2nd Batch Civ Pro Digest

8/19/2019 2nd Batch Civ Pro Digest

1/23

NESTLÉ PHILIPPINES1 v. FY SONS2

2006 / Corona / Exceptions to hearsay rule > Entries in the course of business

FACTSOn 23 ec !"##$ %estl& an' F( Sons entere' into a 'istributorship a)ree*ent3 +hereby%estl& +oul' supply its pro'ucts to F( Sons to 'istribute to its foo' ser,ice outlets- F( Sons

execute' a 'ee' of assi)n*ent in fa,or of %estl&$ assi)nin) a ti*e 'eposit of Calixto.aureano in the a*ount of 001 to secure F( Sons cre'it purchases fro* %estl&- .aureanoalso execute' a special po+er of attorney$ authoriin) F( Sons to use the ti*e 'eposit ascollateral-On 2 4ul$ %estl& 5ne' F( Sons 201 for alle)e'ly sellin) 0 re*7Top li8ui' co9ee crea*ercases to .u :in) ;ar1et


2/23

o %estles State*ent of Account sho+in) the alle)e' unpai' balance is un'ate'$an' it 'oes not sho+ receipt thereof by F( Sons$ an' +hen$ if such in'ee' +asrecei,e'-

o There are no supportin) 'ocu*ents to sustain such unpai' accounts-• eJ Cristina ayos

o She a'*itte' that the in,oices correspon'in) to the alle)e' o,er'ue accounts

are not si)ne'$ because that there +ere 'eli,ery or'ers co,erin) thetransactions- :o+e,er$ she 'i' not i'entify the si)natures on the 'eli,eryor'ers as the persons +ho recei,e' the )oo's for %estl&-

o She coul' not ha,e i'enti5e' the sa*e$ for she +as not in,ol,e' in the'eli,ery$ as she is only in char)e of the recor's an' 'ocu*ents on allaccounts recei,ables as part of her 'uties as Cre'it an' Collection ;ana)er-

DSSKE L :O.D%@• O% the case at han' in,ol,es entries *a'e in the course of business- %O- ule

!30-3 is inapplicable-• O% CA is correct in 'isre)ar'in) ayos testi*ony- (ES- ayos +as inco*petent to

testify on O% the in,oices an' 'eli,ery or'ers turne' o,er to her correctly reMecte'the 'etails of the 'eli,eries *a'e-


3/23

ATDOule !30-3- Entries in the course of business-NEntries *a'e at$ or near the ti*e of thetransactions to +hich they refer$ by a person 'ecease' or unable to testify$ +ho +as in aposition to 1no+ the facts therein state'$ *ay be recei,e' as prima facie e,i'ence$ if suchperson *a'e the entries in his professional capacity or in the perfor*ance of 'uty an' in theor'inary or re)ular course of business or 'uty-

This pro,ision is inapplicable because DT OES %OT D%O.E E%TDES ;AE D% T:E COKSEOF ?KSD%ESS-

• ayos testi5e' on a state*ent of account she prepare' on the basis of in,oices an''eli,ery or'ers +hich she 1ne+ nothin) about- She ha' no personal 1no+le')e of thefacts on +hich the accounts +ere base' since$ a'*itte'ly$ she +as not in,ol,e' inthe 'eli,ery of )oo's an' +as *erely in char)e of the recor's an' 'ocu*ents of allaccounts recei,able as part of her 'uties as cre'it an' collection *ana)er-

• She 1ne+ nothin) of the truth or falsity of the facts state' in the in,oices an''eli,ery or'ers


4/23

o,er the clai* only upon pay*ent of theprescribe' 'oc1et fee-

+oul' ha,e been assesse' an' i*pose' as alien on the Iu')*ent- :o+e,er$ the courtsli*ite' their a+ar' to the a*ount praye' for-

Re: !estl"’s pecuniary lia#ilities and claims• %estl& +as not able to pro,e that F( Sons ha' unpai' accounts

o %estl& is not entitle' to the suppose' unpai' balanceo The refun' of the 001 ti*e 'eposit +ith interest is calle' for$ since its

seiure +as i*proper• %estl&$ bein) at fault an' in ba' faith$ an' there bein) no proof that F( Sons +as

)uilty of any +ron)'oin)$ cannot clai* *oral an' exe*plary 'a*a)es an' attorneysfees

CA AFFD;E-

YUCHENGCO v- REPUBLIC

@-- %os- P""3P73# February !3$ !"#"

FactsJ

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/may1987/gr_75919_1987.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/may1987/gr_75919_1987.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/may1987/gr_75919_1987.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/may1987/gr_75919_1987.html


5/23

etitioner Sun Dnsurance


6/23

FACTSJ

!- An action for partition +as 5le' by petitioner Tancre'o a)ainst his ol'er half7brother.eoca'io$ herein respon'ent$ before the TC of San ablo$ .a)una-

2- The co*plaint alle)es that the parties co**on father left se,eral pieces of realty


7/23

• The ne)li)ence of his counsel +as not )ross ne)li)ence-

DSOSDTDO%J

:EEFOE$ the instant petition is DS;DSSE an' the assaile' resolutions of the CA are

AFFD;E-

%o pronounce*ent as to costs-

MERLI0( (. MUO0- Pet%t%"ner- S. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES- Res#"n3entG.R. N". 142))2- March 15- 266

