Case Summary (G.R. No. 206005)
Petitioner’s Claim and Procedural History
Original complaint filed October 10, 1998 in Davao City RTC; dismissed without prejudice by the Court of Appeals (October 2002) for improper service. Final judgment entered June 2, 2009. Complaint refiled September 9, 2010. RTC issued orders (February 2011) allowing pauper status and directing extraterritorial service of summons through the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA). Respondents moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a cause of action, prescription, and pauper litigant qualification. RTC dismissed the complaint; motions for reconsideration denied. Petition for Review under Rule 45 filed before the Supreme Court.
Applicable Law
Constitutional Basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Service Rules: 1997 Revised Rules of Court, Rule 14, Sections 6, 12 and 15; as amended by A.M. No. 11-3-6-SC effective March 14, 2011.
Cause of Action: Rule 2, Section 2; Rule 3, Section 2; Civil Code Arts. 1106, 1139, 1146, 1150; actions for quasi-delict prescriptive period of four (4) years (Art. 1146).
Prescriptive Interruption: CIVIL CODE, Art. 1155; jurisprudence on fresh running of prescription.
Validity of Service of Summons
• Rule 14, Section 12 (1997 Rules) applies to any foreign private juridical entity that has “transacted business” in the Philippines, a broader test than “doing business.”
• Sufficient allegations: respondents “have manufactured, sold, distributed … in commerce … in the Philippines.”
• Extraterritorial service authorized under amended Section 12 for entities with no resident agent: personal service through foreign court with DFA assistance, publication, mail or electronic means.
• Amendments are procedural and apply retroactively to pending cases.
• Service through DFA and Philippine Consulate—no contrary evidence presented. Bare assertions of mail-only service do not overcome presumption of regularity in performance of official duties (Rules of Court, Rule 131, Sec. 3(m)).
• Conclusion: summons was validly served; RTC acquired jurisdiction over respondents.
Sufficiency of Cause of Action and Real Party in Interest
• A cause of action exists where plaintiff alleges a right, defendant’s obligation, and defendant’s wrongful act or omission.
• Quasi-delict: negligent manufacture, distribution, and failure to warn of DBCP hazards causing personal injuries (cancer, sterility, reproductive harm).
• SAGING filed “with its members,” supported by an annexed list and special powers of attorney authorizing representation.
• Non-joinder in case title is a technical defect correctable by amendment under Rule 3, Section 11; does not defeat the cause of action.
• Conclusion: complaint states a cause of action by real parties in interest; dismissal on this ground was erroneous.
Prescription and Laches
• Four-year prescriptive p
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 206005)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioners SAGING (formerly Davao Banana Plantation Workers Association of Tiburcia, Inc.), its chairperson Arturo G. Luardo, and numerous members allege injuries from exposure to nematocides containing dibromochloropropane (DBCP) used in banana plantations in the 1970s–1980s.
- They claim that respondents, foreign corporations organized under U.S. state laws (Delaware, Hawaii, Florida), manufactured, sold, and distributed DBCP without adequate warnings, instructions, or safety measures.
- Petitioners assert that exposure caused serious, permanent health harm—cancer, sterility, reproductive injuries—and seek moral (₱3,000,000), nominal (₱1,000,000), exemplary damages (₱1,000,000), and 25% attorneys’ fees.
- Luardo and the law firm of Atty. Rodolfo B. Ta-asan, Jr. and/or Atty. Lorenzo B. Ta-asan, III acted as attorneys-in-fact for members by special power of attorney (Annex B).
Procedural History
- October 10, 1998: Original complaint filed with the RTC, Davao City (Civil Case No. 33766-11).
- October 3, 2002: Court of Appeals dismisses without prejudice for improper service of summons.
- June 2, 2009: Supreme Court issues Entry of Judgment, docketed G.R. No. 165958–59.
- September 9, 2010: Petitioners refile complaint.
- January 28, 2011 & February 11, 2011: RTC grants pauper status and orders extraterritorial service of summons via Department of Foreign Affairs.
- Respondents DOLE Companies and Del Monte Corporations file Motions to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a cause of action, prescription, and pauperlit status challenges.
- August 31 & November 6, 2012: RTC grants motions, dismisses complaint.
- February 14, 2013: RTC denies motions for reconsideration.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court; memoranda and comments exchanged.
Issues Presented
- Whether the service of summons on foreign respondents was valid, thereby conferring personal jurisdiction.
- Whether the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action and names the real parties in interest.
- Whether the action is barred by prescription or laches.
Service of Summons and Jurisdiction
- Rule 14, Sec. 12 (1997 Rules) allows service on