Case Digest (G.R. No. 189102)
Facts:
Chiquita Brands, Inc. and Chiquita Brands International, Inc., G.R. No. 189102, June 07, 2017, the Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners seek relief by petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to prevent enforcement of a judicially approved compromise in Civil Case No. 95-45 and to nullify several writs and orders issued by the Regional Trial Courts of Panabo City and Davao City.On August 31, 1993 thousands of banana workers sued multiple multinational corporations in the United States alleging injuries from DBCP exposure. U.S. courts dismissed on forum non conveniens and directed claimants to sue in their home countries. On May 3, 1996, 1,843 Filipino claimants filed Civil Case No. 95-45 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Panabo City (Branch 4, Judge Jesus L. Grageda). Several defendants — including the Chiquita entities, Dow, Occidental, Shell, and Del Monte — entered a worldwide settlement and executed a Compromise Settlement, Indemnity, and Hold Harmless Agreement (the Compromise Agreement) providing, inter alia, payment into an escrow administered by a designated mediator (M.A. “Mickey” Mills), procedures for individual releases, and a Clause 25 stating the agreement shall “inure to the benefit of and be binding upon … subsidiaries, affiliates … successors, and assigns.” The Compromise specified Texas law to govern interpretation.
The RTC, Panabo City approved the Compromise by an Omnibus Order dated December 20, 2002 (judgment on compromise) and dismissed claims against settling defendants. Claimants later moved for execution. The Panabo court issued a writ of execution (April 23, 2003) ordering collection from defendants (specified amounts per claimant). Defendants opposed execution, asserting compliance by depositing settlement funds into the escrow and pointing to quitclaims signed by some claimants. Panabo court suspended execution to receive evidence abroad and ordered reception of evidence at the Philippine Consulate in San Francisco; Judge Grageda presided over those proceedings, later held administratively liable in Maquiran v. Grageda for conducting proceedings abroad without authority.
After proceedings in San Francisco (August–September 2003) produced authenticated copies of release documents, allied evidence (special powers, depositions) was interposed. Hostility and threats at Panabo led to Judge Grageda’s inhibition and transfer of the case to RTC, Davao City (Branch 14, Judge George E. Omelio). The Davao court (Omnibus Order, Dec. 14, 2006) lifted suspension as to Chiquita and Del Monte and ordered implementation of the writ. Later orders (July 10, 2009; Amended Order Aug. 11, 2009) amended the writ to include petitioners’ subsidiaries, affiliates, controlled and related entities, successors and assigns and imposed solidary liability; an Amended Writ (July 31, 2009) and Alias Writ (Aug. 12, 2009) followed.
Chiquita filed a Rule 65 petition in the Supreme Court (Aug. 26, 2009), seeking annulment of the writ and orders as issued with grave abuse of discretion, arguing (inter alia) the Compromise required only deposit into escrow (mediator to distribute), the Panabo proceedings were invalid, the writ improperly varied the judicial compromise by ordering direct payment and by extending liability to non-parties and subsidiaries, ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does this case fall within an exception to the doctrine on hierarchy of courts permitting direct relief from the Supreme Court?
- Did the respondent courts commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing and implementing the writs and orders (including ordering direct payment and imposing solidary liability on subsidiaries/affiliates)?
- Should Judge George E. Omelio be ordered to inhibit himself from fu...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)