FACTSJ

• etitioner is the +ife of .u'olfo - ;uRo 4r- o+ner an' operator of .-- ;unoConstruction


8/23

• The SC aGr*e' the 'ecision of the CA in 'is*issin) the co*plaint- Dt hel' that$failure to ser,e copy of the petition on the a',erse party or to sho+ proof of ser,icethereof is a fatal 'efect$ +hich the petition can be 'is*isse'- Dn the present case$petitioner faile' to ser,e copy of her petition on the Solicitor @eneral as counsel ofthe a',erse party$ the eople of the hilippines- :ence$ the CA 'i' not co**it anyre,ersible error in 'is*issin) her petition-

• Dn the present case$ +hile upon *otion for reconsi'eration$ she utterly faile' tocon,ince the Court that the substantial )roun's cite' therein far transcend itstechnical 'e5ciencies as +oul' Iustify the resolution of her petition on its *eritsrather than for*-

• First$ petitioner insists that the cri*inal case 5le' a)ainst her$ shoul' ha,e been'is*isse' for lac1 of authority of Elial'y Co to 5le the sa*e on behalf of Sun+est$the payee of the C?C chec1-

o Dn %am &in' %a( ). $a(asiar$ the Court aGr*e' the 'is*issal of a cri*inalcase for ,iolation of ?-- ?l)- 22 for lac1 of authority of the pri,ateco*plainant$ +hich rule' thatJ * **+nder Section 6 of te -orporation -ode,read in relation to Section 2, it is clear tat were a corporation is an inured

party, its power to sue is lod'ed wit its #oard of directors or trustees. * ** o There +as failure to sho+ any proof that he +as authorie' or 'eputie' or

)rante' speci5c po+ers to sue for an' on behalf of the 5r*-Sa*e as in a recent case of /lusorio ). /lusorio$

• :o+e,er$ in both cases$ the 'e5ciency in the co*plaint +as challen)e' by theaccuse' at the preli*inary in,esti)ation sta)e$ or before he entere' a plea uponarrai)n*ent- On the contrary$ in the present case$ petitioner 8uestione' the authorityof Elial'y Co after arrai)n*ent an' co*pletion of the prosecutions presentation ofe,i'ence- Thus$ she is #arred from raisin' suc o#ection un'er Section "$ ule !!Pof the ules of Court-

Secon'$ petitioner harps on the purporte' lac1 of notice to her of the 'ishonor of the C?C

chec1- :o+e,er$ there is 'ocu*entary e,i'ence that on ;arch 20$ 200!$ letter of petitionerto Sun+est +here she expressly ac1no+le')e' recei,in) the ;arch !$ 200! notice of 'ishonor of the C?C chec1-

Case 7 M"n8"n v Re!"va

octrine J A cause of action is the act or o*ission by +hich a party ,iolates the ri)ht ofanother- A cause of action exists if the ele*ents are presentJ

!- i)ht in fa,or of plainti9 by +hate,er *eans an' un'er +hate,er la+ it arises or iscreate'

2- An obli)ation on the part of the na*e' 'efen'ant to respect or not to ,iolate such

ri)ht3- An act or o*ission on the part of such 'efen'ant ,iolati,e of the ri)ht of plainti9 orconstitutin) breach of the obli)ation of 'efen'ant to the plainti9 for +hich the latter*ay *aintain an action for reco,ery of 'a*a)es

Fast ecit J Spouses elo,a an' ere 5le' a petition for inIunction since ;onon issue'pro*issory notes to the respecti,e spouses +ith lots as security


9/23

)i,en the resi'ue as state' in ule 6#$ Sec - The resi'ue *oney is +ith Atty- .una


10/23

ule 6# )o,erns Iu'icial foreclosure of *ort)a)es- ExtraIu'icial foreclosure of *ort)a)es+hich +as +hat transpire' in the case at bar is )o,erne' by Act 3!3- Knli1e ule 6#$ Act3!3 'oes not )rant to Iunior encu*brancers the ri)ht to recei,e the balance of thepurchase price- The only ri't )i,en to secon' *ort)a)ees in sai' issuances is the ri't toredeem foreclose' property pursuant to Sec 6 of Act 3!3 Wany person ha,in) lien on theproperty subse8uent to *ort)a)e or 'ee' of trust un'er +hich the property is sol'$ *ay

re'ee* the sa*e at any ti*e +ithin the ter* of one yr fro* an' after 'ate of the sale-A cause of action is the act or o*ission by +hich a party ,iolates the ri)ht of another- Acause of action exists if the ele*ents are presentJ

!- i)ht in fa,or of plainti9 by +hate,er *eans an' un'er +hate,er la+ it arises or iscreate'

2- An obli)ation on the part of the na*e' 'efen'ant to respect or not to ,iolate suchri)ht

3- An act or o*ission on the part of such 'efen'ant ,iolati,e of the ri)ht of plainti9 orconstitutin) breach of the obli)ation of 'efen'ant to the plainti9 for +hich the latter*ay *aintain an action for reco,ery of 'a*a)es

Dn ,ie+ of the fore)oin)$ the respon'ent spouses 'o not ha,e a cause of action a)ainst Atty

.una for the 'eli,ery of a*ounts- The case shoul' be 'is*isse' in so far Atty .una isconcerne' but the sa*e is not necessarily true +ith respect to ;onon-

