Case Digest (G.R. No. 201378)
Facts:
G.V. Florida Transport, Inc. v. Tiara Commercial Corporation, G.R. No. 201378, October 18, 2017, the Supreme Court First Division, Jardeleza, J., writing for the Court.The underlying action began when Victory Liner, Inc. (VLI) sued G.V. Florida Transport, Inc. (GV Florida) and its driver, Arnold Vizquera, for damages after a bus collision on May 1, 2007. VLI alleged negligence by Vizquera and inadequate supervision by GV Florida. In its answer, GV Florida alleged a tire blowout caused by factory or mechanical defects in Michelin tires as the proximate cause of the accident.
On April 8, 2008, GV Florida filed a third‑party complaint against Tiara Commercial Corporation (TCC), alleging it had purchased fifty Michelin tires from TCC on March 23, 2007 and that four of those tires were on the bus involved in the collision; GV Florida asserted an implied warranty claim against TCC for defective tires. The trial court, Branch 129, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, ordered summons to be served on TCC; the sheriff served a person identified as Cherry Gino‑gino, who represented herself as TCC’s accounting manager.
TCC filed a Special Entry of Appearance and obtained an extension to file a responsive pleading, then moved to dismiss GV Florida’s third‑party complaint on multiple grounds: lack of jurisdiction due to improper service (not upon any officer enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14); prescription of an implied warranty claim under Article 1571 of the Civil Code; failure to state a cause of action; failure to comply with a condition precedent (no warranty claim/demand made to TCC); burden of proof issues; improper venue (principal place of business in Makati); and failure to implead Michelin as an indispensable party. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss on March 2, 2009, and denied reconsideration on July 16, 2009.
TCC then filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA) on October 5, 2009. Meanwhile, TCC filed an Answer Ad Cautelam and later participated in pre‑trial; notably, it submitted a pre‑trial brief without reservation as to the RTC’s jurisdiction and reserved the right to present additional evidence. On October 13, 2011 the CA granted TCC’s petition, holding the RTC lacked jurisdiction due to improper service (service upon a person not listed in Section 11, Rule 14) and that GV Florida’s third‑party complaint was essentially an implied warranty claim that had prescribed (filed beyond six months from delivery). The CA therefore reversed the RTC’s orders. The CA’s resolution denying reconsideration was dated March 26, 2012.
GV Florida filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 in th...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was GV Florida’s petition for review under Rule 45 timely filed (i.e., was the Court’s grant of extension proper)?
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly find that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction because service of summons on TCC was improper?
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly find that GV Florida’s third‑party complaint was barred by prescription (an implied warranty claim...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)