Case Digest (G.R. No. 175109)
Facts:
The case involves Paramount Insurance Corporation as the petitioner and A.C. Ordoñez Corporation along with Franklin Suspine as the respondents. The events center around a vehicular accident that occurred on September 10, 1997, in Brgy. Panungyanan, Gen. Trias, Cavite, where a Honda City sedan owned by Maximo Mata collided with a truck mixer owned by the A.C. Ordoñez Corporation and driven by Franklin Suspine. Following the incident, on February 22, 2000, Paramount Insurance Corp., serving as the subrogee of Mata, filed a complaint against the respondents for damages before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Makati City.The initial summons was served on April 3, 2000, to the respondent corporation through its receiving section, yet Franklin Suspine was not served at this time. On May 19, 2000, Paramount filed a Motion to Declare Defendants in Default due to the lack of a response. In turn, the respondent corporation submitted an Omnibus Motion on June 28, 2000, contesting t
Case Digest (G.R. No. 175109)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- Paramount Insurance Corp., acting as the subrogee of Maximo Mata—the registered owner of a Honda City sedan—involved in a vehicular accident with a truck mixer on September 10, 1997, initiated the litigation.
- The truck mixer was owned by respondent corporation and driven by respondent Franklin A. Suspine.
- On February 22, 2000, Paramount Insurance filed a complaint for damages before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Makati City.
- Service of Process and Preliminary Motions
- Summons Service
- Based on the Sheriff’s Return, the complaint’s summons was not served on respondent Suspine but was purportedly served on the respondent corporation through its Receiving Section—received by Samuel D. Marcoleta on April 3, 2000.
- The manner of service was later questioned because it did not conform to the prescribed list of authorized officers.
- Motion to Declare Default
- Petitioner filed a Motion to Declare Defendants in Default on May 19, 2000.
- Before the resolution of the first motion, a Second Motion to Declare Defendants in Default was filed on June 30, 2000.
- Respondent’s Omnibus Motion and Subsequent Proceedings
- On June 28, 2000, respondent corporation filed an Omnibus Motion alleging that the summons was improperly served, as it was delivered to a secretarial staff and later received by its President and General Manager only on June 24, 2000.
- The respondent also sought a 15-day extension for filing an Answer.
- Motion to Admit Answer and Filing of the Answer with Counterclaim
- On July 26, 2000, respondent corporation moved to admit its Answer, invoking honest mistake and asserting that business reversals delayed the hiring of legal counsel.
- The Answer with Counterclaim denied liability, alleged fault on the part of Maximo Mata, and claimed due selection and supervision of employees by respondent corporation.
- Orders and Preliminary Injunction
- Metropolitan Trial Court (Branch 66) Order
- On August 25, 2000, the MTC admitted the Answer and set the case for pre-trial.
- The Order also scheduled a pre-trial hearing for October 17, 2000, and was issued despite arguments regarding the absence of a notice of hearing in the Answer.
- Subsequent Relief Sought by Petitioner
- Petitioner moved for reconsideration after the admission of the Answer but was denied.
- A petition for certiorari and mandamus, including a request for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order, was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City.
- RTC and CA Proceedings
- On October 16, 2000, the RTC issued a temporary restraining order and later granted a writ of preliminary injunction on May 22, 2001.
- On September 21, 2005, the RTC rendered a decision granting the petition for certiorari and mandamus, setting aside certain MTC orders and making the injunction permanent, and remanded the case for the Second Motion to Declare Default.
- The respondent corporation’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting an appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reaffirmed the MTC orders in a decision dated July 17, 2006.
- Issues Raised in the Petition
- The petition raised issues including:
- The validity of service of summons on the respondent corporation.
- Whether a party without corporate existence (post-dissolution) may file an appeal.
- Whether the court erred in not referring the case to mediation.
- Whether there was fraud committed by the petitioner in its pleadings.
Issues:
- Validity of Service of Summons
- Whether the service of summons on respondent corporation through its Receiving Section—specifically via an employee not enumerated among the authorized officers—is valid under Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Corporate Existence and Right to Appeal
- Whether the respondent corporation, despite allegations of lacking legal personality as a result of cancellation of its certificate of registration, retains the capacity to file an appeal.
- Consideration of the provisions under the Corporation Code that allow a dissolved corporation to continue as a body corporate for a limited period for litigation purposes.
- Referral to Mediation
- Whether it was an error for the court to decline referring the case to mediation.
- Issues concerning the petitioner’s failure to specify in its pleadings that the case was “mediatable” or to submit a written request for mediation, as required by the revised guidelines.
- Allegation of Fraud in the Pleadings
- Whether there was any fraudulent act committed by the petitioner in the preparation or presentation of its pleadings.
- The implication of such an allegation on the overall proceedings and the merits of the petition.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)