The case is re*an'e' bac1 to trial court for respon'ents to sub*it a *anifestation +herethe petition for inIunction shoul' be treate' as co*plaint for the collection of *oney- Dfrespon'ents ans+er in aGr*ati,e$ case shall procee' +ith presentation of e,i'ence for'efense- Df ;onon successful in pro,in) 'efense of 'acion en pa)o$ there +oul' be 'oublesales +ith A''io- The re*e'y of respon'ent is to reco,er possession- Df A''io is entitle' toproperties$ respon'ents re*e'y is to 5le action for 'a*a)es a)ainst ;onon-

Df respon'ents ans+er in ne)ati,e$ the case shall be 'is*isse' +ithout preIu'ice to theexercise of respon'ents ri)hts as *ort)a)e cre'itors- They +ill be 5rst *ort)a)or if their*ort)a)e +as execute' prior to execution of contract +ith A''io-

Sea9Lan3 Serv%ce- Inc. v. Inter$e3%ate (##e!!ate C"&rt :1*; SCR( **2 =

ost un'er case 'i)ests$ Co**ercial .a+ at Thurs'ay$ February 23$ 20!2 oste' bySchiophrenic ;in'FactsJ Sea7.an'$ a forei)n shippin) an' for+ar'in) co*pany license' to 'o business in thehilippines$ recei,e' fro* Sea7borne Tra'in) Co*pany in California$ a ship*ent consi)ne' toSen :iap :in)$ the business na*e use' by Cue- The shipper not ha,in) 'eclare' the ,alueof the ship*ent $ no ,alue +as in'icate' in the bill of la'in)- The ship*ent +as 'ischar)e'in ;anila$ an' +hile a+aitin) transship*ent to Cebu$ the car)o +as stolen an' ne,erreco,ere'-

The trial court sentence' Sea7.an' to pay Cue !#6$0# representin) the hilippinecurrency ,alue of the lost car)o$ $ #! for unrealie' pro5t an' 2$000 for attorneysfees- CA aGr*e' the trial courts 'ecision-

DssueJ hether or not Sea7.an' is liable to pay Cue-

:el'J There is no 8uestion of the ri)ht of a consi)nee in a bill of la'in) to reco,er fro* thecarrier or shipper for loss of$ or 'a*a)e to$ )oo's bein) transporte' un'er sai' bill$ althou)h


11/23

that 'ocu*ent *ay ha,e been 'ra+n up only by the consi)nor an' the carrier +ithout theinter,ention of the consi)nee-

Since the liability of a co**on carrier for loss of or 'a*a)e to )oo's transporte' by it un'era contract of carria)e os )o,erne' by the la+s of the country of 'estination an' the )oo's in8uestion +ere shippe' fro* the Knite' States to the hilippines$ the liability of Sea7.an' has

Cue is )o,erne' pri*arily by the Ci,il Co'e$ an' as or'aine' by the sai' Co'e$supple*entary$ in all *atters not cluttere' thereby$ by the Co'e of Co**erce an' specialla+s- One of these supple*entary special la+s is the Carria)e of )oo's by Sea Act

?.D an' 'ri,en by petitioner ;auricio ;anliclicH an'


12/23

- Accor'in) to the respon'ent an' his 'ri,er$ the Ieep +as cruisin) at the spee' of 60to P0 1ilo*eters per hour on the slo+ lane of the express+ay +hen the hilippineabbit ?us o,ertoo1 the Ieep an' in the process of o,erta1in) the Ieep$ the hilippineabbit ?us hit the rear of the Ieep on the left si'e-

- At the ti*e the hilippine abbit ?us hit the Ieep$ it +as about to o,erta1e the Ieep-Dn other +or's$ the hilippine abbit ?us +as still at the bac1 of the Ieep +hen the Ieep +as hit-

- Fernan'o a*os corroborate' the testi*ony of an' ;arcelo ;en'oa- :e sai' thathe +as on another Ieep follo+in) the hilippine abbit ?us an' the Ieep of plainti9 +hen the inci'ent too1 place- :e testi5e' that the Ieep of plainti9 s+er,e' to theri)ht because it +as bu*pe' by the hilippine abbit bus fro* behin'-

etitioners ,ersionJ

- The petitioner explaine' that +hen the hilippine abbit bus +as about to )o to theleft lane to o,erta1e the Ieep$ the latter Ieep s+er,e' to the left because it +as too,erta1e another Ieep in front of it-

- etitioner ?.D *aintaine' that it obser,e' an' exercise' the 'ili)ence of a )oo'father of a fa*ily in the selection an' super,ision of its e*ployee

#- TC rule' in fa,or of the respon'ent- CA foun' no re,ersible error an' aGr*e' the TCs'ecision-

DSSKESJ!- hether the TS%s fro* the cri*inal case *ay be a'*itte' in e,i'ence for the ci,il case-2- hether the petitioner$ ;anliclic$ *ay be hel' liable for the collision an' be foun'

ne)li)ent not+ithstan'in) the 'eclaration of the CA in the cri*inal case that there +asan absence of ne)li)ence on his part-

3- hether the petitioner$ ?.D$ exercise' 'ue 'ili)ence an' super,ision of its e*ployee-

:E.J The petitioner$ ;anliclic$ is ci,illy liable for the 'a*a)es for his ne)li)ence or rec1lessi*pru'ence base' on 8uasi7'elict- The ?.D is hel' soli'arily liable for the 'a*a)es cause'by the petitioner ;anliclics ne)li)ence-

