G.R. No. 125078 - Navida vs. Dizon

Since 1993, multiple personal injury suits were filed in Texas state courts by citizens of twelve foreign countries, including Filipino plaintiffs, alleging damages from exposure to dibromochloropropane (DBCP), a nematocide used in farms in 23 countries.
These cases, including Philippine plaintiffs' cases ("Jorge Colindres Carcamo, et al. v. Shell Oil Co." and "Juan Ramon Valdez, et al. v. Shell Oil Co."), were consolidated in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
The Federal Court conditionally dismissed the cases based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, requiring plaintiffs to file the action in their home country or the country where injury occurred within specified time conditions.

Pursuant to the U.S. Court order, 336 Filipino plaintiffs from General Santos City (NAVIDA, et al.) filed Civil Case No. 5617 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of General Santos City on August 10, 1995 against Shell Oil Co., Dow Chemical Co., Occidental Chemical Corp., Dole Food Co., Chiquita Brands, Del Monte Fresh Produce, and others (hereinafter “defendant companies”).
Plaintiffs claimed damages for sterility and reproductive system injuries caused by exposure to DBCP during the 1970s and 1980s while working or residing near banana plantations in the Philippines where DBCP was used.
Defendant companies filed Motions for Bill of Particulars; Dow filed an Answer with Counterclaim; plaintiffs filed an Amended Joint Complaint on March 13, 1996 excluding certain defendants.

On May 20, 1996, the RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, ruling that:

The activity complained of (manufacture, packaging, distribution of DBCP) occurred outside Philippine territory;
The tort alleged (product liability) is not recognized in Philippine law;
The filing in the Philippines was coerced by the U.S. Court’s condition for dismissal to keep the option to return to the U.S. Court;
The defendants’ submission to jurisdiction was conditional and ineffective;
The cases in the Philippines violated the rules on forum shopping and litis pendencia because the U.S. case was still pending and concurrent jurisdiction existed.

On June 4, 1996, the RTC dismissed Dow’s Counterclaim; on July 9, 1996, the RTC acknowledged loss of jurisdiction due to the appeal filed in the Supreme Court.
Several motions for reconsideration by defendants were filed but the RTC held it lost jurisdiction.

A similar complaint was filed by 155 plaintiffs from Davao City (ABELLA, et al.) in Civil Case No. 24,251-96 against the same defendant companies, alleging similar tortious conduct and injuries from exposure to DBCP in banana plantations in the Philippines.
Most defendants filed motions for bill of particulars; Dow and Del Monte answered.
RTC of Davao City dismissed the case motu proprio on October 1, 1996 citing:

The presiding judge inhibited himself, the case was re-raffled and dismissal was affirmed on December 16, 1996.

These cases were consolidated before the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 125078, 125598, 126654, 127856, and 128398).
Settlements were entered into with Dow, Occidental, and Shell, leading to motions to drop them as party respondents; some cross-claims remained in dispute with other defendant companies like Del Monte, Dole, and Chiquita.
The Supreme Court required parties to file memoranda on the issues raised.
Dow and Occidental later moved to withdraw their petitions, which the Court granted.

Whether the RTC of General Santos City and RTC of Davao City had jurisdiction over the subject matter of these cases.
Whether the asserted tort (product liability for DBCP exposure causing sterility) is recognized under Philippine law such that the courts may exercise jurisdiction.
Whether the filing of the cases in Philippine courts constitutes improper forum shopping or litis pendencia considering the concurrent U.S. proceedings.
Whether the RTCs acquired jurisdiction over the person of defendant companies.

Whether the amicable settlements with some defendant companies (Dow, Occidental, Shell, and later Del Monte and Chiquita) entitle the plaintiffs to drop those companies as respondents.
Whether non-settling defendant companies may still pursue cross-claims against those who settled.

Whether dismissal of the case for reliance on newspaper reports and legal opinions without evidentiary hearing was proper.
Whether the plaintiffs acted in bad faith in filing cases in Philippine courts merely to facilitate dismissal.