Case Digest (G.R. No. L-57218)
Facts:
Far Corporation and Rosa O. de Caram v. Hon. Ricardo J. Francisco, G.R. No. L-57218, December 12, 1986, Supreme Court Second Division, Paras, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Far Corporation (a corporation owning a residential apartment) and Rosa O. de Caram (its manager and owner) were sued by private respondent Elizabeth P. Nicolas, the lessee of the apartment, in Civil Case No. 40297 filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, Branch VI at Pasig. Nicolas alleged that petitioners gave notice terminating the lease effective February 15, 1981, refused her tender of rent for January 16 to February 15, 1981, and padlocked the unit; she sought damages and prayed for a preliminary injunction. The complaint was filed on February 19, 1981.
On February 27, 1981 the deputy sheriff attempted service at 2256 Pasong Tamo, Makati: the processes were first presented to Atty. Melquiades Paredes, who identified himself as the corporation’s counsel but declined to accept service and referred the deputy sheriff to Mr. Enrique Dizon, believed to be the corporation’s cashier. The summonses were ultimately served on Mr. Dizon, who was in fact the Finance and Administrative Manager of the corporation. Both petitioners moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over their persons, contending that service on Dizon did not comply with Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court and that substituted service on Caram was improper.
The CFI denied the motions (order dated March 18, 1981) and denied reconsideration (order dated June 1, 1981), prompting petitioners to file a petition for certiorari in this Court seeking annulment of those orders. The Supreme Court, in a resolution of July 6, 1981, required respondent Nicolas to comment and issued a restraining order enjoining further proceedings in the CFI. After interlocutory procedural steps (request...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the service of summons on Enrique Dizon and by substituted service on Rosa O. de Caram was valid such that the Court of First Instance acquired jurisdiction over their ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)