ever objected to the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts a quo over their persons. e) TO PAY THE COSTS of the suit.61
CHIQUITA, thus, prays for the remand of Civil Case Nos. 5617 and 24,251-96 to the RTC of General
Santos City and the RTC of Davao City, respectively.
From the foregoing, 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 ₱2.7 million for each of the plaintiff
The RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao City have jurisdiction over Civil Case Nos. 5617 claimants. The RTCs unmistakably have jurisdiction over the cases filed in General Santos City and
and 24,251-96, respectively Davao City, as both claims by NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., fall within the purview of the
definition of the jurisdiction of the RTC under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
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, irrespective of Moreover, the allegations in both Amended Joint-Complaints narrate that:
whether the plaintiffs are entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein. 59 Once vested by law,
on a particular court or body, 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. THE CAUSES OF ACTION

At the time of the filing of the complaints, the jurisdiction of the RTC in civil cases under Batas 4. The Defendants manufactured, sold, distributed, used, AND/OR MADE AVAILABLE IN COMMERCE
Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, was: nematocides containing the chemical dibromochloropropane, commonly known as DBCP. THE
CHEMICAL WAS USED AGAINST the parasite known as the nematode, which plagued banana
plantations, INCLUDING THOSE in the Philippines. AS IT TURNED OUT, DBCP not only destroyed
SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: nematodes. IT ALSO CAUSED ILL-EFFECTS ON THE HEALTH OF PERSONS EXPOSED TO IT AFFECTING
the human reproductive system as well.
xxxx
5. The plaintiffs were exposed to DBCP in the 1970s up to the early 1980s WHILE (a) they used this g. Failed to place adequate labels on containers of said products to warn them of the damages of
product in the banana plantations WHERE they were employed, and/or (b) they resided within the said products; and
agricultural area WHERE IT WAS USED. As a result of such exposure, the plaintiffs suffered serious h. Failed to use substitute nematocides for said products or to cause such substitutes to [be]
and permanent injuries TO THEIR HEALTH, including, but not limited to, STERILITY and severe injuries used.62 (Emphasis supplied and words in brackets ours.)
to their reproductive capacities.
Quite evidently, the allegations in the Amended Joint-Complaints of NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et
6. THE DEFENDANTS WERE AT FAULT OR WERE NEGLIGENT IN THAT THEY MANUFACTURED, al., attribute to defendant companies certain acts and/or omissions which led to their exposure to
produced, sold, and/or USED DBCP and/or otherwise, PUT THE SAME into the stream of commerce, nematocides containing the chemical DBCP. According to NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., such
WITHOUT INFORMING THE USERS OF ITS HAZARDOUS EFFECTS ON HEALTH AND/OR WITHOUT exposure to the said chemical caused ill effects, injuries and illnesses, specifically to their
INSTRUCTIONS ON ITS PROPER USE AND APPLICATION. THEY allowed Plaintiffs to be exposed to, reproductive system.
