Title
The Philippine American Life and General Insurance Company vs. Breva
Case
G.R. No. 147937
Decision Date
Nov 11, 2004
The Supreme Court affirms the Court of Appeals' decision that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss due to improper service of summons, and that the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the defendant, The Philippine American Life & General Insurance Company (Philamlife), in the case filed by Milagros P. Morales.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 147937)

Facts:

  • The case involves The Philippine American Life & General Insurance Company (Philamlife) as the petitioner and Milagros P. Morales as the respondent, with Hon. Augusto V. Breva presiding as the judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 10.
  • On September 22, 1999, Morales filed a complaint for damages and reimbursement of insurance premiums against Philamlife, specifying that summons could be served through its Manager at its Davao City branch office.
  • Summons dated September 29, 1999, was served on November 19, 1999, to Ruthie Babael, an Insurance Service Officer at Philamlife's Davao regional office.
  • Philamlife filed a motion to dismiss on December 8, 1999, citing improper service of summons as the employee served was not authorized under Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
  • Morales amended her complaint on December 9, 1999, to include service at Philamlife's principal office in Manila.
  • The RTC denied the motion to dismiss on December 10, 1999, and ordered the issuance of an alias summons to be served at the main office.
  • Philamlife's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on January 14, 2000.
  • Philamlife then filed a special action for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition on October 24, 2000, and denied the motion for reconsideration on April 25, 2001.
  • Philamlife then sought review by the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  1. The trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.
  2. The trial court acquired jurisdiction over Philamlife upo...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.
  • The Court cited the ruling in Lingner & Fisher GMBH vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, which states that a case should not be dismissed simply because an original summons was wrongfully served.
  • The Court also referenced the case of Teh vs. Court of Appeals, where it was held that there was no abuse of discretion in denying a motion to dismiss and ordering the issuance of an alias summons.
  • The Court noted that the amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, and the summons on the original complaint continues to have its legal effect.
  • Since no valid sum...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.