G.R. No. 233852 - Western Sales Trading Co., Inc. vs. 7D Food International, Inc.

Western Sales Trading Company, Inc. (WSTC Guam) is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of Guam, U.S.A., with Western Sales Trading Company Philippines, Inc. (WSTC Philippines) as its wholly-owned subsidiary under Philippine laws. WSTC Guam imports Philippine products for sale and distribution in Guam.
7D Food International, Inc. (7D) is a Philippine corporation engaged in harvesting and processing dried mangoes, juices, and candies.

In 2012, 7D filed a complaint against WSTC Guam, WSTC Philippines, and John Does for breach of contract, judicial confirmation of rescission, nullity of instrument, and damages. The complaint alleged that petitioners violated a verbal exclusive distributorship agreement related to 7D Mango Products in Guam and Hawaii.
7D further alleged that WSTC Guam purchased competitor products (Star Sand Quality dried green mango from ECJ Farms) and distributed them in Hawaii and Guam, and that petitioners tortiously interfered with 7D’s new distributor abroad through filing suits against them.

Petitioners filed a special appearance and motion to question the summons service—arguing Bello Lumintigar was not an officer or agent of WSTC Guam but treasurer of WSTC Philippines.
They later submitted an Answer Ad Cautelam, reserving their rights to question jurisdiction and dismiss the complaint on grounds that WSTC Guam was not doing business locally and WSTC Philippines was a separate legal entity not privy to the distributorship agreement. Thus, service on WSTC Philippines was improper.
On the merits, petitioners claimed the only contract was a one-year exclusive distributorship agreement from July 2003 to June 2004 in Hawaii. They denied selling competitor products and attributed the termination of any contract to 7D.
Petitioners also invoked the principle of forum non conveniens, highlighting pending litigations in courts of Guam and Hawaii regarding the same subject matter, and called out 7D’s alleged forum shopping.
They counterclaimed for actual and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses.

On April 10, 2013, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 56, Mandaue City dismissed 7D’s complaint on grounds of forum shopping and litis pendentia, given the pendency of similar cases before Guam and Hawaii courts.
RTC found similarity in causes of action and noted that a judgment abroad would be res judicata.
The RTC also ruled that petitioners’ motion for extension with reservation of rights constituted voluntary appearance and validated jurisdiction over their persons.
Motions for reconsideration by both parties were denied by the RTC on April 13, 2015.

On April 27, 2017, the CA reversed the RTC’s dismissal and ordered remand for further proceedings.
The CA held that the mere unverified allegations and machine copies of foreign court pleadings attached by petitioners were insufficient to prove existence and authenticity of the foreign cases.
Referencing Rules of Court on authentication of documents (Sections 19-33, Rule 132), the CA underscored that factual controversies on litis pendentia and forum shopping require presentation and evaluation of evidence, not dismissal based on mere allegations.
The CA observed that the foreign judgments presented lacked proper showing of filing for recognition in Philippine courts and thus could not be accorded due weight.
The CA also indicated that the principle of forum non conveniens, a conflict of law problem, requires evidentiary showing and analysis of private and public factors to determine the most convenient forum.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the CA decision was denied on August 16, 2017.

The procedural correctness of the appeal, arguing that 7D filed its Motion for Reconsideration beyond the 15-day period, making the RTC Order final and executory. They contended the CA should have dismissed the appeal outright.
The deficiency of 7D’s Appellant’s Brief for lack of proper references to the records.
The substantive correctness of the RTC’s dismissal on grounds of litis pendentia, asserting that judicial admission by 7D should dispense with the authentication requirement for foreign pleadings.

7D countered that the appeal was timely, service of summons was proper, and strict authentication is required to prove foreign pleadings. They denied that any admission on litis pendentia and forum shopping was made.
Petitioners insisted that service on any counsel constituted valid notice and that 7D’s admission warranted dispensing with authentication rules.

Whether 7D’s Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC Order dated April 10, 2013 was filed beyond the reglementary period, thus rendering the RTC Order final and executory and the CA appeal moot.
Whether 7D’s Appellant’s Brief before the CA was so defectively lacking in record references as to warrant outright dismissal of the appeal.

Whether the CA properly remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings to allow presentation of evidence on the existence and pendency of the cases filed abroad, and properly ruled that authentication of foreign pleadings cannot be dispensed with despite petitioners’ claim of judicial admission by 7D.