Navida VS Dizon GR No. 125078

NAVIDA VS.
DIZON
G.R. No. 125078 May 30, 2011
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Facts of the Case

Beginning 1993, a number of personal injury suits were filed in different Texas state courts by citizens of twelve
foreign countries, including the Philippines. The thousands of plaintiffs sought damages for injuries they allegedly
sustained from their exposure to dibromochloropropane (DBCP), a chemical used to kill nematodes (worms), while
working on farms in 23 foreign countries. The cases were eventually transferred to, and consolidated in, the
Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The defendants in the consolidated cases
prayed for the dismissal of all the actions under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
In a Memorandum Order, the Federal District Court conditionally granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss
provided the defendants:
(1) participated in expedited discovery in the United States
(2) either waived or accepted service of process and waived any other jurisdictional defense in any action
commenced by a plaintiff in these actions in his home country or the country in which his injury occurred.
(3) waived any limitations-based defense that has matured since the commencement of these actions in the courts
of Texas;
(4) stipulated 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; and
(5) submitted an agreement binding them to satisfy any final judgment rendered in favor of plaintiffs by a foreign
court.
In the event that the highest court of any foreign country finally affirms the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of an
action commenced by a plaintiff in these actions in his home country or the country in which he was injured, that
plaintiff may return to this court and, upon proper motion, the court will resume jurisdiction over the action as if
the case had never been dismissed for.
Case 1 (GR. 125078)- bale 5 consolidated cases ni sya. hehe
336 plaintiffs from General Santos City filed a Joint Complaint in the RTC of General Santos City. Named as
defendants therein were: Shell Oil Co. (SHELL); Dow Chemical Co. (DOW); 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, 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 defendants are hereinafter collectively referred to as defendant companies.)
Petitioners 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, among others, 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; and/or when they resided within the agricultural area where such chemical was
used. NAVIDA, et al., claimed that their illnesses and injuries were due to the fault or negligence of each of the
defendant companies in that they produced, sold and/or otherwise put into the stream of commerce DBCP-
containing products. According to petitioners, they were allowed to be exposed to the said products, which the
defendant companies knew, or ought to have known, were highly injurious to the former’s health and well-being.
Without resolving the motions filed by the parties, the RTC of General Santos City issued an Order dismissing the
complaint.
RTC grounds:
1. The trial court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case
2. 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- the tort in the complaint, which is “product liability tort” is
not a tort category within the purview of Philippine Law
3. RTC of General Santos City adjudged that Navida, et al., were coerced into submitting their case to the
Philippine courts,
4. The voluntary appearance of defendants has little significance
5. 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 case is pending in the US Court; the case filed
in the U.S. court involves the same parties, same rights and interests, as in this case
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari in order to assail the RTC Order
Issue/s:
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter
SC Ruling:
YES
The injuries and illnesses, which petitiones 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. The factual allegations in the Amended Joint-Complaints all point
to their cause of action, which undeniably occurred in the Philippines. The RTC has reasonable basis to assume
jurisdiction over the cases.
It is, therefore, 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 action narrated by petitioners 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 distribution through sale or other disposition, resulting in their
becoming part of the stream of commerce,"and, hence, outside the jurisdiction of the RTCs.
Certainly, the cases 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 actions, such as claims for payment of
damages, the Rules of Court allow the action to be commenced and tried in the appropriate court, where any of
the plaintiffs or defendants resides.
Most of the evidence required to prove the claims of petitioners are available only in the Philippines. First, plaintiff
claimants are all residents of the Philippines (General Santos 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
petitioners initially filed their claims for damages. Third, the testimonial and documentary evidence from
important witnesses, such as doctors, co-workers etc. would be easier to gather in the Philippines. Thus, these
additional factors, coupled with the fact that the alleged cause of action of petitioners against the defendant
companies for damages occurred in the Philippines, demonstrate that, apart from the RTC having jurisdiction over
the subject matter in the instant civil cases, they are, indeed, the convenient fora for trying these cases.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby GRANTS the petitions for review on certiorari. We REVERSE and SET ASIDE the
Order of the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City, and REMAND the records of this case to the respective
Regional Trial Courts of origin for further and appropriate proceedings.

Navida VS Dizon GR No. 125078

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Navida VS Dizon GR No. 125078

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Navida VS Dizon GR No. 125078

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NAVIDA VS.

G.R. No. 125078 May 30, 2011

Facts of the Case

(1) participated in expedited discovery in the United States

Case 1 (GR. 125078)- bale 5 consolidated cases ni sya. hehe

You might also like