DBCP-containing materials which THEY knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence ought
to have known, were highly harmful and injurious to the Plaintiffs’ health and well-being. Thus, these allegations in the complaints constitute the cause of action of plaintiff claimants – a quasi-
delict, which under the Civil Code is defined as an act, or omission which causes damage to another,
7. The Defendants WHO MANUFACTURED, PRODUCED, SOLD, DISTRIBUTED, MADE AVAILABLE OR there being fault or negligence. To be precise, Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides:
PUT DBCP INTO THE STREAM OF COMMERCE were negligent OR AT FAULT in that they, AMONG
OTHERS: Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence,
is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
a. Failed to adequately warn Plaintiffs of the dangerous characteristics of DBCP, or to cause their relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
subsidiaries or affiliates to so warn plaintiffs;
b. Failed to provide plaintiffs with information as to what should be reasonably safe and sufficient As specifically enumerated in the amended complaints, NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., point to
clothing and proper protective equipment and appliances, if any, to protect plaintiffs from the the acts and/or omissions of the defendant companies in manufacturing, producing, selling, using,
harmful effects of exposure to DBCP, or to cause their subsidiaries or affiliates to do so; and/or otherwise putting into the stream of commerce, nematocides which contain DBCP, "without
c. Failed to place adequate warnings, in a language understandable to the worker, on containers informing the users of its hazardous effects on health and/or without instructions on its proper use
of DBCP-containing materials to warn of the dangers to health of coming into contact with DBCP, and application." 63
or to cause their subsidiaries or affiliates to do so;
d. Failed to take reasonable precaution or to exercise reasonable care to publish, adopt and
Verily, in Citibank, N.A. v. Court of Appeals,64 this Court has always reminded that jurisdiction of the
enforce a safety plan and a safe method of handling and applying DBCP, or to cause their
court over the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the complaint,
subsidiaries or affiliates to do so;
irrespective of whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims
e. Failed to test DBCP prior to releasing these products for sale, or to cause their subsidiaries or
asserted therein. The jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up
affiliates to do so; and
in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss, for otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would almost
f. Failed to reveal the results of tests conducted on DBCP to each plaintiff, governmental agencies
entirely depend upon the defendants. What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of
and the public, or to cause their subsidiaries or affiliate to do so.
the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The averments therein and
the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted.
8. The illnesses and injuries of each plaintiff are also due to the FAULT or negligence of defendants
Standard Fruit Company, Dole Fresh Fruit Company, Dole Food Company, Inc., Chiquita Brands, Inc.
Clearly then, the acts and/or omissions attributed to the defendant companies constitute a quasi-
and Chiquita Brands International, Inc. in that they failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent each
delict which is the basis for the claim for damages filed by NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., with
plaintiff’s harmful exposure to DBCP-containing products which defendants knew or should have
individual claims of approximately ₱2.7 million for each plaintiff claimant, which obviously falls within
known were hazardous to each plaintiff in that they, AMONG OTHERS:
the purview of the civil action jurisdiction of the RTCs.

a. Failed to adequately supervise and instruct Plaintiffs in the safe and proper application of
Moreover, the injuries and illnesses, which NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., allegedly suffered
DBCP-containing products;
resulted from their exposure to DBCP while they were employed in the banana plantations located
b. Failed to implement proper methods and techniques of application of said products, or to
in the Philippines or while they were residing within the agricultural areas also located in the
cause such to be implemented;
Philippines. The factual allegations in the Amended Joint-Complaints all point to their cause of action,
c. Failed to warn Plaintiffs of the hazards of exposure to said products or to cause them to be so
which undeniably occurred in the Philippines. The RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao
warned;
City obviously have reasonable basis to assume jurisdiction over the cases.
d. Failed to test said products for adverse health effects, or to cause said products to be tested;
e. Concealed from Plaintiffs information concerning the observed effects of said products on
Plaintiffs; It is, therefore, error on the part of the courts a quo when they dismissed the cases on the ground of
f. Failed to monitor the health of plaintiffs exposed to said products; lack of jurisdiction on the mistaken assumption that the cause of action narrated by NAVIDA, et al.,
and ABELLA, et al., took place abroad and had occurred outside and beyond the territorial boundaries
of the Philippines, i.e., "the manufacture of the pesticides, their packaging in containers, their Thus, the RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao City have validly acquired jurisdiction over
distribution through sale or other disposition, resulting in their becoming part of the stream of the persons of the defendant companies, as well as over the subject matter of the instant case. What
commerce,"65 and, hence, outside the jurisdiction of the RTCs. is more, this jurisdiction, which has been acquired and has been vested on the courts a quo, continues
until the termination of the proceedings.