!- A'*issibility of the TS%setitioners contentionJ

- The TS%s shoul' not be a'*itte' to e,i'ence for failure to co*ply +ith the re8uisites

of Sec- P$ ule !30 of the OC- The petitioner$ ?.D$ ha' no opportunity to cross exa*ine the +itnesses because

the cri*inal case +as 5le' exclusi,ely a)ainst ;anliclic-- A'*ission of the TS%s +ill 'epri,e the petitioner of 'ue process-

CourtJ- The testi*onies are still a'*issible on the )roun' that the petitioner faile' to obIect

on their a'*issibility-- Failure to obIect to the inclusion of the e,i'ence is a +ai,er on the pro,ision of the

la+-


13/23

- Dn a''ition$ the petitioner e,en o9ere' in e,i'ence the TS% containin) the testi*onyof @aniban-

- The court 'isa)rees that it +oul' 'epri,e the petitioner of 'ue process- For the failureof the petitioner to obIect at the proper ti*e$ it +ai,e' its ri)ht to obIect for the nonco*pliance +ith the OC-

2- Ci,il liability arisin) fro* cri*e ,- Yuasi7'elict/Culpa Ac8uilianaetitionerJ- The ,ersion of the petitioner 'eser,es *ore cre'it as the petitioner +as alrea'y

ac8uitte' by the CA of the char)e of ec1less i*pru'ence resultin) in 'a*a)e toproperty +ith physical inIuries-

CourtJ- Fro* the co*plaint$ it can be )athere' that the ci,il case for 'a*a)es +as one

arisin) fro* or base' on 8uasi7'elictJ etitioner ;anliclic +as sue' for his ne)li)enceor rec1less i*pru'ence in causin) the collision$ +hile petitioner ?.D +as sue' forits failure to exercise the 'ili)ence of a )oo' father in the selection an' super,ision of its e*ployees

- it appears that petitioner ;anliclic +as ac8uitte' not on reasonable 'oubt$ but onthe )roun' that he is not the author of the act co*plaine' of +hich is base' on

Section 2


14/23

- The sa*e ne)li)ence causin) 'a*a)es *ay pro'uce ci,il liability arisin) fro* acri*e un'er the enal Co'e$ or create an action for 8uasi7'elicts or culpa extra7contractual un'er the Ci,il Co'e- The ac8uittal of the accuse'$ e,en if base' on a5n'in) that he is not )uilty$ 'oes not carry +ith it the extinction of the ci,il liabilitybase' on 8uasi 'elict-

- ci,il liability arisin) fro* 8uasi7'elict or culpa a8uiliana$ sa*e +ill not be

extin)uishe' by an ac8uittal$ +hether it be on )roun' of reasonable 'oubt or thataccuse' +as not the author of the act or o*ission co*plaine' of


15/23

- The trial court foun' that petitioner ?.D exercise' the 'ili)ence of a )oo' father of a fa*ily in the selection but not in the super,ision of its e*ployees

- it see*s that the hilippine abbit ?us .ines has a ,ery )oo' proce'ure of recruitin)its 'ri,er as +ell as in the *aintenance of its ,ehicles- There is no e,i'ence thou)hthat it is as )oo' in the super,ision of its personnel-o no e,i'ence intro'uce' that there are rules pro*ul)ate' by the bus co*pany

re)ar'in) the safe operation of its ,ehicle an' in the +ay its 'ri,er shoul'*ana)e an' operate the ,ehicleso no sho+in) that so*ebo'y in the bus co*pany has been e*ploye' to o,ersee

ho+ its 'ri,er shoul' beha,e +hile operatin) their ,ehicleso The presence of rea'y in,esti)ators after the occurrence of the acci'ent is not

enou)h- Sa*e 'oes not co*ply +ith the )ui'elines set forth +ith re)ar' to thesuper,ision-

o e)ular super,ision of e*ployees$ that is$ prior to any acci'ent$ shoul' ha,e beensho+n an' establishe'-

o the lac1 of super,ision can further be seen by the fact that there is only one set of *anual containin) the rules an' re)ulations for all the 'ri,ers

- For failure to a''uce proof that it exercise' the 'ili)ence of a )oo' father of a fa*ilyin the selection an' super,ision of its e*ployees$ petitioner ?.D is hel' soli'arily

responsible for the 'a*a)es cause' by petitioner ;anliclics ne)li)ence-

DSOSDTDEJ

:EEFOE$ pre*ises consi'ere'$ the instant petition for re,ie+ is E%DE- The 'ecision of the Court of Appeals is AFFD;E +ith the ;ODFDCATDO% that

Ba!a/tas v C"&rt "' (##ea!sGR N". 16+6);- 1+++

FactsJ

• On %o,e*ber !#$ !""!$ the oGcers of anao olice Station an' ar'o Sub7Stationtoo1 utchel Apostol fro* the house of E'uar'o ?ala)tas +ithout any +arrant of arrest-

• On ece*ber $ !""!$ E'uar'o ?ala)tas$ actin) on behalf of utchel Apostol$initiate' special procee'in)s for a#eas corpus$before the e)ional Trial Court of Cebu City- :e theorie' that so*eti*e in ;ay !""!$ utchel starte' to resi'e +ithhi* in Cebu City because of her 'esire to un'erta1e spiritual stu'ies at the Chaitanya;ission- On the sa*e 'ay$ the trial Court issue' an or'er 'irectin) the publicrespon'ents to brin) the bo'y of utchel before it on ece*ber "$ !""!$ at !0J0-;-$ an' to sho+ cause +hy utchel Apostol ha' been 'epri,e' of her liberty an'/orpetitioner +as 'enie' ri)htful custo'y of utchel-

