Title
NM Rothschild and Sons Ltd. vs. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co.
Case
G.R. No. 175799
Decision Date
Nov 28, 2011
Lepanto sought to void loan and hedging contracts with Rothschild, alleging they were gambling agreements under Philippine law. Rothschild contested jurisdiction and cause of action, but courts ruled service proper, jurisdiction acquired, and cause sufficiently stated, remanding for trial.
complaint
grave abuse of discretion
trial court
A

Case Digest (A.M. No. P-09-2668)

Facts:

  • Background of the Case
    • Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company ("Respondent") filed a Complaint on August 30, 2005, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City against NM Rothschild & Sons (Australia) Limited ("Petitioner"), seeking a declaration that the loan and hedging contracts between them were void under Article 2018 of the Civil Code and claiming damages.
    • The Complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 05-782 and raffled to Branch 150.
  • Service of Summons and Initial Pleadings
    • Upon the motion of Respondent, the trial court authorized Respondent’s counsel to personally deliver the summons and complaint to the Philippine Consulate General in Sydney, Australia, for service of summons on Petitioner.
    • Petitioner filed a Special Appearance with a Motion to Dismiss (October 20, 2005) alleging:
      • The trial court lacked jurisdiction over Petitioner due to defective and improper service of summons;
      • The Complaint failed to state a cause of action and Respondent had none against Petitioner;
      • The action was barred by estoppel; and
      • Respondent did not come to court with clean hands.
    • Petitioner also filed motions seeking leave to take deposition and serve interrogatories.
  • Rulings of the Trial Court
    • The trial court denied the Motion to Dismiss (December 9, 2005), holding:
      • Proper service of summons was effected through the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), considering Petitioner had neither applied for a license to do business in the Philippines nor designated any agent for service;
      • The Complaint stated a cause of action; and
      • The other defenses claimed by Petitioner were matters for trial.
    • The trial court denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Petitioner (March 6, 2006) and disallowed the motions for deposition and interrogatories.
  • Petition for Certiorari to the Court of Appeals
    • Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying the Motion to Dismiss.
    • The Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition (September 8, 2006), ruling the denial of a Motion to Dismiss was interlocutory and not a proper subject for certiorari, and denied the Motion for Reconsideration (December 12, 2006).
  • Present Petition for Review
    • Petitioner filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution.
    • Petitioner argued:
      • An order denying a Motion to Dismiss may be subject to certiorari;
      • The trial court lacked jurisdiction and the Complaint failed to state a cause of action.
    • Respondent opposed, arguing the Petition should be dismissed for lack of a real party in interest, for absence of proper verification and certification against forum shopping; the CA correctly ruled certiorari was not the proper remedy; and the Motion to Dismiss was properly denied by the RTC.
  • Corporate Identity Issue
    • Respondent argued Petitioner no longer existed as NM Rothschild & Sons (Australia) Limited at the time the Petition was filed (February 1, 2007).
    • Petitioner disclosed its name was changed to Investec Australia Limited, showing documentary proof of the name change with the Australian Securities & Investment Commission.

Issues:

  • Whether Petitioner is the real party in interest despite change of corporate name.
  • Whether the denial of the Motion to Dismiss may be the subject of a petition for certiorari.
  • Whether the trial court erred in denying the Motion to Dismiss for:
    • Lack of jurisdiction over the person of Petitioner due to defective service of summons;
    • Failure of the Complaint to state a cause of action;
    • Other asserted defenses including estoppel and Respondent’s alleged unclean hands.
  • Whether Petitioner voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court by seeking affirmative reliefs.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms