SUMMARY OF CLAIMS UNDER THE FIRST TO FIFTEENTH
CAUSES OF ACTION
92. As tabulated in Annex C hereof, while the total amount actually paid by the buyers and collected by the PHILSUCOM and the Defendants NASUTRA, BENEDICTO, MONTEBON and TRB on the sales of export sugar subject of the preceding Causes of Action, amounted to US$ 94,146,954.03, the PHILSUCOM and the said Defendants recorded and reported a total collection of only US$60,239,781.56, resulting in an undervaluation of Defendant NASUTRA's export sales by US$ 33, 907,172.74 and, correspondingly, in an equivalent understatement of the amount due the Plaintiffs and other sugar producers in the profits realized from such sales, pursuant to the directive of then President Marcos as implemented in the PHILSUCOM SUGAR ORDERS hereto attached as Annexes B and B-1 hereof.
93. Accordingly, on the basis of their respective production of "A" and "C" sugar for the 1980-1981 crop year vis-á -vis the national production of 20,474,653 piculs of the same classes of sugar for the same crop year, the Plaintiffs are entitled to the payment by Defendants of their pro rata share, in the amounts indicated opposite their respective names in Annex C-1 hereof, in the undeclared profit of US$33,907,172.74 realized from the export sales, subject of the preceding Causes of Action, during the said crop year.11
x x x x
2. That, except for the case entitled Manuel Lacson v. Roberto S. Benedicto, et al., Civil Case 65156, Pasig, RTC Branch 264, filed by some of the Plaintiffs on June 20, 1995 and subsequently withdrawn by them without prejudice on November 14, 1995 pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule 17 prior to the filing of the present suit, Plaintiffs have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; that to the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; and if I or they should hereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or pending before the Supreme Court , Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, Plaintiffs and I hereby undertake to report such fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.18
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motions to Dismiss are hereby GRANTED. The case against all the defendants is ordered DISMISSED.
Furnish copies of this Order all counsel on record for their information.
SO ORDERED.20
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED and the Assailed Order dated June 5, 1996 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and in lieu thereof, a new one is entered ordering the REMAND of the case to the court of origin for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.25
5.1. WHEN IT ABSOLVED THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS OF ANY VIOLATION OF THE ANTI- FORUM SHOPPING RULE NOTWITHSTANDING THEIR (CONCEDED) FAILURE TO SEASONABLY APPRISE THE BACOLOD COURT OF THE EARLIER FILING OF A SIMILAR CASE BEFORE THE PASIG COURT, THE SAME BEING A MATERIAL INFORMATION THE NON- DISCLOSURE OR CONCEALMENT THEREOF CONSTITUTING AN INEXCUSABLE OMISSION CLEARLY PENALIZED UNDER THE PERTINENT SC CIRCULARS AND SECTION 5, RULE 7 OF THE NEW RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE;
5.2. WHEN IT REFUSED TO APPLY THE PRINCIPLE OF LITIS PENDENTIA NOTWITHSTANDING THE (CONCEDED) SIMILARITIES IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PLAINTIFFS, THE IDENTITIES OF THE DEFENDANTS AND, MOREOVER, THE SIMILARITIES IN SOME OF THE ANTECEDENT ISSUES IN CIVIL CASE NO. 95-9137 AND IN THE OTHER PENDING CASES AGAINST THE HEREIN PETITIONERS; and
5.3. WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT CIVIL CASE NO. 95-9137 DESERVES DISMISSAL, AT ANY RATE, BASED ON THE OTHER GROUNDS INVOKED BY THE HEREIN PETITIONERS, NAMELY, LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION, RES JUDICATA, PAYMENT AND PRESCRIPTION.27
SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping. - The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi- judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
x x x x
On November 14, 1995, A Notice of Dismissal was filed by plaintiffs thru counsel, Attys. Ricardo G. Nepomuceno, Jr. and Epifanio Sedigo, Jr., pursuant to Section 1, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court.
According to the said Rule, plaintiff may, at any time before service of answer, dismiss an action by filing a notice of dismissal.
Records show that no answer has yet been filed by defendants.
