CASE: WILSON ONG CHING KLAN VS CHINA NATIONAL CEREALS OIL

AND FOODSTUFFS IMPORT AND EXPORT CORP

The case of Wilson Ong Ching Klan vs China National Cereals Oil and Foodstuffs Import
and Export Corporation is an appeal by way of petition to review the decision rendered in
Civil Case No. 94-68836 date November 20, 1997, wherein the judgment favored the
plaintiff against the defendant who is Wilson Ong (the petitioner of this case) which
ordered the cancellation or nullification of his copyright registration.

The antecedent facts of the case states that, the petitioner doing business under C.K.C.
Trading filed a Complaint of Infringement of Copyright against Lorenzo Tan doing
business under Mcmaster International Sales who is a distributor of vermicelli
(sotanghon) using the plaintiff’s copyrighted cellophane wrapper.

The China National Cereals Oils & Foodstuffs (CEROILFOOD), also filed a complaint for
Annulment/Cancellation of Copyrighted Certificate, this time, against the petitioner
(Wilson Ong) CC No. 94-68836.

The petitioner then was issued a TRO from using his copyrighted label and selling his
product which he filed for a motion to dissolved the TRO. The Manila Court denied the
motion made by the petitioner (January 27, 1994).

The petitioner filed a petition in the CA regarding that decision which was eventually
granted by the CA after the parties have expounded their respective positions. The CA
also ruled that the case is dismissible. The petitioner then filed for a motion to dismiss the
Manila court case in lieu of the findings of the CA.

Manila court however, denied the petition and the respondents of the case then filed a
Supplement To Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, claiming that the petitioner failed
to tender an issue which the Manila Court eventually favored.

The petitioner then raised the issue to the SC.

While the CA stated in the dispositive portion of its decision that the prayer for dismissal
of the complaint in Manila court may be pursued before said court during the proceedings,
it is also clear from the body of the CA decision that the case before the Manila Court
should be dismissed (on grounds of litis pendentia and forum shopping)

While the general rule is that the portion of a decision that becomes the subject of
execution is that ordained (ordered) in the dispositive part thereof, there are exceptions
to the rule.

The exception where the dispositive part of the judgment does not always prevail over
the body of the opinion:
  Where there is ambiguity or uncertainty, the body of the opinion may be referred
to for purposes of construing the judgment because the dispositive part of a
decision must find support from the decision’s ratio decidendi
 Where extensive and explicit discussion and settlement of the issue is found in the
body of the decision

WHEREFORE the assailed decision of the RTC in CC No. 94-68836 is annulled and SET
ASIDE. Said case is dismissed.

Litis pendentia, as a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, refers to a situation where two
actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them
becomes unnecessary and vexatious

Forum shopping is a colloquial term for the practice of litigants having their legal case heard in
the court thought most likely to provide a favorable judgment. Some jurisdictions have, for
example, become known as "plaintiff-friendly" and so have attracted litigation even when there is
little or no connection between the legal issues and the jurisdiction in which they are to be litigated