Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Case Digest - Juasing Hardware vs. Hon. Mendoza

    Uploaded by

    Chem Mae
    378 views2 pages
    1) Juasing Hardware, a sole proprietorship, sued Pillar Dolla for unpaid purchases but Dolla argued Juasing lacked legal capacity to sue. 2) The judge dismissed Juasing's complaint, finding sole proprietorships lack juridical personality. 3) The Supreme Court upheld that dismissal, as sole proprietorships are not considered juridical persons able to sue or be sued. However, the Court found the judge should have allowed Juasing to amend its complaint to add "doing business as Juasing Hardware" to correct the formal defect.

    Original Description:

    A case digest for the case of Juasing Hardware vs. Hon. Mendoza. A civil procedure case.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Juasing Hardware, a sole proprietorship, sued Pillar Dolla for unpaid purchases but Dolla argued Juasing lacked legal capacity to sue. 2) The judge dismissed Juasing's complaint, finding sole proprietorships lack juridical personality. 3) The Supreme Court upheld that dismissal, as sole proprietorships are not considered juridical persons able to sue or be sued. However, the Court found the judge should have allowed Juasing to amend its complaint to add "doing business as Juasing Hardware" to correct the formal defect.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    378 views2 pages

    Case Digest - Juasing Hardware vs. Hon. Mendoza

    Uploaded by

    Chem Mae
    1) Juasing Hardware, a sole proprietorship, sued Pillar Dolla for unpaid purchases but Dolla argued Juasing lacked legal capacity to sue. 2) The judge dismissed Juasing's complaint, finding sole proprietorships lack juridical personality. 3) The Supreme Court upheld that dismissal, as sole proprietorships are not considered juridical persons able to sue or be sued. However, the Court found the judge should have allowed Juasing to amend its complaint to add "doing business as Juasing Hardware" to correct the formal defect.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    JUASING HARDWARE vs. HON.

    MENDOZA
    CASE DIGEST
    FACTS:
    Juasing Hardware, single proprietorship, represented by its general manager Ong, filed
    a collection for money suit against Pillar Dolla, alleging in its complaint that despite
    repeated demands respondent Dolla refused to pay the purchase price of items,
    materials and merchandise which she bought from Juasing Hardware.
    Pillar Dolla, on the other hand, answered the complaint by questioning the legal
    personality and the capacity to sue of Juasing Hardware. Dolla, filed a Motion to Dismiss
    for Juasing Hardwares lack of capacity to sue.
    Respondent Judge Mendoza dismissed the complaint and denied the admission of the
    amended complaint by Juasing.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Juasing Hardware has the capacity to sue?
    Whether or not it was right for the respondent Judge to outright dismiss the
    complaint and deny the petitioner admission to amend the complaint?
    HELD:
    I. Whether or not Juasing Hardware has the capacity to sue? Juasing Hardware has no
    capacity to sue

    The Supreme Court held that Section 1, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court provides
    that only natural or juridical persons or entities are authorized by law to be parties in a
    civil action.
    Since petitioner is not a natural person, it cannot also be considered as a juridical person
    since Article 44 of the New Civil Code enumerates what are juridical persons and as
    single proprietorship, is it not included in the enumeration.

    "Art. 44. The following are juridical persons:


    (1) The State and its political subdivisions;
    (2) Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or purpose, created by
    law; their personality begins as soon as they have been constituted according to law;

    (3) Corporations, partnerships and associations for private interest or purpose to which the
    law grants a juridical personality, separate and distinct from that of each shareholder,
    partner or member."

    There is no law authorizing sole proprietorships like petitioner to bring suit in court. The
    law merely recognizes the existence of a sole proprietorship as a form of business
    organization conducted for profit by a single individual, and requires the proprietor or
    owner thereof to secure licenses and permits, register the business name, and pay taxes
    to the national government. It does not vest juridical or legal personality upon the sole
    proprietorship nor empower it to file or defend an action in court.
    II.

    Whether or not it was right for the respondent Judge to outright dismiss the complaint
    and deny the petitioner admission to amend the complaint? It was not right to dismiss
    it.
    However, the Supreme Court further held that the descriptive words "doing business as
    `Juasing Hardware'" may be added in the title of the case, as is customarily done.
    Section 4 of Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
    "Sec. 4. Formal Amendments. A defect in the designation of the parties may be summarily
    corrected at any stage of the action provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the adverse party."

    The defect of the complaint in the instant case is merely formal, not substantial.
    Substitution of the party plaintiff would not constitute a change in the identity of the
    parties. No unfairness or surprise to private respondent Dolla, defendant in the court a
    quo, would result by allowing the amendment, the purpose of which is merely to
    conform to procedural rules or to correct a technical error.
    In the more recent case of Shaffer vs. Palma that "the courts should be liberal in
    allowing amendments to pleadings to avoid multiplicity of suits and in order that the
    real controversies between the parties are presented and the case decided on the
    merits without unnecessary delay." This rule applies with more reason and with greater
    force when, as in the case at bar, the amendment sought to be made refers to a mere
    matter of form and no substantial rights are prejudiced.

    You might also like