Being in conformity to the Rules, the same is hereby granted.
WHEREFORE, herein complaint is hereby DISMISSED and without prejudice to the re-filing thereof.
Notify parties and counsel of this Order.
SO ORDERED.29
Considering that the complaint in Civil Case No. 97-0523 was dismissed without prejudice by virtue of the plaintiff's (herein petitioner's) Notice of Dismissal dated November 20, 1997 filed pursuant to Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, there is no need to state in the certificate of non-forum shopping in Civil Case No. 97-0608 about the prior filing and dismissal of Civil Case No. 97-0523. In Gabionza v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that it is scarcely necessary to add that Circular No. 28-91 (now Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) must be so interpreted and applied as to achieve the purposes projected by the Supreme Court when it promulgated that Circular. Circular No. 28-91 was designed to serve as an instrument to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules or procedure - which is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible. The fact that the Circular requires that it be strictly complied with merely underscores its mandatory nature in that it cannot be dispensed with or its requirements altogether disregarded, but it does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances.
Thus, an omission in the certificate of non-forum shopping about any event that would not constitute res judicata and litis pendencia as in the case at bar, is not fatal as to merit the dismissal and nullification of the entire proceedings considering that the evils sought to be prevented by the said certificate are not present. It is in this light that we ruled in Maricalum Mining Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission that a liberal interpretation of Supreme Court Circular No. 04-94 on non-forum shopping would be more in keeping with the objectives of procedural rules which is to "secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding."36
Our perusal of the record reveals that forum shopping cannot, indeed, be attributed to the appellants. While it may be readily conceded that the plaintiffs in the instant case are more or less similarly situated as the plaintiffs in the cases previously filed and that the defendants, or at least the interest they represent, are basically the same, the fact remains that there is no identity of causes of action and issues in the cases so far filed against the latter. The instant suit, as may be gleaned from the complaint, concerns the supposed undervaluation by the appellees of fifteen (15) sugar export sales of the appellants' export sugar production for the crop years 1979-1980 and 1980-1981 (pp. 3-32, Orig. Rec.). In contrast, Civil Case No. 4301, entitled " Hector Lacson, et al. vs. National Sugar Trading Corporation, et al." concerns the overcharging of trading costs for the plaintiffs' export sugar production for the crop years 1981-1982 and 1982-1983, underpayment resulting from the defendants' use of an erroneous peso-dollar exchange rate and reimbursement for amounts alleged to have been wrongfully withheld by the latter (pp. 163-171, ibid.) On the other hand, Civil Case No. 88-46368 entitled "Ramon Monfort, et al. vs. Philippine Sugar Commission, et al. " concerned the deficiency due the plaintiffs therein from sugar export sales for which a lower exchange rate was allegedly used by the defendants, the recovery, among others, of excessive trading costs charged, unauthorized deductions, damages, premiums and other sums supposedly still due from the defendants, as well as a detailed accounting of the sales of the export sugar produced by the plaintiffs therein. While the amended complaint filed in the case also sought to claim differentials for three (3) under-valued/under-declared NASUTRA export sales from the crop year 1980-1981 harvest, the same significantly pertained to different shipments and were coursed not through appellee Traders' Royal Bank but through the Republic Planters Bank (pp. 246-271, ibid). The variance in the subject matters of the instant case and the aforesaid cases are even conceded in the brief filed by appellee Roberto Benedicto (pp. 153-155, Rollo).45
In view of the sufficiency of the grounds for dismissal discussed above, the other grounds invoked by the defendants in their Motion to Dismiss, which do not appear to be indubitable without additional evidence need not be considered.48
Endnotes:
* Designated as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. per Raffle dated April 28, 2010.
1 Rollo, pp. 12-59.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Fermin A. Martin, Jr., with Associate Justices B.A. Adefuin-dela Cruz and Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (now a member of this Court), concurring; id. at 64-89.
3 Id. at 91-92.
4 Promulgated on February 2, 1974, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1192 dated September 2, 1977.
5 Note that Robert S. Benedicto died on May 15, 2000 as evidenced by a Certificate of Death; rollo, p. 686. Per this Court's June 20, 2001 Resolution, Robert S. Benedicto has been substituted by the administratix of his estate; i d. at 719.
