G.R. No. 179232 Case Digest

G.R. No. 179232, August 23, 2012

Del Monte Fresh Produce, petitioner

vs DOW Chemical Company, etc., respondents

G.R. No. 179290

DOW Chamical Company and Occidental Chemical Corp., petitioners

vs Hon. Jesus Grageda, etc., respondents

Ponente: Villarama

Facts:

August 11, 1995, a joint complaint for damages based on quasi-delict was filed before the RTC of Panabo City, Davao by 1,185 individuals against Del Monte, Dow Chemical Corporations and other companies alleging that the companies were negligent in the manufacture, distribution and sale or in not informing the users of the hazardous effects of the chemical they used. They said that they were exposed to the chemicals since 1970s that they suffered serious and permanent injuries to their health.

Del Monte filed motions/oppositions saying that the complaint must be dismissed because the claimants had been paid, waived, abandoned and extinguish their rights in effect of their compromise agreement with the claimants.

Court rendered that all other motions filed by the parties in relation to or in connection to the issues hereinabove resolved but which have been wittingly or unwittingly left unresolved are hereby considered moot and academic; likewise, all previous orders contrary to or not in accordance with the foregoing resolutions are hereby reconsidered, set aside and vacated.

The Dow/Occidental defendants argue, among others, that the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it did not dismiss the cross-claims filed by the Dole, Del Monte and Chiquita defendants despite the following: (1) the cross-claims were already filed beyond the reglementary period; and (2) the complaint against them and the Del Monte and Chiquita defendants, including their respective counterclaims, were already dismissed on the basis of the compromise agreements they each had with the plaintiffs.

The CA, however, ruled that the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it admitted the cross-claims against the Dow/Occidental defendants without any qualification. It held that only the cross-claims filed by the Dole defendants, the Chiquita defendants (with respect to the claims of James Bagas and Dante Bautista) and the Del Monte defendants (with respect to the 16 non-compromising plaintiffs) against the Dow/Occidental defendants can be rightly admitted by the RTC.

Unsatisfied, the Dow/Occidental defendants, as petitioners in G.R. No. 179290, come to this Court arguing that the CA committed reversible error in not finding that the cross-claims of the Dole, Del Monte and Chiquita defendants should all be dismissed and the Request for Admission was timely filed and proper.

Issues:

(1) Does the dismissal of the civil case against the Dow/Occidental defendants carry with it the dismissal of cross-claims against them? (2) Is the Request for Admission by the Dow/Occidental defendants proper?

Held:

Deny the petitions.

There are two requisites for a court to allow an omitted counterclaim or cross-claim by amendment: (1) there was oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires; and (2) the amendment is made before judgment.

The CA correctly held that there is basis for allowing the cross-claims of the Dole, Del Monte and Chiquita defendants against the Dow/Occidental defendants as they complied with the rules. It is undisputed that the Dole, Del Monte and Chiquita defendants sought to amend their answers to include their cross-claims before judgment. More importantly, justice requires that they be allowed to do so in consonance with the policy against multiplicity of suits.

We also uphold the appellate court’s ruling that the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it admitted the cross-claims against the Dow/Occidental defendants without any qualification. The Del Monte and Chiquita defendants’ cross-claims against the Dow/Occidental defendants cannot extend to the plaintiffs with whom they had settled.