Case Summary (G.R. No. 233852)
Relevant Dates and Procedural Background
- Complaint filed by 7D in 2012 for breach of contract and related claims against WSTC Guam, WSTC Philippines, and others.
- RTC Order dismissing the complaint dated April 10, 2013, citing forum shopping and litis pendentia.
- RTC denial of motions for reconsideration dated April 13, 2015.
- CA Decision dated April 27, 2017, reversing RTC dismissal and remanding case for further proceedings.
- CA Resolution dated August 16, 2017, denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
- Present petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioners with the Supreme Court.
Applicable Law
The case is governed primarily by the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the Rules of Court, particularly Rule 45 (Appeal by Petition for Review on Certiorari), Rules 13 (Filing and Service), 50 (Dismissal of Appeal), 129 (Judicial Notice), and 132 (Rules on Evidence regarding authentication and proof of documents).
Nature of the Dispute and Claims
7D alleged that petitioners violated their verbal agreement granting exclusive distributorship of 7D mango products in Guam and Hawaii. Petitioners denied this, asserting that their contract had expired, that they did not engage in prohibited sales, and that the dispute had already been subject of pending litigation in courts of Guam and Hawaii. Petitioners also asserted that WSTC Guam was not doing business in the Philippines and contended improper service of summons. They sought dismissal based on forum non conveniens and counterclaimed for damages.
RTC Decision and Rationale
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint citing forum shopping and litis pendentia, premised upon pendency of related cases in Guam and Hawaii concerning the distributorship agreement, indicating substantial overlap in parties, causes of action, and reliefs sought that would render a judgment in one jurisdiction res judicata in the other. Furthermore, the RTC found that petitioners’ voluntary appearance waived objections to jurisdiction.
CA Decision and Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, ruling that the documents evidencing the foreign cases lacked sufficient authentication and evidentiary weight to establish pendency and thus to support the application of forum shopping and litis pendentia doctrines. It held that mere allegations without evidence do not satisfy the factual inquiry necessary. The CA emphasized that Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign judgments or pleadings without proper proof as required under the Rules on Evidence. The CA also noted the need for factual determination concerning the application of forum non conveniens, which involves weighing public and private factors to ascertain the most appropriate forum, necessitating further proceedings.
Procedural Issues Raised by Petitioners
Petitioners contended that the RTC Order dismissing the case became final and executory due to 7D’s late filing of a motion for reconsideration and that the CA should have dismissed the appeal as untimely. They also challenged the sufficiency of 7D’s Appellant's Brief for failing to make proper references to records. The Supreme Court analyzed the rules on service and reckoning of appeal periods, applying the pre-2019 Rules of Court (as the events occurred before the 2019 amendments), concluding that service upon any counsel of record constituted notice to the party and other counsel. Therefore, the 15-day period to file a motion for reconsideration ran from the earliest date of receipt by any counsel, rendering 7D’s motion timely. Regarding the Appellant’s Brief defect, the Court acknowledged the discretion of the appellate court to overlook minor formal defects in favor of substantial justice.
Authentication and Proof of Foreign Pleadings
The Supreme Court clarified that pleadings and decisions from foreign courts are not subject to judicial notice and must be proven as facts following Rules on Evidence. They are akin to private documents requiring authentication establishing genuine execution before such foreign pleadings may be admitted as evidence. Allegations or admissions in a party’s pleadings regarding the existence of foreign cases do not constitute judicial admissions sufficient to dispense with evidentiary proof of authenticity. Judicial admissions must be clear, deliberate, and pertain to facts within the party’s knowledge, not legal conclusions or allegations. Thus, mere acknowledgment of foreign cases pending does not amount to an admission of the veracity or authenticity of foreign pleadings attached.
Legal Concepts: Litis Pendentia, Res Judicata, and Forum Shopping
The Court reiterated established jurisprudence defining litis pendentia as the existence of another pending action between the same parties involving the same cause of action, satisfying three requisites: identity of parties, identity of rights and reliefs claimed founded on the same facts, and identity of issues such that judgment in one case precludes the other. Res judicata bars subsequent suits when there is a final judgment on the merits by a competent court involving the same parties, subject matter, and causes of action. Forum shopping involves
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 233852)
Factual and Legal Background
- 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 organized under Philippine law.
- WSTC Guam imports Philippine products for 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 alleging that WSTC Guam and WSTC Philippines breached a verbal exclusive distributorship agreement concerning the sale of 7D Mango Products in Guam and Hawaii.
- 7D further complained that WSTC Guam bought competitor products (Star Sand Quality dried green mangoes) and that petitioners interfered tortiously with its new distributor by filing suits abroad.
- Petitioners responded with special appearances, motions, and an Answer Ad Cautelam, challenging jurisdiction, asserting distinct corporate personalities, and rejecting the substantive claims.
- Petitioners claimed the exclusive distributorship contract was an isolated written agreement valid only from July 2003 to June 2004 in Hawaii and denied selling competitor products or committing breaches.
- They also pointed to pending suits filed by WSTC Guam against 7D in Guam and Hawaii, alleging forum shopping by 7D for not disclosing these cases.
Proceedings at the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
- The RTC, in an April 10, 2013 Order, dismissed 7D’s complaint on grounds of forum shopping and litis pendentia, finding case similarity with pending suits abroad.
- The RTC ruled:
- The substantial issues in all cases pertained to breach of contract despite varying causes of action like fraud and unfair business practices.
- The similarity of causes of action meant the foreign cases would bar or res judicata the present complaint.
- Service of summons on WSTC Philippines and motions filed by petitioners amounted to voluntary appearance, establishing jurisdiction.
- Both parties’ motions for reconsideration were denied by the RTC in 2015.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA)
- The CA, in its April 27, 2017 Decision, reversed the RTC’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The CA found:
- The allegations in 7D’s unverified Complaint and petitioners’ Answer Ad Cautelam were insufficient evidentiary bases to prove existence and authenticity of the foreign pleadings on pending cases.
- The foreign court documents were machine copies lacking proper authentication, violating Sections 19-33 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
- The RTC should not resolve factual controversies, such as the existence of litis pendentia and res judicata, on mere allegations.
- Certified true copies of foreign judgments lacked due weight without proper petition for recognition filed before Philippine courts.
- In the interest of substantial justice, further proceedings were warranted to allow parties to substantiate their claims regarding foreign suits and raise forum non conveniens issues.
- The CA denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration in August 2017.
Issues on Appeal to the Supreme Court
- Petitioners raised procedural issues:
- The RTC Order dated April 10, 2013 had become final and executory due to 7D filing its Motion for Reconsideration beyond the 15-day reglementary period.
- 7D’s appeal to the CA was therefore filed out of time and should be dismissed outright.
- 7D’s Appellant’s Brief was defective for failing to include proper record r