6 Note this Court's December 11, 2006 First Division Resolution wherein Traders Royal Bank's motion to withdraw as co-petitioner was granted on the basis of an amicable settlement/compromise agreement with respondents; id. at 1065.
7 Rollo, pp. 132-161.
8 PHILSUCOM SUGAR ORDER NO. 2
Series of 1979-1980
x x x x
1. The sugar pertaining to the 1979-1980 crop shall continue to be liquidated by NASUTRA at the following prices without prejudice to future adjustments as circumstances may warrant:
"A" (Export Sugar) ” ” ” -P 90.00 per picul
"C" (Reserve Sugar) ” ” ” - 90.00 per picul
"B" (Domestic Sugar) ” ” - 110.00 per picul
"B" (Washed Sugar) ” ” ” -124.00 per picul
2. That in addition to these prices, an additional price on "A" and "C" sugars of the 1979-80 crop which are exported equivalent to 50% of the export profits of NASUTRA over and above its break- even cost shall be paid to the producers (planters and millers) on a quarterly and pro rata basis beginning the end of the first quarter of calendar year 1980. The balance of 50% of such export profits of NASUTRA shall be applied to the full repayment of the PHILSUCOM-NASUTRA loans above-mentioned.
3. That this order shall apply retroactively to all sugars already produced since the start of milling of the 1979-1980 crops and prospectively to all sugars still to be produced up to the end of crop year 1979-1980. x x x; id. at 177-178.
9 PHILSUCOM SUGAR ORDER NO. 1
Series of 1980-1981
x x x x
2. That sugar pertaining to the 1980-1981 crop shall be liquidated by NASUTRA at the following prices, without prejudice to future adjustments as circumstances may warrant:
"A" (Export Sugar) ” ” ” ” - P 115.00 per picul
"C" (Reserve Sugar) ” ” ” ” - 115.00 per picul
"B" (Domestic Sugar) ” ” ” ” 110.00 per picul
"B" (Washed Sugar) ” ” ” ” ” 124.20 per picul
In addition to the above-stated liquidation price for "A" and "C" Sugar of the 1980-1981 crop, an additional price for the same classes of sugar which are exported equivalent to 50% of the export profits of NASUTRA over and above it break-even cost shall be paid to the producers (planters and millers) on a quarterly and pro rata basis beginning with the first quarter of calendar year 1981. The remaining 50% of such export profits of NASUTRA shall be applied to the repayment of loans from local and foreign sources contracted by PHILSUCOM-NASUTRA to support the liquidation prices paid to the producers which were at a level higher than export prices prevailing in the world market.
The above stated liquidation prices for crop year 1980-1981 shall apply retroactively to all sugars already produced since September 1, 1980 and prospectively to all sugars still to be produced up to the end of August 1981. x x x ; id. at 175-176.
10 "Summary of Undervalued/ Under-Declared Nasutra Export Sales Coursed Thru TRB;" id. at 179.