• On ece*ber "$ !""!$ the public respon'ents 'i' not pro'uce the bo'y of utchelApostol- As a result$ the Trial Court issue' another Or'er )i,in) the* 5,e


16/23

• The Co**issioners report ten's to sho+ that utchel still +ishes to Ioin theChaitanya ;ission in Cebu City an' that she is presently in the house of her parents$+here she is not free to 'o +hat she +ants an' li1es to 'o-

• The e)ional Trial Court of ori)in ren'ere' a ecision 'is*issin) the Co*plaint forlac1 of cause of action since it has been sho+n that utchel Apostol +as un'er thecare an' custo'y of her parents an' not bein) ille)ally 'etaine' by the respon'ents-

• The Court of Appeals aGr*e' the 'ecision of the TC$ rationatin)J

xxx The thrust of the petitioners co*plaint is that utchel Apostol +asforcibly ta1en an' ab'ucte' on %o,e*ber !#$ !""! an' that respon'ents continue to'etain her at the ar'o olice Sub7station an'/or anao olice Station- The essentialalle)ations of the petition +ere not pro,en$ an' the petition +as correctly 'is*isse'-xxx

DssueJ

• hether or not ;rs- An)eles Apostol +ho is ille)ally 'etainin) utchel shoul' ha,ebeen i*plea'e' as a respon'ent in the case-

• hether or not utchel +as ille)ally 'etaine'-

ulin)J

!st Dssue• Explicit is the follo+in) pro,ision of the e,ise' ules of CourtJ

Section 2$ ule 3-7 A real party in interest is the party +ho stan's to bebene5te' or inIure' by the Iu')*ent in the suit$ or the party entitle' to thea,ails of the suit- Knless other+ise authorie' by la+ or these ules$ e,eryaction *ust be prosecute' or 'efen'e' in the na*e of the real party in

interest-

• The trial Court 'i' not ac8uire Iuris'iction o,er the person of utchels *other


17/23

utchel is on her ri)ht *in'$ not to *ention her bein) one of the topnotchers in the;i'+ifery .icensure Exa*ination )i,en by the rofessional e)ulationsCo**ission- She +as not forcibly 'etaine' or ab'ucte' by her *other$ the factbein) that she ,oluntarily +ent +ith her *other after the latter persua'e' her toreturn to their ho*e in Dloilo City- There +as no a*ount of force e*ploye' on her$+hich +oul' a*ount to 'epri,ation of liberty-

etition is DS;DSSE for lac1 of *erit-

L(SON ENTERPRISES CORPOR(TIONv. COURT OF (PPE(LS an3 UR(PROOF SERICES- re#resente3


18/23

notice of hearin) *a1in) its *otion a *ere scrap of paper uraproof 5le' a *otion to 5le asupple*ental petition i*plea'in) lason as one of the respon'ents- Dt +as )rante' by theCA- Further*ore$ it +as able to obtain a +rit of preli*inary inIunction a)ainst therespon'ents to pre,ent the* fro* interferin) in the transfer of the ,essel an' its car)o fro*the A co*poun'- :ence$ this appeal-DSSKEJ hether or not lason Enterprises +as properly ser,e' +ith su**ons- :E.J %o-

Appeal @A%TE- A corporation *ay be ser,e' su**ons throu)h its a)ents or oGcers +ho un'er the ulesare 'esi)nate' to accept ser,ice of process- A su**ons a''resse' to a corporation an'ser,e' on the secretary of its presi'ent bin's that corporation- This is base' on the rationalethat ser,ice *ust be *a'e on a representati,e so inte)rate' +ith the corporation sue'$ thatit is safe to assu*e that sai' representati,e ha' suGcient responsibility an' 'iscretion torealie the i*portance of the le)al papers ser,e' an' to relay the sa*e to the presi'ent orother responsible oGcer of the corporation bein) sue'- The secretary of the presi'entsatis5es this criterion- This rule re8uires$ ho+e,er$ that the secretary shoul' be an e*ployeeof the corporation sou)ht to be su**one'- Only in this *anner can there be an assurancethat thesecretary +ill Wbrin) ho*e to the corporation Zthe[ notice of the 5lin) of the action\ a)ainstit- Dn the present case$ ?ebero +as the secretary of An)lion)to$ +ho +as presi'ent of both SDan' petitioner$ but she +as an e*ployee of SD$ not of petitioner- The piercin) of thecorporate ,eil cannot be resorte' to +hen ser,in) su**ons- octrinally$ a corporation is ale)al entity 'istinct an' separate fro* the *e*bers an' stoc1hol'ers +ho co*pose it-:o+e,er$ +hen the corporate 5ction is use' as a *eans of perpetratin) a frau'$ e,a'in) anexistin) obli)ation$ circu*,entin) a statute$ achie,in) or perfectin) a *onopoly or$ in)enerally perpetratin) a cri*e$ the ,eil +ill be lifte' to expose the in'i,i'uals co*posin) it-%one of the fore)oin) exceptions has been sho+n to exist in the present case- Yuite thecontrary$ the piercin) of the corporate ,eil in this case +ill result in *anifest inIustice- This+e cannot allo+- :ence$ the corporate 5ction re*ains- etitioner clai*s that the trial court'i' not ac8uire Iuris'iction o,er it$ because the for*er ha' not been ser,e' su**ons ane+for the Secon' A*en'e' etition or for the Secon' A*en'e' etition +ith Supple*entaletition- e 'isa)ree- Althou)h it is +ell7settle' that an a*en'e' plea'in) superse'es theori)inal one$ +hich is thus 'ee*e' +ith'ra+n an' no lon)er consi'ere' part of the recor'$ it'oes not follo+ipso facto that the ser,ice of a ne+ su**ons for a*en'e' petitions or co*plaints is re8uire'- herethe 'efen'ants ha,e alrea'y appeare' before the trial court by ,irtue of a su**ons on theori)inal co*plaint$ the a*en'e' co*plaint *ay be ser,e' upon the* +ithout nee' of another su**ons$ e,en if ne+ causes of action are alle)e'- After it is ac8uire'$ a courts Iuris'iction continues until the caseis 5nally ter*inate'- Con,ersely$ +hen 'efen'ants ha,e not yet appeare' in court an' nosu**ons has been ,ali'ly ser,e'$ ne+ su**ons for the a*en'e' co*plaint *ust beser,e' on the*- Dt is not the chan)e of cause of action that )i,es rise to the nee' to ser,eanother su**ons for the a*en'e' co*plaint$ but rather the ac8uisition of Iuris'iction o,erthe persons of the 'efen'ants- Df the trial court has not yet ac8uire' Iuris'iction o,er the*$ ane+ ser,ice of su**ons for the a*en'e' co*plaint is re8uire'- Dn this case$ the trial court

