Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 404 views

    Mediserv Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Jec Luceriaga Biraquit
    Mediserv defaulted on a loan from Chinabank and its property was foreclosed and sold to Landheights Development Corporation. Landheights filed for ejectment against Mediserv, which the MeTC ruled in favor of but the RTC reversed. The CA initially dismissed Landheights' petition for review for lacking written authority for its representative to sign, but reinstated it upon subsequent compliance. Mediserv argues the CA gravely abused its discretion in reinstating. The Supreme Court disagrees, finding prior jurisprudence allows belated filing of certifications in exceptional circumstances, which applied here as Landheights substantially complied with verification and certification requirements.

    Copyright:

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

    Mediserv Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Jec Luceriaga Biraquit
    404 views1 page
    Mediserv defaulted on a loan from Chinabank and its property was foreclosed and sold to Landheights Development Corporation. Landheights filed for ejectment against Mediserv, which the MeTC ruled in favor of but the RTC reversed. The CA initially dismissed Landheights' petition for review for lacking written authority for its representative to sign, but reinstated it upon subsequent compliance. Mediserv argues the CA gravely abused its discretion in reinstating. The Supreme Court disagrees, finding prior jurisprudence allows belated filing of certifications in exceptional circumstances, which applied here as Landheights substantially complied with verification and certification requirements.

    Original Description:

    mediserv

    Original Title

    Mediserv vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Mediserv defaulted on a loan from Chinabank and its property was foreclosed and sold to Landheights Development Corporation. Landheights filed for ejectment against Mediserv, which the MeTC ruled in favor of but the RTC reversed. The CA initially dismissed Landheights' petition for review for lacking written authority for its representative to sign, but reinstated it upon subsequent compliance. Mediserv argues the CA gravely abused its discretion in reinstating. The Supreme Court disagrees, finding prior jurisprudence allows belated filing of certifications in exceptional circumstances, which applied here as Landheights substantially complied with verification and certification requirements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    404 views1 page

    Mediserv Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Jec Luceriaga Biraquit
    Mediserv defaulted on a loan from Chinabank and its property was foreclosed and sold to Landheights Development Corporation. Landheights filed for ejectment against Mediserv, which the MeTC ruled in favor of but the RTC reversed. The CA initially dismissed Landheights' petition for review for lacking written authority for its representative to sign, but reinstated it upon subsequent compliance. Mediserv argues the CA gravely abused its discretion in reinstating. The Supreme Court disagrees, finding prior jurisprudence allows belated filing of certifications in exceptional circumstances, which applied here as Landheights substantially complied with verification and certification requirements.

    Copyright:

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

    MEDISERV, INC VS CA

    FACTS
    Petitioner Mediserv, Inc. executed a real estate mortgage in favor of China Banking
    Corporation as security for a loan. Mediserv defaulted on its obligation with Chinabank
    and the real estate mortgage was foreclosed. At the public auction sale, private
    respondent Landheights Development Corporation emerged as the highest bidder. after
    consolidation of title in with Landheights, it filed a verified complaint for ejectment against
    Mediserv before the MeTC of Manila. The court ruled in favor of Landheights. On appeal,
    the RTC reversed and set aside the said decision. The Petition for Review filed by the
    respondent was initially dismissed by the CA on the ground that the written authority of
    Dickson Tan to sign the verification and certification were not attached to the petition, but
    was later reinstated by subsequent compliance thereto. Hence, this petition.

    ISSUE
    WON the CA graveley abused its discretion and acted without and/or excess of
    jurisdiction in reinstating the petition despite the clear mandate of the Rules

    HELD
    NO. Under Rule 46, Section 3, paragraph 3 of the Rules, petitions for certiorari must be
    verified and accompanied by a sworn certification of non-forum shopping. The party need
    not sign the verification. A partys representative, lawyer or any person who personally
    knows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading may sign the verification. On the other
    hand, in the case of certification of non-forum shopping, non compliance on the
    requirements thereof shall constitute a fatal defect and be a ground for dismissal of the
    case. However, there are settled jurisprudence raised by the SC of exceptional
    circumstances and compelling reasons which the court allowed the belated filing of the
    certification and justified the relaxation of the rule requiring verification and certification
    on non-forum shopping, as in the case of Shipside Incorporated v. CA. Hence, there is
    sufficient jurisprudential basis to hold that Landheights has substantially complied with
    the verification and certification requirements.

    You might also like