G.R. No. 200749. February 6, 2017

FACTS

In 1996, Plaintiffs identified themselves as a group of banana plantation worker, filed a case for damages against Shell Oil and other foreign corporations that manufactured, sold, distributed, or used the parasite nematode which caused their sterility and other serious and permanent health injuries. During the pendency of Civil Case No. 95-45, Shell Oil entered into a compromise agreement with its claimants for a total consideration of US$17 Million. The copy submitted to the court did not bear the agreement’s exhibits which, according to Shell Oil, indicated the list of 26,328 “worldwide plaintiffs” intended to be covered by the compromise. In view of the compromise, the complaint against Shell Oil was dismissed.  Civil Case No. 95-45 was later transferred to the RTC of Davao City, and the plaintiffs prayed for the enforcement of judgment based on the Compromise Agreement since Shell Oil allegedly failed to fully satisfy its obligations to them. Shell Oil argued that it had fully complied with the terms of the compromise agreement. The approved compromise and amount stated therein covered 26,328 agricultural workers from across the globe who filed various cases against it and not just the 1,843 plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 95-45. The RTC resolved the motion in favor of the plaintiffs.

G.R. No. 145276. November 29, 2005.

FACTS

RTC ordered the revival of the complaint priorly decided and required the parties to appear during the pre-trial conference scheduled on April 29, 1999. During the scheduled pre-trial, petitioner Rolando Agulto and his counsel were informed by an employee of the RTC that the presiding judge was on leave. The petitioners suggested that pre-trial to be rescheduled on June 17, 1999, however, the RTC employee informed them that the suggested setting was not yet official since it would depend on the calendar of the court and the counsel of respondent. The pre-trial proceeded on June 17, 1999. For failure of petitioners to appear at the pre-trial and to submit their pre-trial brief, the RTC issued an order allowing the respondent to present his evidence ex parte. Petitioners motion for reconsideration on the ground that they were not notified of the pre-trial was denied by the Court. 

G.R. No. 170354. June 30, 2006.

FACTS

The Heirs of German Santiago filed a complaint for injunction against Edgardo Pinga and Vicenta Saavedra for unlawfully entering the coco lands of the respondent, cutting wood and bamboos and harvesting the fruits of the coconut trees therein. The petitioners in their Amended Answer with Counterclaim, asserted that the properties in question had been in possession thereof since the 1930s.

A.M. No. RTJ-07-2044. June 22, 2011.

FACTS

Plaintiffs through counsel, Atty. Bautista, filed a Complaint for Partition before the RTC, which is raffled to Judge Causapin’s branch. Defendants filed a motion for an extension  to file an answer for 3 times which were all granted by Judge Causapin.  Atty. Bautista filed a comment on defendants’ motions for extension and asserted that all three motions did not contain a notice of the time and place of hearing, thus, these should be considered mere scraps of paper. Finally, defendants filed their joint Answer with Counterclaim and Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs countered by filing a motion to declare defendants in default.  During the hearing,  in the Resolution of Motion to Hold Defendants in Default, Judge Causapin dismissed the complaint without prejudice on the ground that plaintiffs R. Mesina and N. Polangco did not sign the verification and certification on non-forum shopping attached to the complaint, in violation of Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. Judge Causapin held that defendants could not be declared in default for not answering a defective complaint, which in law does not exist.