Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    Republic V Central Surety

    Uploaded by

    Karla Espinosa
    The Republic of the Philippines filed an action against Central Surety for forfeiture of a bond issued when a defendant failed to appear in court proceedings. Central Surety filed a third-party complaint against the defendant seeking indemnification under their agreement. The trial court dismissed the third-party complaint based on the amount involved being below the court's jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court held that a court has jurisdiction over any third-party complaints that are ancillary to the main action over which the court already has jurisdiction, regardless of the amount involved in the third-party case. For a third-party complaint to be allowed, it must show that the third party may be liable to the original defendant for all or part of the plaintiff

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republic V Central Surety

    Uploaded by

    Karla Espinosa
    56 views1 page
    The Republic of the Philippines filed an action against Central Surety for forfeiture of a bond issued when a defendant failed to appear in court proceedings. Central Surety filed a third-party complaint against the defendant seeking indemnification under their agreement. The trial court dismissed the third-party complaint based on the amount involved being below the court's jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court held that a court has jurisdiction over any third-party complaints that are ancillary to the main action over which the court already has jurisdiction, regardless of the amount involved in the third-party case. For a third-party complaint to be allowed, it must show that the third party may be liable to the original defendant for all or part of the plaintiff

    Original Description:

    Third-party complaint. downloaded from another source.

    Original Title

    Republic v Central Surety

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Republic of the Philippines filed an action against Central Surety for forfeiture of a bond issued when a defendant failed to appear in court proceedings. Central Surety filed a third-party complaint against the defendant seeking indemnification under their agreement. The trial court dismissed the third-party complaint based on the amount involved being below the court's jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court held that a court has jurisdiction over any third-party complaints that are ancillary to the main action over which the court already has jurisdiction, regardless of the amount involved in the third-party case. For a third-party complaint to be allowed, it must show that the third party may be liable to the original defendant for all or part of the plaintiff

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    56 views1 page

    Republic V Central Surety

    Uploaded by

    Karla Espinosa
    The Republic of the Philippines filed an action against Central Surety for forfeiture of a bond issued when a defendant failed to appear in court proceedings. Central Surety filed a third-party complaint against the defendant seeking indemnification under their agreement. The trial court dismissed the third-party complaint based on the amount involved being below the court's jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court held that a court has jurisdiction over any third-party complaints that are ancillary to the main action over which the court already has jurisdiction, regardless of the amount involved in the third-party case. For a third-party complaint to be allowed, it must show that the third party may be liable to the original defendant for all or part of the plaintiff

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Republic v.

    Central Surety
    25 SCRA 641

    Facts: Republic of the Philippines filed an action against Central Surety for forfeiture of
    the bond it issued when Po Kee Kam, a defendant in CID proceedings failed to appear.
    The Surety filed a TPC vs. Po Kee Kam on ground that the latter executed an indemnity
    agreement in favor of the surety. The TC dismissed the TPC on the ground that the 3rd
    party claim is only 6,000.
    Held: A Thid Party Complaint is an ancillary suit w/c depends on the jurisdiction of the
    court over the main action. Jurisdiction over the main action embraces all the
    incidental matters arising therefr. or connected therew/, otherwise there would be split
    jurisdiction. The TPC is a continuation of the main action the purpose of w/c is to seek
    contribution or any other relief in resp. to opponents claim. Thus, regardless of LOJ over
    the amount in TPC, when ct. has jurisdxn. over main action, it has jurisdxn. over the
    TPC.
    In TPC, the defendant sue in capacity he is being sued w/ resp. to pltf. claim in the main
    action. the def. cannot compel the pltf. to implead the third party def. There must also
    be privity of contract in relation to the property in litigation.
    TEST: there must be a showing that such third party is or might be liable to the def. or
    pltf. for all or part of the claim vs. the def.
    WON it arises out of the same transaction on w/c pltfs claim is based. ( CAVEAT)
    The ct. must wait before the 3rd party def. files his answer before proceeding to trial
    since before the answer, the case is not yet ready for trials as issues have not yet been
    joined.
    Remedies when denied

    You might also like