Certainly, the cases below are not criminal cases where territoriality, or the situs of the act
complained of, would be determinative of jurisdiction and venue for trial of cases. In personal civil It may also be pertinently stressed that "jurisdiction" is different from the "exercise of jurisdiction."
actions, such as claims for payment of damages, the Rules of Court allow the action to be commenced Jurisdiction refers to the authority to decide a case, not the orders or the decision rendered therein.
and tried in the appropriate court, where any of the plaintiffs or defendants resides, or in the case of Accordingly, where a court has jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants and the subject
a non-resident defendant, where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.66 matter, as in the case of the courts a quo, the decision on all questions arising therefrom is but an
exercise of such jurisdiction. Any error that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is
In a very real sense, most of the evidence required to prove the claims of NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, merely an error of judgment, which does not affect its authority to decide the case, much less divest
et al., are available only in the Philippines. First, plaintiff claimants are all residents of the Philippines, the court of the jurisdiction over the case.70
either in General Santos City or in Davao City. Second, the specific areas where they were allegedly
exposed to the chemical DBCP are within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts a quo wherein Plaintiffs’ purported bad faith in filing the subject civil cases in Philippine courts
NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., initially filed their claims for damages. Third, the testimonial and
documentary evidence from important witnesses, such as doctors, co-workers, family members and Anent the insinuation by DOLE that the plaintiff claimants filed their cases in bad faith merely to
other members of the community, would be easier to gather in the Philippines. Considering the great procure a dismissal of the same and to allow them to return to the forum of their choice, this Court
number of plaintiff claimants involved in this case, it is not far-fetched to assume that voluminous finds such argument much too speculative to deserve any merit.
records are involved in the presentation of evidence to support the claim of plaintiff claimants. Thus,
these additional factors, coupled with the fact that the alleged cause of action of NAVIDA, et al., and
It must be remembered that this Court does not rule on allegations that are unsupported by evidence
ABELLA, et al., against the defendant companies for damages occurred in the Philippines,
on record. This Court does not rule on allegations which are manifestly conjectural, as these may not
demonstrate that, apart from the RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao City having
exist at all. This Court deals with facts, not fancies; on realities, not appearances. When this Court
jurisdiction over the subject matter in the instant civil cases, they are, indeed, the convenient fora
acts on appearances instead of realities, justice and law will be short-lived.71 This is especially true
for trying these cases.67
with respect to allegations of bad faith, in line with the basic rule that good faith is always presumed
and bad faith must be proved.72
The RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao City validly acquired jurisdiction over the
persons of all the defendant companies
In sum, 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 by NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA,
It is well to stress again that none of the parties claims that the courts a quo lack jurisdiction over the et al., and that the courts a quo have also acquired jurisdiction over the persons of all the defendant
cases filed before them. All parties are one in asserting that the RTC of General Santos City and the companies, it therefore, behooves this Court to order the remand of Civil Case Nos. 5617 and 24,251-
RTC of Davao City have validly acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the defendant companies in 96 to the RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao City, respectively.
the action below. All parties voluntarily, unconditionally and knowingly appeared and submitted
themselves to the jurisdiction of the courts a quo.
On the issue of the dropping of DOW, OCCIDENTAL and SHELL as respondents in view of their
amicable settlement with NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al.
Rule 14, 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." In this connection, all the
NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., are further praying that DOW, OCCIDENTAL and SHELL be dropped
defendant companies designated and authorized representatives to receive summons and to
as respondents in G.R. Nos. 125078 and 126654, as well as in Civil Case Nos. 5617 and 24,251-96. The
represent them in the proceedings before the courts a quo. All the defendant companies submitted
non-settling defendants allegedly manifested that they intended to file their cross-claims against
themselves to the jurisdiction of the courts a quo by making several voluntary appearances, by
their co-defendants who entered into compromise agreements. NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al.,
praying for various affirmative reliefs, and by actively participating during the course of the
argue that the non-settling defendants did not aver any cross-claim in their answers to the complaint
proceedings below.
and that they subsequently sought to amend their answers to plead their cross-claims only after the
settlement between the plaintiff claimants and DOW, OCCIDENTAL, and SHELL were executed.
In line herewith, this Court, in Meat Packing Corporation of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, 68 held NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., therefore, assert that the cross-claims are already barred.
