Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 76 views

    Petitioner vs. Respondent

    Uploaded by

    Ton Ton Cananea
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1999 regarding a dispute between E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. and Imperial Development Corporation over a development agreement. Imperial Development Corporation filed a breach of contract case against E.B. Villarosa in Makati court. Summons was served to the branch manager of E.B. Villarosa at its Cagayan de Oro branch office. The Supreme Court ruled that serving the branch manager was improper and did not give the trial court jurisdiction over E.B. Villarosa, as the 1997 rules require summons be served to the general manager at the principal office.

    Copyright:

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

    Petitioner vs. Respondent

    Uploaded by

    Ton Ton Cananea
    76 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1999 regarding a dispute between E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. and Imperial Development Corporation over a development agreement. Imperial Development Corporation filed a breach of contract case against E.B. Villarosa in Makati court. Summons was served to the branch manager of E.B. Villarosa at its Cagayan de Oro branch office. The Supreme Court ruled that serving the branch manager was improper and did not give the trial court jurisdiction over E.B. Villarosa, as the 1997 rules require summons be served to the general manager at the principal office.

    Original Title

    85 GAERLAN.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1999 regarding a dispute between E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. and Imperial Development Corporation over a development agreement. Imperial Development Corporation filed a breach of contract case against E.B. Villarosa in Makati court. Summons was served to the branch manager of E.B. Villarosa at its Cagayan de Oro branch office. The Supreme Court ruled that serving the branch manager was improper and did not give the trial court jurisdiction over E.B. Villarosa, as the 1997 rules require summons be served to the general manager at the principal office.

    Copyright:

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

    Petitioner vs. Respondent

    Uploaded by

    Ton Ton Cananea
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1999 regarding a dispute between E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. and Imperial Development Corporation over a development agreement. Imperial Development Corporation filed a breach of contract case against E.B. Villarosa in Makati court. Summons was served to the branch manager of E.B. Villarosa at its Cagayan de Oro branch office. The Supreme Court ruled that serving the branch manager was improper and did not give the trial court jurisdiction over E.B. Villarosa, as the 1997 rules require summons be served to the general manager at the principal office.

    Copyright:

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

    [G.R. No. 136426. August 6, 1999.

    ]
    E.B. VILLAROSA & PARTNER CO., LTD., petitioner, vs. HON. HERMINIO I.
    BENITO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 132, Makati City and
    IMPERIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ,respondent.

    GONZAGA-REYES, J.:

    Petitioner E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. and private respondent executed a
    Deed of Sale with Development Agreement wherein the former agreed to
    develop certain parcels of land located at Barrio Carmen, 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.
    On April 3, 1998, 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 in that, other than a few unfinished low cost houses, there
    were no substantial developments therein.
    Summons, together with the complaint, were served upon the defendant,
    through its Branch Manager Engr. Wendell Sabulbero at the stated address at
    Kolambog, Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City but the Sheriff's Return of Service
    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."

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

    RULING:

    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, the Court ruled 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