Case Digest (G.R. No. 201378)
Facts:
In G.V. Florida Transport, Inc. v. Tiara Commercial Corporation, Victory Liner, Inc. (VLI) sued G.V. Florida Transport, Inc. (GV Florida) and its driver for damages after a bus collision on May 1, 2007 along Capirpiwan, Cordon, Isabela. GV Florida answered that a factory defect in four Michelin tires—purchased from Tiara Commercial Corporation (TCC) on March 23, 2007 and installed on the bus—caused a blow-out and the accident. On April 8, 2008, GV Florida filed a third-party complaint against TCC. The RTC, Branch 129, Caloocan City, ordered service of summons, but the sheriff delivered papers to Cherry Gino-gino, TCC’s accounting manager, not one of the officers listed under Rule 14, Section 11. TCC entered a special appearance, obtained extension of time, then moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, prescription of the implied warranty claim under Civil Code Article 1571, failure to state a cause of action, lack of condition precedent, improper venue and non-joinder of MicheCase Digest (G.R. No. 201378)
Facts:
- Collision and original suit
- On May 1, 2007, a GV Florida Transport, Inc. bus driven by Arnold Vizquera collided with a Victory Liner, Inc. (VLI) bus along Capirpiwan, Cordon, Isabela.
- VLI filed an action for damages against GV Florida and its driver, alleging negligence and lack of due diligence in supervising its employee.
- Third-party complaint against TCC
- On April 8, 2008, GV Florida filed a third-party complaint against Tiara Commercial Corporation (TCC), claiming factory and mechanical defects in 50 Michelin tires it purchased from TCC on March 23, 2007.
- The RTC served summons on TCC by leaving it with an unauthorized accounting manager, Cherry Gino-gino. TCC filed a Special Entry of Appearance and Motion to Dismiss, arguing:
- Procedural history
- RTC Branch 129 denied TCC’s motion to dismiss (Order Mar 2, 2009; Reconsideration Order Jul 16, 2009).
- TCC filed a Rule 65 petition before the Court of Appeals (CA), which granted relief on October 13, 2011, holding (a) the RTC lacked jurisdiction over TCC for improper service, and (b) the third-party action had prescribed.
- GV Florida sought review by petition for certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, which granted an extension of time and reached the merits.
Issues:
- Jurisdiction – Did the CA correctly find that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over TCC due to improper service of summons, amounting to grave abuse of discretion?
- Prescription – Did the CA correctly rule that GV Florida’s third-party complaint (implied warranty claim) had prescribed under the six-month period of Art. 1571, Civil Code?
- Procedural remedy – Was CA’s use of Rule 65 certiorari appropriate to reverse an interlocutory order without showing grave abuse of discretion?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)