ob,iously labore' un'er the erroneous i*pression that petitioner ha' alrea'y been place'un'er its Iuris'iction since it ha' been ser,e' su**ons throu)h the secretary of itspresi'ent- Thus$ it 'ispense' +ith the ser,ice on petitioner of ne+ su**ons for thesubse8uent a*en'*ents of the etition- e ha,e alrea'y rule'$ ho+e,er$ that the 5rstser,ice of su**ons on petitioner +as in,ali'- Therefore$ the trial court ne,er ac8uire' Iuris'iction$ an' the sai' court shoul' ha,e re8uire' a ne+ ser,ice of su**ons for thea*en'e' etitions-


19/23

the presi'ent or other responsible oGcer of the corporation bein) sue'- The secretary of thepresi'ent satis5es this criterion- This rule re8uires$ ho+e,er$ that the secretary shoul' be ane*ployee of the corporation sou)ht to be su**one'- Only in this *anner can there be anassurance that thesecretary +ill Wbrin) ho*e to the corporation Zthe[ notice of the 5lin) of the action\ a)ainstit-

Dn the present case$ ?ebero +as the secretary of An)lion)to$ +ho +as presi'ent of both SDan' petitioner$ but she +as an e*ployee of SD$ not of petitioner- The piercin) of thecorporate ,eil cannot be resorte' to +hen ser,in) su**ons- octrinally$ a corporation is ale)al entity 'istinct an' separate fro* the *e*bers an' stoc1hol'ers +ho co*pose it-:o+e,er$ +hen the corporate 5ction is use' as a *eans of perpetratin) a frau'$ e,a'in) anexistin) obli)ation$ circu*,entin) a statute$ achie,in) or perfectin) a *onopoly or$ in)enerally perpetratin) a cri*e$ the ,eil +ill be lifte' to expose the in'i,i'uals co*posin) it-%one of the fore)oin) exceptions has been sho+n to exist in the present case- Yuite thecontrary$ the piercin) of the corporate ,eil in this case +ill result in *anifest inIustice- This+e cannot allo+- :ence$ the corporate 5ction re*ains- etitioner clai*s that the trial court'i' not ac8uire Iuris'iction o,er it$ because the for*er ha' not been ser,e' su**ons ane+for the Secon' A*en'e' etition or for the Secon' A*en'e' etition +ith Supple*entaletition- e 'isa)ree- Althou)h it is +ell7settle' that an a*en'e' plea'in) superse'es theori)inal one$ +hich is thus 'ee*e' +ith'ra+n an' no lon)er consi'ere' part of the recor'$ it'oes not follo+ipso facto that the ser,ice of a ne+ su**ons for a*en'e' petitions or co*plaints is re8uire'- herethe 'efen'ants ha,e alrea'y appeare' before the trial court by ,irtue of a su**ons on theori)inal co*plaint$ the a*en'e' co*plaint *ay be ser,e' upon the* +ithout nee' of another su**ons$ e,en if ne+ causes of action are alle)e'- After it is ac8uire'$ a courts Iuris'iction continues until the caseis 5nally ter*inate'- Con,ersely$ +hen 'efen'ants ha,e not yet appeare' in court an' nosu**ons has been ,ali'ly ser,e'$ ne+ su**ons for the a*en'e' co*plaint *ust beser,e' on the*- Dt is not the chan)e of cause of action that )i,es rise to the nee' to ser,eanother su**ons for the a*en'e' co*plaint$ but rather the ac8uisition of Iuris'iction o,erthe persons of the 'efen'ants- Df the trial court has not yet ac8uire' Iuris'iction o,er the*$ ane+ ser,ice of su**ons for the a*en'e' co*plaint is re8uire'- Dn this case$ the trial courtob,iously labore' un'er the erroneous i*pression that petitioner ha' alrea'y been place'un'er its Iuris'iction since it ha' been ser,e' su**ons throu)h the secretary of itspresi'ent- Thus$ it 'ispense' +ith the ser,ice on petitioner of ne+ su**ons for thesubse8uent a*en'*ents of the etition- e ha,e alrea'y rule'$ ho+e,er$ that the 5rstser,ice of su**ons on petitioner +as in,ali'- Therefore$ the trial court ne,er ac8uire' Iuris'iction$ an' the sai' court shoul' ha,e re8uire' a ne+ ser,ice of su**ons for thea*en'e' etitions

