Title
Supreme Court
Stanfilco Employees Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Multi-Purpose Cooperative vs. Dole Philippines, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 154048
Decision Date
Nov 27, 2009
DOLE sued SEARBEMCO for breaching a banana purchase agreement by selling rejected bananas to a competitor, with courts ruling it a contractual dispute under regular jurisdiction, not agrarian.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 154048)

Factual Background

On January 29, 1998, SEARBEMCO and Dole Philippines, Inc. entered into a Banana Production and Purchase Agreement (BPPA). The agreement stipulated that SEARBEMCO would sell exclusively to Dole the Cavendish bananas produced on SEARBEMCO's plantation, which encompasses approximately 351.6367 hectares. The BPPA specified that any rejected bananas by Dole could only be sold by SEARBEMCO for domestic non-export consumption.

Initial Dispute and Legal Proceedings

On December 11, 2000, Dole filed a complaint against SEARBEMCO, the Abujos, and Oribanex Services, Inc., asserting claims for specific performance and damages. Dole contended that SEARBEMCO violated the BPPA by selling rejected bananas to Oribanex for export, undermining the terms of the agreement. Dole's complaint detailed the discovery of SEARBEMCO packing and selling these rejected bananas marked for specific branding to Oribanex, Dole's competitor in the banana export market.

SEARBEMCO's Defense

In response, SEARBEMCO filed a motion to dismiss, contesting jurisdiction and claiming that the matter constituted an agrarian dispute, which should be adjudicated by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) based on existing administrative orders. SEARBEMCO asserted that the complaint did not adhere to arbitration as a prerequisite to litigation, contesting the validity of Dole's claims.

RTC Ruling

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied SEARBEMCO's motion to dismiss, stating the case did not involve agrarian conflict but rather constituted a breach of contract, which falls under judicial jurisdiction. SEARBEMCO's subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied, leading SEARBEMCO to seek certiorari from the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals Decision

In its ruling on November 27, 2001, the Court of Appeals upheld the RTC's findings, concluding that the RTC acted correctly and did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The appellate court determined that disputes involving specific performance of contracts, such as the BPPA, did not fall under the jurisdiction of DARAB as they did not involve agrarian relationships or tenurial issues.

Legal Analysis of Jurisdiction and Cause of Action

The primary legal question revolved around whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the case and whether Dole's complaint stated a valid cause of action. SEARBEMCO argued that the matter qualified as an agrarian dispute under RA 6657 and associated administrative guidelines, asserting the involvement of an agrarian relationship with required jurisdiction by DARAB.

However, the court clarified that an agrarian dispute requires a tenurial relationship, which SEARBEMCO failed to demonstrate between itself and Dole. The legal framework under RA 6657 and its interpretations necessitate proof of a tenancy relationship, which was absent. Instead, the relationship was deemed co

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.