BENEDICTO V.

LACSON

FACTS:

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. PHILSUCOM organized
National Sugar Trading Corporation (NASUTRA) as its buying marketing arm. Petitioner
Benedicto was the concurrent Chairman and President of Traders Royal Bank and NASUTRA.

Respondents including Lacson (individual sugar planters and agricultural corporations) filed a
complaint based on a claim for unpaid shares in pursuant to Sugar Order No. 2 s. 1979-1980. The
claims cover the sugar export sales supposedly undervalued by NASUTRA and coursed through
Traders Royal Bank. Due to the alleged intended undervaluation on the sales of export sugar,
Benedicto, as President and concurrent Chairman of both Traders Royal Bank and NASUTRA
was charged with fraud and bad faith by the respondents, not only in refusing to furnish them
accurate data on NASUTRAs export sugar sales, but more importantly, in under-reporting and
under-declaring the true prices of the shipments.

Benedicto petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing therein (1) that respondents had violated
the rule on forum shopping; (2) that respondents have no cause of action; (3) that the issues
involved are res judicata or rendered moot by case law; and (4) that the claim or demand has
already been paid.

According to Benedicto, 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; and that; lastly, NATSURA has long been dissolved and liquated under PD
2005 & EO 114.

On March 26, 1996, respondents filed a Consolidated Opposition to Dismiss. However, the RTC
granted motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Benedicto. Said court also ruled that the
respondents were guilty of forum shopping as they had filed already a similar case with the RTC
Pasig even if the same had been withdrawn already and since NATSURA has been dissolved
therefore no cause of action would prosper against NATSURA.
Respondents appealed the RTC decision to the CA.CA reversed the same. Aggrieved by the CA
decision, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was also denied by the CA hence
this petition before the Highest Court.

ISSUES:
Whether or not CA erred in absolving the respondents for violating the anti-forum shopping?

RULING:

The Court finds no merit in the petition. No forum shopping took place since the Pasig Case was
already dismissed upon the instance of the plaintiffs even before the Bacolod Case. As a rule,
plaintiff, at any time before service of answer, dismiss an action by filing a notice of
dismissal.

The CA was correct in its ruling that even if the case is subject to test to determine an existence
of forum shopping or under the rules on litis pendentia and/or 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.