Benedicto v.

Lacson
GR 142508; May 5, 2010
Topic: Dismissal of Action Rule 17
Ponente: Peralta, J.
Facts:
1. Presidential Decree No. 388 - the Philippine
Sugar Commission (PHILSUCOM) was
created and vested with the power to act as
the single buying and selling agency of
sugar in the Philippines.
2. Sept.
7,
2977
PHILSUCOM
further
organized the National Sugar Trading
Corporation (NASUTRA) as its buying
marketing arm.
3. Petitioner: Robert S. Benedicto was the
concurrent Chairman and President of
Traders Royal Bank and NASUTRA.
Cases involved:
A. Bacolod Case: filed by respondents
individual sugar planters and agricultural
corporations (Manuel et.al) [RTC Bacolod
Branch 44]
a. Premised on claim for unpaid shares
based on Sugar Orders 1 & 2 issued
by PHILSUCOM.
b. Covered the sugar export sales
supposedly undervalued by NASUTRA

and coursed through Traders Royal

Bank. ($33,907,172.47)
c. Benedicto
(as
President
and
concurrent Chairman) was charged
by respondents with fraud and bad
faith [refusing to furnish accurate
data on NASUTRAs export sugar
sales & under-reporting and underdeclaring true prices of shipments.
d. Respondents: pray for the refund of
their shares in the undervalued
shipments.
B. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dec.
27, 1995) arguing the ff:
a. Respondents violated the rule in
forum shopping
b. Respondents have no cause of action
c. Issues are res judicata or rendered
moot by case law
d. Claim or demand has already been
paid
Petitioners Arguments:
a) Respondents
have
already
filed
beforehand the ff cases:
a. Hector Lacson Case (RTC
Branch 51 Bacolod)
b. Ramon Monfort Case (RTC
Branch 23 Manila)
c. Pasig Case (RTC Branch 264
Pasig)

b) Not being their agent, NATSURA had

no obligation to share its profits to
respondents
;
the
questioned
transactions were already perfected
and consummated both in delivery of
sugar and payment of the price;
stopped from questioning since they
executed in favor NATSURA Chattel
Mortgage on Standing Crop which
authorizes NATSURA to sell and
dispose of the same at the time,
place, and price it may deem
convenient and reasonable; lastly,
NATSURA has long been dissolved
and liquated under PD 2005 & EO
114.
c) Issues posed by respondents have
been barred by res judicata and/or
rendered moot by the other cases
filed (Zayco v. Natsura; Stark v.
Natsura; Seng v. Natsura; Magsaysay
v. Natsura)
Petitioners:
1. March 26, 1996 Filed a consolidated
Motion to Dismiss and an Amended
Certification which states that aside from
the Pasig Case which they subsequently
withdrawn without prejudice, they have not
commenced any other action.

RTC Bacolod:
1. June 5, 1006 issued Order granting
Petitioners Motion to Dismiss.
2. There are similarities with the Lacson Case
and Monfort Case.
3. Guilty of Forum Shopping for failure to
report in their original anti-forum shopping
that they filed a similar case with Pasig
RTC.
4. Even if it has been withdrawn it was
commenced already.
5. Since NATSURA has been dissolved
therefore no cause of action against
NATSURA.
CA:
1. Reversed RTC decision and ordered to be
remanded to RTC.
2. Petitioner filed Motion for Reconsideration
but was denied. Thus, the case.
Issue: CA erred in: 1) absolving the respondents
for violating the anti-forum shopping; 2) for
refusing to apply litis pendentia notwithstanding
the conceded similarities with some antecedent
issues and other pending cases.
SCs ruling: Petition is not meritorious.
1. On Forum Shopping (Bacolod case and Pasig
Case):
1. Pasig Case had strong resemblance with
Bacolod Case, however it was dismissed

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

upon instance of the respondents before

they filed the Bacolod Case. (dismissed
without prejudice to the refilling thereof)
There is no dispute that the dismissal of
the complaint in the Pasig case, upon
notice of the plaintiffs (respondents in this
case), was sanctioned by Section 1, Rule
17 of the Revised Rules of Court
The Order declared that the dismissal of
the complaint was without prejudice to the
re-filing thereof.
Even if the same were tested under the
rules on litis pendentia and res judicata,
the danger of conflicting decisions cannot
be present, since the Pasig case was
dismissed even before a responsive
pleading was filed by petitioner.
There was no need to state in the
certificate of non-forum shopping in a
subsequent refilled complaint the fact of
the prior filing and dismissal of the former
complaint,
this Court has relaxed the rigid application
of the rules to afford the parties the
opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on
the merits.
a. This is in line with the time-honored
principle that cases should be decided

only after giving all parties the chance

to argue their causes and defenses.
b. Technicality
and
procedural
imperfection should thus not serve as
basis of decisions.
c. Technicalities should never be used to
defeat the substantive rights of the
other party.
d. In the case at bar, considering that the
same involves the various claims of
371 respondents, this Court finds that
justice and equity are best served by
allowing them to prove their case on
the merits rather than denying them
their day in court on a strict
application of the rules.
2. On Litis Pendentia (Monfort, Lacson, Bacolod
Cases)
1. Underlying principle that a party is
not allowed to vex another more than
once regarding the same subject
matter and for the same cause of
action.
2. There was no identity of causes of
action and issues:
a. Bacolod Case: under evaluation by
the petitioner of 15 sugar export
sales of the respondents export
sugar production for 1979-1981.

b. Lacson Case: over charging of

trading costs, under payment for
the petitioners use of erroneous
exchange rates, and reimbursement
for
the
amounts
wrongfully
withheld.
c. Monfort
Case:
concerns
the
deficiency due to the respondents
from sugar export sales, recovery
of excessive trading costs charged,
and also it pertained to different
shipments which were not coursed
through Traders Bank.
d. There was a variance of subject
matters.
e. Evidences needed to prove the
Bacolod Case were different from
those of Monfort and Lacson.

3. Re: Other Grounds raised by Petitioner for

Motion to Dismiss:
a. The other grounds now raised by
petitioner were not before the CA
because the same were not put in
issue by respondents when they
chose to assail the RTCs Order to
dismiss the complaint.
b. The other grounds were not made
the basis of the RTCs Order.
c. Procedurally
then,
the
proper
remedy of petitioner, should he
choose to reassert the other
grounds, is to interpose the same
as defenses in his answer and not to
put them in issue in this appeal.