Case Digest (G.R. No. 206147)
Facts:
Michael C. Guy v. Atty. Glenn C. Gacott, G.R. No. 206147, January 13, 2016, the Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.On March 3, 1997, Atty. Glenn Gacott purchased two transreceivers from Quantech Systems Corporation (QSC) through its employee Rey Medestomas. After the units proved defective, Medestomas received them for replacement on May 10, 1997 but no replacements or refunds were delivered despite repeated demands, causing Gacott to incur claimed expenses of P40,936.44. Gacott filed a complaint for damages; QSC and Medestomas were served and filed an Answer but presented no evidence at trial.
On March 16, 2007, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 52, Puerto Princesa City, rendered judgment for Gacott ordering QSC and Medestomas to pay purchase price with interest, actual, moral and corrective damages, attorney’s fees and costs; the decision became final when no appeal was taken and a writ of execution issued on September 26, 2007. During execution, Gacott discovered QSC was actually a registered partnership and that Guy appeared in the partnership articles as General Manager.
On March 3, 2009, the sheriff levied and attached a vehicle registered to Guy after verifying registrations at the DOTC-LTO and serving a Notice of Attachment/Levy upon Personalty on the DOTC-LTO record custodian and by leaving notice with Guy’s housemaid. Guy moved to lift the attachment, arguing he was not a judgment debtor and had not been impleaded or validly served; Gacott opposed.
The RTC denied Guy’s Motion to Lift Attachment on June 28, 2009, holding that because QSC was an apparent corporation/registered partnership and Guy was a general partner, he could be held jointly and severally liable; a motion for reconsideration was denied on February 19, 2010. Guy appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on June 25, 2012 affirmed the RTC, reasoning that service on QSC’s authorized officer and the ver...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was jurisdiction over the partnership (QSC) and/or over Guy properly acquired by the RTC through service of summons, or was any defect cured by voluntary appearance?
- Can Guy, who was not impleaded as a party in the action against QSC, be held solidarily liable with the partnership such that his personal property could be attached without first ex...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)