Case Digest (G.R. No. 175799)
Facts:
NM Rothschild & Sons (Australia) Limited) v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, G.R. No. 175799, November 28, 2011, First Division, Leonardo-De Castro, J., writing for the Court.On August 30, 2005, Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company (plaintiff/respondent) filed Civil Case No. 05-782 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City, Branch 150, seeking a declaration that certain loan and hedging contracts with NM Rothschild & Sons (Australia) Limited (defendant/petitioner) were void under Article 2018 of the Civil Code and praying for damages. Plaintiff caused service of summons by bringing the process to the Philippine Consulate General in Sydney and transmitting it through the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA).
On October 20, 2005, petitioner filed a Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss raising lack of jurisdiction over its person (defective service), failure to state a cause of action, estoppel, and unclean hands. While the Motion to Dismiss was pending, petitioner sought discovery: motions to take deposition before the Philippine Consul General and to serve interrogatories. The trial court, by Order dated December 9, 2005, denied the Motion to Dismiss, finding service valid and the complaint sufficient; its denial of reconsideration followed on March 6, 2006, and the court disallowed petitioner's motions for deposition and interrogatories.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 94382) on April 3, 2006, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on September 8, 2006, holding that an order denying a Motion to Dismiss is interlocutory and generally not the proper subject of certiorari; its December 12, 2006 resolution denied reconsideration. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with this Court (Rule 45), arguing inter alia that certiorari was proper and that the RTC lacked personal jurisdiction and that the complaint failed to...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is petitioner a real party in interest entitled to prosecute the Petition?
- Was certiorari the proper remedy to challenge the RTC's denial of the Motion to Dismiss?
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction because of allegedly defective extraterritorial service of summons?
- Could the Motion to Dismiss properly dispose of respondent’s substantive defenses (failure to state a cause of action under Article 201...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)