Case Digest (G.R. No. 204796)
Facts:
Reicon Realty Builders Corporation v. Diamond Dragon Realty and Management, Inc., G.R. No. 204796, February 04, 2015, First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Reicon Realty Builders Corporation (Reicon) owned a parcel with a one‑storey building in Sta. Mesa, Quezon City (the subject property). On January 9, 1991, Reicon leased the property to respondent Diamond Dragon Realty and Management, Inc. (Diamond) for twenty years; Diamond in turn sublet portions to Jollibee Foods Corporation and Maybunga U.K. Enterprises (Maybunga). Beginning June 2006 Diamond allegedly failed to pay rentals; Reicon sent a termination/demand letter dated July 23, 2007 and thereafter executed new leases with Jollibee and Maybunga.
On November 12, 2009 Diamond filed a complaint for breach of contract and unlawful interference against Reicon, Jollibee, Maybunga and individuals before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 166 (Civil Case No. 72319), seeking among others the nullification of Reicon’s unilateral termination and the separate leases and recovery of rents and damages. Reicon filed a special appearance and a motion to dismiss on grounds including improper service of summons, Diamond’s alleged lack of corporate capacity (SEC revocation), and lack of cause of action. The RTC, in an Order dated June 9, 2010, denied the motion to dismiss and likewise denied Reicon’s motion for reconsideration on September 16, 2010.
Reicon elevated the RTC orders to the Court of Appeals (CA) by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 116845), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC judge. The CA required Reicon to show cause (March 28, 2011) because its resolution addressing Diamond at an address on record was returned RTS—Moved Out. Reicon filed a compliance (April 4, 2011) asserting service upon Diamond at the address it had given in the RTC case and alternatively tendering service upon Diamond’s counsel. Diamond, through counsel Atty. Marqueda, filed a manifestation (May 5, 2011) arguing that Reicon failed to serve counsel of record and thus the CA lacked jurisdiction over it. The CA dismissed Reicon’s certiorari petition in a Re...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was Reicon’s petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals properly served upon Diamond such that the CA acquired jurisdiction over Diamond’s pe...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)