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. Furthermore, the
In their Memoranda, CHIQUITA and DOLE are opposing the above motion of NAVIDA, et al., and
active participation of a party in the proceedings is tantamount to an invocation of the court’s
ABELLA, et al., since the latter’s Amended Complaints cited several instances of tortious conduct that
jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case, and will bar said party from later
were allegedly committed jointly and severally by the defendant companies. This solidary obligation
on impugning the court or body’s jurisdiction.69
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. Should the subject
motion of NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., be granted, and the Court subsequently orders the Hold Harmless Agreement and its truth could not be verified with certainty based on the records
remand of the action to the trial court for continuance, CHIQUITA and DOLE would allegedly be elevated to this Court. Significantly, the 336 plaintiff claimants in Civil Case No. 5617 jointly filed a
deprived of their right to prosecute their cross-claims against their other co-defendants. Moreover, complaint without individually specifying their claims against DEL MONTE or any of the other
a third party complaint or a separate trial, according to CHIQUITA, would only unduly delay and defendant companies. Furthermore, not one plaintiff claimant filed a motion for the removal of
complicate the proceedings. CHIQUITA and DOLE similarly insist that the motion of NAVIDA, et al., either DEL MONTE or CHIQUITA as defendants in Civil Case Nos. 5617 and 24,251-96.
and ABELLA, et al., to drop DOW, SHELL and OCCIDENTAL as respondents in G.R. Nos. 125078 and
126654, as well as in Civil Case Nos. 5617 and 24,251-96, be denied. There is, thus, a primary need to establish who the specific parties to the alleged compromise
agreements are, as well as their corresponding rights and obligations therein. For this purpose, the
Incidentally, on April 2, 2007, after the parties have submitted their respective memoranda, DEL courts a quo may require the presentation of additional evidence from the parties. Thereafter, on
MONTE filed a Manifestation and Motion73 before the Court, stating that similar settlement the basis of the records of the cases at bar and the additional evidence submitted by the parties, if
agreements were allegedly executed by the plaintiff claimants with DEL MONTE and CHIQUITA any, the trial courts can then determine who among the defendants may be dropped from the said
sometime in 1999. Purportedly included in the agreements were Civil Case Nos. 5617 and 24,251-96. cases.
Attached to the said manifestation were copies of the Compromise Settlement, Indemnity, and Hold
Harmless Agreement between DEL MONTE and the settling plaintiffs, as well as the Release in Full It is true that, under Article 2194 of the Civil Code, the responsibility of two or more persons who are
executed by the latter.74 DEL MONTE specified therein that there were "only four (4) plaintiffs in Civil liable for the same quasi-delict is solidary. A solidary obligation is one in which each of the debtors is
Case No. 5617 who are claiming against the Del Monte parties"75 and that the latter have executed liable for the entire obligation, and each of the creditors is entitled to demand the satisfaction of the
amicable settlements which completely satisfied any claims against DEL MONTE. In accordance with whole obligation from any or all of the debtors.81
the alleged compromise agreements with the four plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 5617, DEL MONTE
sought the dismissal of the Amended Joint-Complaint in the said civil case. Furthermore, in view of
In solidary obligations, the paying debtor’s right of reimbursement is provided for under Article 1217
the above settlement agreements with ABELLA, et al., in Civil Case No. 24,251-96, DEL MONTE stated
of the Civil Code, to wit:
that it no longer wished to pursue its petition in G.R. No. 127856 and accordingly prayed that it be
allowed to withdraw the same.
Art. 1217. Payment made by one of the solidary debtors extinguishes the obligation. If two or more
solidary debtors offer to pay, the creditor may choose which offer to accept.
Having adjudged that Civil Case Nos. 5617 and 24,251-96 should be remanded to the RTC of General
Santos City and the RTC of Davao City, respectively, the Court deems that the Consolidated Motions
(to Drop Party-Respondents) filed by NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., should likewise be referred He who made the payment may claim from his co-debtors only the share which corresponds to each,
to the said trial courts for appropriate disposition. with the interest for the payment already made. If the payment is made before the debt is due, no
interest for the intervening period may be demanded.