the presi'ent or other responsible oGcer of the corporation bein) sue'- The secretary of thepresi'ent satis5es this criterion- This rule re8uires$ ho+e,er$ that the secretary shoul' be ane*ployee of the corporation sou)ht to be su**one'- Only in this *anner can there be anassurance that the

secretary +ill Wbrin) ho*e to the corporation Zthe[ notice of the 5lin) of the action\ a)ainstit- Dn the present case$ ?ebero +as the secretary of An)lion)to$ +ho +as presi'ent of both SDan' petitioner$ but she +as an e*ployee of SD$ not of petitioner- The piercin) of thecorporate ,eil cannot be resorte' to +hen ser,in) su**ons- octrinally$ a corporation is ale)al entity 'istinct an' separate fro* the *e*bers an' stoc1hol'ers +ho co*pose it-:o+e,er$ +hen the corporate 5ction is use' as a *eans of perpetratin) a frau'$ e,a'in) anexistin) obli)ation$ circu*,entin) a statute$ achie,in) or perfectin) a *onopoly or$ in)enerally perpetratin) a cri*e$ the ,eil +ill be lifte' to expose the in'i,i'uals co*posin) it-


20/23

%one of the fore)oin) exceptions has been sho+n to exist in the present case- Yuite thecontrary$ the piercin) of the corporate ,eil in this case +ill result in *anifest inIustice- This+e cannot allo+- :ence$ the corporate 5ction re*ains- etitioner clai*s that the trial court'i' not ac8uire Iuris'iction o,er it$ because the for*er ha' not been ser,e' su**ons ane+for the Secon' A*en'e' etition or for the Secon' A*en'e' etition +ith Supple*entaletition- e 'isa)ree- Althou)h it is +ell7settle' that an a*en'e' plea'in) superse'es the

ori)inal one$ +hich is thus 'ee*e' +ith'ra+n an' no lon)er consi'ere' part of the recor'$ it'oes not follo+ipso facto that the ser,ice of a ne+ su**ons for a*en'e' petitions or co*plaints is re8uire'- herethe 'efen'ants ha,e alrea'y appeare' before the trial court by ,irtue of a su**ons on theori)inal co*plaint$ the a*en'e' co*plaint *ay be ser,e' upon the* +ithout nee' of another su**ons$ e,en if ne+ causes of action are alle)e'- After it is ac8uire'$ a courts Iuris'iction continues until the caseis 5nally ter*inate'- Con,ersely$ +hen 'efen'ants ha,e not yet appeare' in court an' nosu**ons has been ,ali'ly ser,e'$ ne+ su**ons for the a*en'e' co*plaint *ust beser,e' on the*- Dt is not the chan)e of cause of action that )i,es rise to the nee' to ser,eanother su**ons for the a*en'e' co*plaint$ but rather the ac8uisition of Iuris'iction o,erthe persons of the 'efen'ants- Df the trial court has not yet ac8uire' Iuris'iction o,er the*$ ane+ ser,ice of su**ons for the a*en'e' co*plaint is re8uire'- Dn this case$ the trial courtob,iously labore' un'er the erroneous i*pression that petitioner ha' alrea'y been place'un'er its Iuris'iction since it ha' been ser,e' su**ons throu)h the secretary of itspresi'ent- Thus$ it 'ispense' +ith the ser,ice on petitioner of ne+ su**ons for thesubse8uent a*en'*ents of the etition- e ha,e alrea'y rule'$ ho+e,er$ that the 5rstser,ice of su**ons on petitioner +as in,ali'- Therefore$ the trial court ne,er ac8uire' Iuris'iction$ an' the sai' court shoul' ha,e re8uire' a ne+ ser,ice of su**ons for thea*en'e' etitions-

:NEMENCIO C. E(NGELIST( S. C(RMELINO M. S(NTI(GO- G.R. NO. 1*)55)-(PRIL 2+- 266*- CHICO9N(0(RIO- =.>.ac1 of le)al capacity to sue *eans that the plainti9 is not in the exercise of his ci,il ri)hts$or 'oes not ha,e the necessary 8uali5cation to appear in the case$ or 'oes not ha,e thecharacter or representation he clai*s- On the other han'$ a case is 'is*issible for lac1 of personality to sue upon proof that the plainti9 is not the real party7in7interest$ hence)roun'e' on failure to state a cause of action- The ter* ]lac1 of capacity to sue] shoul' notbe confuse' +ith the ter* ]lac1 of personality to sue-] hile the for*er refers to a plainti9s)eneral 'isability to sue$ such as on account of *inority$ insanity$ inco*petence$ lac1 of Iuri'ical personality or any other )eneral 'is8uali5cations of a party$ the latter refers to thefact that the plainti9 is not the real party7 in7interest- Correspon'in)ly$ the 5rst can be a)roun' for a *otion to 'is*iss base' on the )roun' of lac1 of le)al capacity to sueH +hereasthe secon' can be use' as a )roun' for a *otion to 'is*iss base' on the fact that theco*plaint$ on the face thereof$ e,i'ently states no cause of action-

