G.R. No. 131502 - Ong Ching Klan Chung vs. China National Cereals Oil and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corp.

On September 16, 1993, Wilson Ong Ching Kian Chuan (doing business as C.K.C. Trading) filed a Complaint for Infringement of Copyright before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 94, Quezon City, docketed as Q-93-17628.
The complaint alleged infringement relating to a copyrighted cellophane wrapper with a two-dragons designed label used for vermicelli (sotanghon).
On the same day, a temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued enjoining the defendant Lorenzo Tan and his distributors from selling vermicelli with the disputed label.
On October 13, 1993, the RTC granted a writ of preliminary injunction and set the pre-trial for November 12, 1993.
In December 1993, the Court denied the defendant’s motion to dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction.

On January 5, 1994, respondents China National Cereals Oils & Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation (CEROILFOOD SHANDONG) and Benjamin Irao, Jr. filed a Complaint for Annulment/Cancellation of Copyright Certificate No. 0-93-491 and damages before the RTC, Branch 33, Manila (Civil Case No. 94-68836).
On January 7, 1994, Manila RTC issued a TRO enjoining petitioner Wilson Ong from using his copyrighted labels and selling vermicelli similar to respondents’.
Petitioner moved to dissolve the TRO and prayed for dismissal on grounds including litis pendentia, lack of jurisdiction of respondents (a foreign corporation without license), and that the case concerned copyright, not trademarks.
On January 27, 1994, the Manila RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of respondents and denied the motion to dismiss.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) to annul the Manila court’s January 27 order.

On July 22, 1994, the CA granted petitioner’s certiorari petition, annulling and setting aside the Manila court’s January 27, 1994 order.
The CA ruled that the Manila case involved litis pendentia, multiplicity of suits, and forum shopping because it involved practically the same parties, subject matter, and relief as the Quezon City case.
The CA held that the real matter could be fully resolved in Quezon City, rendering the Manila case dismissible without prejudice to Quezon City proceedings.
On September 5, 1994, the CA denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration; the decision became final on October 3, 1994.
On November 21, 1994, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the Manila case based on the CA’s ruling.
The Manila RTC held in abeyance the motion to dismiss pending reception of evidence and, later, denied the motion to declare petitioner in default for failure to file an answer, admitted motu proprio the motion to dismiss as petitioner’s answer, and directed submission of pre-trial briefs.
Petitioner then filed a motion for writ of execution for dismissal of the Manila case citing forum shopping by counsel.
On November 20, 1997, the Manila RTC rendered a judgment on the pleadings favoring respondents, ruling there was no litis pendentia, multiplicity of suits, or forum shopping.

Petitioners contend that the CA’s findings and rulings constitute the "law of the case" and bind the RTC in Manila.
They argue the Manila RTC erred in reexamining issues already settled by the CA.
Petitioners point out procedural infirmity where the Manila court treated a motion to dismiss as an answer and rendered judgment on the pleadings, even though a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading.
Respondents argue that the law of the case doctrine is inapplicable because the CA did not order dismissal of the Manila case, only annulment of the preliminary injunction; further, the Manila RTC decision was correct.

Whether the legal pronouncements of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 33178 regarding dismissal of the Manila case on grounds of litis pendentia, multiplicity of suits, and forum shopping constitute the "law of the case."

Whether the Regional Trial Judge of Branch 33, Manila erred in not applying the law of the case established by the Court of Appeals.

Whether the Manila RTC can review or overturn the legal conclusions of the Court of Appeals in the same case under the same facts and issues.

Whether the Manila RTC erred in motu proprio considering petitioner’s motion to dismiss as an answer and in rendering judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the motion to dismiss did not tender an issue.