Under Article 2028 of the Civil Code, "[a] compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making
reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced." Like any other When one of the solidary debtors cannot, because of his insolvency, reimburse his share to the
contract, an extrajudicial compromise agreement is not excepted from rules and principles of a debtor paying the obligation, such share shall be borne by all his co-debtors, in proportion to the
contract. It is a consensual contract, perfected by mere consent, the latter being manifested by the debt of each.1avvphil
meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the
contract.76 Judicial approval is not required for its perfection.77 A compromise has upon the parties The above right of reimbursement of a paying debtor, and the corresponding liability of the co-
the effect and authority of res judicata78 and this holds true even if the agreement has not been debtors to reimburse, will only arise, however, if a solidary debtor who is made to answer for an
judicially approved.79 In addition, as a binding contract, a compromise agreement determines the obligation actually delivers payment to the creditor. As succinctly held in Lapanday Agricultural
rights and obligations of only the parties to it.80 Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,82 "[p]ayment, which means not only the delivery of
money but also the performance, in any other manner, of the obligation, is the operative fact which
In light of the foregoing legal precepts, the RTC of General Santos City and the RTC of Davao City will entitle either of the solidary debtors to seek reimbursement for the share which corresponds to
should first receive in evidence and examine all of the alleged compromise settlements involved in each of the [other] debtors."83
the cases at bar to determine the propriety of dropping any party as a defendant therefrom.
In the cases at bar, there is no right of reimbursement to speak of as yet. A trial on the merits must
The Court notes that the Consolidated Motions (to Drop Party-Respondents) that was filed by necessarily be conducted first in order to establish whether or not defendant companies are liable
NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., only pertained to DOW, OCCIDENTAL and SHELL in view of the for the claims for damages filed by the plaintiff claimants, which would necessarily give rise to an
latter companies’ alleged compromise agreements with the plaintiff claimants. However, in obligation to pay on the part of the defendants.
subsequent developments, DEL MONTE and CHIQUITA supposedly reached their own amicable
settlements with the plaintiff claimants, but DEL MONTE qualified that it entered into a settlement At the point in time where the proceedings below were prematurely halted, no cross-claims have
agreement with only four of the plaintiff claimants in Civil Case No. 5617. These four plaintiff been interposed by any defendant against another defendant. If and when such a cross-claim is made
claimants were allegedly the only ones who were asserting claims against DEL MONTE. However, the by a non-settling defendant against a settling defendant, it is within the discretion of the trial court
said allegation of DEL MONTE was simply stipulated in their Compromise Settlement, Indemnity, and
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.

In Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 84 the Court
had the occasion to state that "where there are, along with the parties to the compromise, other
persons involved in the litigation who have not taken part in concluding the compromise agreement
but are adversely affected or feel prejudiced thereby, should not be precluded from invoking in the
same proceedings an adequate relief therefor."85

Relevantly, in Philippine International Surety Co., Inc. v. Gonzales, 86 the Court upheld the ruling of
the trial court that, in a joint and solidary obligation, 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.

Hence, the right of the remaining defendant(s) to seek reimbursement in the above situation, if
proper, is not affected by the compromise agreements allegedly entered into by NAVIDA, et al., and
ABELLA, et al., with some of the defendant companies.

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby GRANTS the petitions for review on certiorari in G.R. Nos. 125078,
126654, and 128398. We REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Order dated May 20, 1996 of the Regional Trial
Court of General Santos City, Branch 37, in Civil Case No. 5617, and the Order dated October 1, 1996
of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 16, and its subsequent Order dated December 16,
1996 denying reconsideration in Civil Case No. 24,251-96, 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. 5617 and 24,251-96.

The Court likewise GRANTS the motion filed by Del Monte to withdraw its petition in G.R. No. 127856.
In view of the previous grant of the motion to withdraw the petition in G.R. No. 125598, both G.R.
Nos. 127856 and 125598 are considered CLOSED AND TERMINATED.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.