Shipment | Vessel | Quantity | Actual | Reported | Undervaluation |
Date | | | Collection | Collection | |
| | | | | |
10/25/80 | MV Fairwind | 450.00 LT | $266,716.80 | $153,115.20 | $113,601.60 |
11/13/80 | MV Dona | 24,350.00LT | 10,524,722.40 | 10,359,697.60 | 183,024.80 |
| Corazon | | | | |
12/02/80 | MV Dona | 725.00 LT | 429,710.40 | 246,685.60 | 183,024.80 |
| Magdalena | | | | |
12/10/80 | MV Centurion | 22,800.00LT | 13,375,756.80 | 7,757,836.80 | 5,617,920.00 |
| Bulker | | | | |
01/21/81 | MV Tauros | 25,565.00LT | 16,327,592.82 | 9,373,247.73 | 6,954,345.09 |
01/27/81 | MV Union | 7,800.00 LT | 4,506,102.67 | 2,751,273.91 | 1,754,828.76 |
| Caribbean | | | | |
12/22/80 | MV Silver | 10,000.00LT | 6,079,494.04 | 3,422,361.71 | 2,657,132.33 |
| Wave | | | | |
01/02/81 | MV Caribbean | 6,213.90 LT | 3,646,837.25 | 2,052,933.37 | 1,593,903.88 |
| Ace | | | | |
01/02/81 | MV Hokuho | 4,467.40 LT | 2,621,844.69 | 1,475,928.89 | 1,145,915.80 |
| Maru | | | | |
01/29/81 | MV Capitan | 14,763.78LT | 9,017,954.18 | 5,228,288.37 | 3,789,665.81 |
| Kushnarenko | | | | |
01/30/81 | MV Irene | 8,858.26 LT | 5,678,577.25 | 4,649,332.99 | 1,029,244.26 |
02/02/81 | MV Sophia | 11,000.00MT | 6,353,729.95 | 3,683,666.14 | 2,670,063.81 |
02/19/81 | MV Ios | 2,670.08 LT | 1,668,653.57 | 1,222,970.89 | 445,682.68 |
03/10/81 | MV Faith Five | 306.68 MT | 117,610.01 | 104,605.56 | 13,004.45 |
06/02/81 | MV Dona Magdalena | 22,800.00 LT | 13,513,651.20 | 7,757,836.80 | 5,755,814.40 |
TOTALS | | | $94,146,954.03 | $60,239,781.56 | $33,907,172.47 |
11 Rollo, pp. 158-159.
12 Id. at 74.
13 Id. at 192-216.
14 Id. at 74.
15 Id. at 74-75.
16 Id. at 75.
17 Id. at 217-268.
18 Id. at 76. (Emphasis supplied.)
19 Id. at 400-405.
20 Id. at 405.
21 Id. at 403.
22 Id. at 404.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Id. at 88.
26 Id. at 594-604.
27 Id. at 23.
28 Id. at 130-131.
29 Id. (Emphasis supplied.)
30 Heirs of Trinidad de Leon Vda. De Roxas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138660, February 5, 2004, 422 SCRA 101.
31 Executive Secretary v. Gordon, G.R. No. 134171, November 18, 1998, 298 SCRA 736, 740.
32 Marcopper Mining Corporation v. Solidbank Corporation, G.R. No. 134049, June 17, 2004, 432 SCRA 360, citing cases.
33 Section 1, Rule 17 of the Revised Rules of Court states:
SECTION 1. Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff. - A complaint may be dismissed by the plaintiff by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service of the answer or of a motion for summary judgment. Upon such notice being filed, the court shall issue an order confirming the dismissal. Unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without prejudice, x x x.
34 Executive Secretary v. Gordon, supra note 31, at 741.
35 415 Phil. 430 (2001).
36 Id at 445. (Emphasis supplied.)
37 Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad, G.R. No. 154798, October 20, 2005, 473 SCRA 559, 566.
38 Dalton-Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 149580, March 16, 2005, 453 SCRA 498, 508.
39 Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Angara, G.R. No. 142937, November 15, 2005, 475 SCRA 41, 53.
40 Heavylift Manila, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 154410, October 20, 2005, 473 SCRA 541, 547.
41 Asian Spirit Airlines (Airline Employees Cooperative) v. Bautista, G.R. No. 164668, February 14, 2005, 451 SCRA 294, 301.
42 Dayot v. Shell Chemical Company (Phils.) Inc., G.R. No. 156542, June 26, 2007, 525 SCRA 535, 545-546; Abines v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 167900, February 13, 2006, 482 SCRA 421, 429.
43 Sherwill Development Corporation v. Sitio Sto. Niño Residents Association, Inc., G.R. No. 158455, June 28, 2005, 461 SCRA 517, 531.
44 Forbes Park Association, Inc. v. Pagrel, Inc., G.R. No. 153821, February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA 39, 49.
45 Rollo, pp. 82-83. (Underscoring supplied.)
46 Vda. de Cruzo v. Carriaga, Jr., G.R. Nos. 75109-10, June 28, 1989, 174 SCRA 330, 342.
47 Rollo, p. 82.
48 Id. at 404.
49 Españo, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 983, 987-988 (1997).