Spouses Francisco an' An)ela Tan1i1o , 4ustiano Cear$ et- al- @ %o- !3!2PP$ February 2$

!"""FactsJ

espon'ents are the actual occupants an' resi'ents of a parcel of lan' herein referre' to as.ot 3P! +ho intro'uce' i*pro,e*ents thereon an' are sales patent applicants of the sai'lot- They +ere reli)iously payin) taxes on the property- They 5le' an action for recon,eyancean' 'a*a)es a)ainst the petitioners- Apparently$ an ori)inal certi5cate of title


21/23

upon the 'ecision of the ca'astral court- espon'ents assail the ,ali'ity of the title of Salce'o by citin) the Consin) 'ecision of the court that in,ol,es the nei)hborin) lot 3P!+ith the follo+in) obser,ationJ

FACTSJ

An or)aniation of ci,ic7spirite' citiens$ taxpayers an' *e*bers of Con)ress 8uestione'the lease of lottery e8uip*ent by the hilippine Charity an' S+eepsta1es OGce


22/23

the )roun' that it +as si*ilar to the sa*e pre,ious contract earlier nulli5e' by the Supre*eCourt-

DSSKEJ

hether or not there is a ,iolation of the Constitution-

:E.J

etitioners ha,e no stan'in) to challen)e the ,ali'ity of the contract- .e)al stan'in) is aspecial concern in constitutional la+$ because in so*e cases the suits are brou)ht not byparties +ho ha,e been personally inIure'$ but by concerne' citiens$ taxpayers$ or ,oters+ho sue in the public interest- Dt is not an issue in the case$ since no constitutional 8uestionis actually in,ol,e'- Since petitioners are not parties to the contract or +ere preIu'icial intheir ri)hts +ith respect to one of the contractin) parties +ho clai* to ha,e a ri)ht to ta1epart in a public bi''in)$ they ha,e no interest in the contract as +oul' entitle the* to brin)this suit-

ERNESTO R. S(LENG( *16 SCR( )5 ece$

FACTSJ

aciencia e)ala o+ns a se,en


23/23

:E.J

The ]real7party7in interest] is ]the party +ho stan's to be bene5te' or inIure' by the Iu')*ent in the suit or the party entitle' to the a,ails of the suit- The Co*plaint7AG'a,it5le' before the OGce of the O*bu's*an$ there is no 8uestion on his authority an' le)alstan'in)- The O*bu's*an can act on anony*ous co*plaints an' motu proprio in8uire into

alle)e' i*proper oGcial acts or o*issions fro* +hate,er source$ e-)-$ a ne+spaper-

Faustino ;erca'o$ is an a)ent hi*self an' as such cannot further 'ele)ate his a)ency toanother- An a)ent cannot 'ele)ate to another the sa*e a)ency- e7'ele)ation of the a)ency+oul' be 'etri*ental to the principal as the secon' a)ent has no pri,ity of contract +ith thefor*er- Dn the instant case$ petitioner has no pri,ity of contract +ith aciencia e)ala$ o+nerof the 5shpon' an' principal of Faustino ;erca'o-

The facts clearly sho+ that it +as not the O*bu's*an throu)h the OS +ho allo+e'respon'ent Dlao$ 4r- to sub*it his Counter7AG'a,it- Dt +as the San'i)anbayan +ho )rante'the praye' for re7in,esti)ation an' or'ere' the OS to con'uct the re7in,esti)ation - TheOS si*ply follo+e' the )raft courts 'irecti,e to con'uct the re7in,esti)ation after theCounter7AG'a,it of respon'ent Dlao$ 4r- +as 5le'- Dn'ee'$ petitioner 'i' not contest nor

8uestion the Au)ust 2"$ !""P Or'er of the )raft court- ;oreo,er$ petitioner 'i' not 5le anyreply7aG'a,it in the re7in,esti)ation 'espite notice-

The nature of the case is 'eter*ine' by the settle' rule that Iuris'iction o,er the subIect*atter is 'eter*ine' by the alle)ations of the co*plaint- The nature of an action is'eter*ine' by the *aterial a,er*ents in the co*plaint an' the character of the relief sou)ht not by the 'efenses asserte' in the ans+er or *otion to 'is*iss-

espon'ent Salen)as co*plaint an' its attach*ent clearly spells out the Iuris'ictionalalle)ations that he is an a)ricultural tenant in possession of the 5shpon' an' is about to beeIecte' fro* it$ clearly$ respon'ent Dlao$ 4r- coul' not be faulte' in assu*in) Iuris'iction assai' alle)ations characterie an a)ricultural 'ispute- ?esi'es$ +hate,er 'efense asserte' inan ans+er or *otion to 'is*iss is not to be consi'ere' in resol,in) the issue on Iuris'ictionas it cannot be *a'e 'epen'ent upon the alle)ations of the 'efen'ant-

:EEFOE$ the instant petition is E%DE for lac1 of *erit$ an' the Or'er an' the October30$ !""# ;e*oran'u* of the OGce of the Special rosecutor in Cri*inal Case %o- 2366!

2nd Batch Civ Pro Digest

Documents

Transcript of 2nd Batch Civ Pro Digest