Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 304 views

    Eb Villarosa VS Benito

    Uploaded by

    maginoo69
    This case involves a dispute between E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. and Benito over a development agreement. Benito filed a complaint in Makati court. Summons was served on Villarosa's branch manager in Cagayan de Oro City, not the general manager at its principal office. Villarosa argued the court did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that under the rules, summons can only be served on specific high-level officers like the general manager or corporate secretary at the principal office, not other employees at branch offices. Therefore, service was improper and the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Villarosa.

    Copyright:

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

    Eb Villarosa VS Benito

    Uploaded by

    maginoo69
    304 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute between E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. and Benito over a development agreement. Benito filed a complaint in Makati court. Summons was served on Villarosa's branch manager in Cagayan de Oro City, not the general manager at its principal office. Villarosa argued the court did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that under the rules, summons can only be served on specific high-level officers like the general manager or corporate secretary at the principal office, not other employees at branch offices. Therefore, service was improper and the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Villarosa.

    Original Title

    EB VILLAROSA VS BENITO.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute between E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. and Benito over a development agreement. Benito filed a complaint in Makati court. Summons was served on Villarosa's branch manager in Cagayan de Oro City, not the general manager at its principal office. Villarosa argued the court did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that under the rules, summons can only be served on specific high-level officers like the general manager or corporate secretary at the principal office, not other employees at branch offices. Therefore, service was improper and the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Villarosa.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    304 views2 pages

    Eb Villarosa VS Benito

    Uploaded by

    maginoo69
    This case involves a dispute between E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. and Benito over a development agreement. Benito filed a complaint in Makati court. Summons was served on Villarosa's branch manager in Cagayan de Oro City, not the general manager at its principal office. Villarosa argued the court did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that under the rules, summons can only be served on specific high-level officers like the general manager or corporate secretary at the principal office, not other employees at branch offices. Therefore, service was improper and the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Villarosa.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    E.B. VILLAROSA & PARTNER CO., LTD. Vs.

    BENITO,

    Facts:

    Petitioner E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. is a limited partnership with principal office
    address in Davao City and with branch offices in Parañaque, Metro Manila and
    Cagayan de Oro City

    Petitioner and private respondent executed a Deed of Sale with Development


    Agreement wherein the former agreed to develop certain parcels of land located in
    Cagayan de Oro belonging to the latter into a housing subdivision for the construction
    of low cost housing units. They further agreed that in case of litigation regarding any
    dispute arising therefrom, the venue shall be in the proper courts of Makati

    Private respondent, as plaintiff, filed a Complaint for Breach of Contract and Damages
    against petitioner, as defendant, before the Regional Trial Court of Makati allegedly
    for failure of the latter to comply with its contractual obligation

    Summons, together with the complaint, were served upon the defendant, through its

    Branch Manager Engr. Wendell Sabulbero at the stated address in Cagayan de Oro City
    2 but the Sheriff's Return of Service 3 stated that the summons was duly served
    "upon defendant E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. thru its Branch Manager Engr.
    WENDELL SABULBERO on May 5, 1998 at their new office Villa Gonzalo, Nazareth,
    Cagayan de Oro City, and evidenced by the signature on the face of the original copy
    of the summons."

    Defendant prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of improper service
    of summons and for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Defendant
    contends that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over its person since the
    summons was improperly served upon its employee in its branch office at Cagayan
    de Oro City who is not one of those persons named in Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997
    Rules of Civil Procedure upon whom service of summons may be made

    Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 6 alleging that the records
    show that defendant, through its branch manager, Engr. Wendell Sabulbero actually
    received the summons and the complaint on May 8, 1998 as evidenced by the
    signature appearing on the copy of the summons and not on May 5, 1998 as stated
    in the Sheriff's Return nor on May 6, 1998 as stated in the motion to dismiss

    Trial court issued an Order denying defendant's Motion to Dismiss; that since the
    summons and copy of the complaint were in fact received by the corporation through
    its branch manager Wendell Sabulbero, there was substantial compliance with the
    rule on service of summons and consequently, it validly acquired jurisdiction over the
    person of the defendant

    Issue:

    Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner upon
    service of summons on its Branch Manager

    Ruling:

    Petitioner contends that the enumeration of persons to whom summons may be served
    (Rule 14 Sec 13) is "restricted, limited and exclusive" following the rule on statutory
    construction expression unios est exclusio alterius and argues that if the Rules of
    Court Revision Committee intended to liberalize the rule on service of summons, it
    could have easily done so by clear and concise language

    We agree with petitioner

    The designation of persons or officers who are authorized to accept summons for a
    domestic corporation or partnership is now limited and more clearly specified in
    Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule now states "general
    manager" instead of only "manager"; "corporate secretary" instead of "secretary";
    and "treasurer" instead of "cashier." The phrase "agent, or any of its directors" is
    conspicuously deleted in the new rule
    Accordingly, we rule that the service of summons upon the branch manager of
    petitioner at its branch office at Cagayan de Oro, instead of upon the general
    manager at its principal office at Davao City is improper. Consequently, the trial court
    did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner

    You might also like