Title
Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A vs. Dow Chemical Co.
Case
G.R. No. 179232
Decision Date
Aug 23, 2012
Banana plantation workers sued corporations for health damages from DBCP exposure; cross-claims upheld despite settlements, Request for Admission deemed moot.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 211969)

Case Overview

On August 11, 1995, a Joint Complaint was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Panabo City, Davao del Norte, against several corporations, including the petitioners. The complaint alleged negligence in the handling of DBCP, leading to serious health issues for the plaintiffs. Subsequently, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to increase their numbers to 1,843 and drop certain defendants.

Proceedings and Compromises

The defendants filed answers along with counterclaims. Motions to dismiss were put forward, citing various grounds, including prior settlements with plaintiffs. Over the years, multiple motions and answers were filed, leading to numerous cross-claims and counterclaims between the defendants. On June 4, 2001, the Del Monte defendants sought to dismiss the amended complaint against them entirely, indicating that the majority of the claims had been paid or extinguished.

RTC Omnibus Order

An Omnibus Order was issued by the RTC on December 20, 2002, which approved the compromise agreements between some defendants and the plaintiffs. It dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against the Dow/Occidental defendants. The order also allowed for certain cross-claims to continue among the defendants.

Court of Appeals' Decision

Frustrated by the RTC's order, the Dow/Occidental defendants filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC erred in admitting the cross-claims filed by the other defendants, asserting they were belated and improper. On May 23, 2006, the CA affirmed the RTC order but modified it by dismissing certain cross-claims while allowing others to proceed.

Key Legal Issues

The primary legal issues addressed included whether the dismissal of the civil action against the Dow/Occidental defendants also resulted in the dismissal of the associated cross-claims and whether a Request for Admission filed by the Dow/Occidental defendants was proper. The CA ruled that the dismissal of the main complaint did not negate the viability of the cross-claims, particularly since the dismissals stemmed from compromise agreements rather than determinations of merit.

Conclusion of the Supreme

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.