Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Digest - Juasing Hardware vs. Hon. Mendoza
Case Digest - Juasing Hardware vs. Hon. Mendoza
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.
(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.