Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Kobe Vs Tom's

    Uploaded by

    bogoldoy
    39 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines issued a resolution denying a petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision regarding a civil case between Kobe Clinic Corporation and Tom's World Philippines Corporation. The resolution affirmed the lower court's finding that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over Tom's World because summons was improperly served on the company's branch manager rather than an authorized individual. The Supreme Court concluded that factual findings of the lower courts were binding and that service of summons was clearly improper based on the evidence and relevant laws.

    Original Description:

    Sc

    Original Title

    Kobe vs tom's

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines issued a resolution denying a petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision regarding a civil case between Kobe Clinic Corporation and Tom's World Philippines Corporation. The resolution affirmed the lower court's finding that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over Tom's World because summons was improperly served on the company's branch manager rather than an authorized individual. The Supreme Court concluded that factual findings of the lower courts were binding and that service of summons was clearly improper based on the evidence and relevant laws.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    39 views3 pages

    Kobe Vs Tom's

    Uploaded by

    bogoldoy
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines issued a resolution denying a petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision regarding a civil case between Kobe Clinic Corporation and Tom's World Philippines Corporation. The resolution affirmed the lower court's finding that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over Tom's World because summons was improperly served on the company's branch manager rather than an authorized individual. The Supreme Court concluded that factual findings of the lower courts were binding and that service of summons was clearly improper based on the evidence and relevant laws.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    ~

    l\epublic of tbe flbilippines


    ~upreme <!Court
    ;fffianila. ---------· ·-·+--

    FIRST DIVISION

    NOTICE
    Sirs/Mesdames:

    Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a


    Resolution dated June 3, 2019 which reads as follows:

    "G.R. No. 243835 - Kobe Clinic Corporation, petitioner, v.


    Tom's World Philippines Corporation, respondent.

    The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for


    Extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary
    period within which to file its petition for review on certiorari.

    This Court has carefully reviewed the allegations, issues, and


    arguments adduced in the instant petition for review on certiorari and
    accordingly further resolves to DENY the same for: (1) raising a
    factual issue; and (2) failure to sufficiently show that the Court of
    Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 152575, committed any reversible
    error in affirming the Regional Trial Court, Branch 276, Muntinlupa
    City's (RTC) March 30, 2017 and July 11, 2017 Orders.

    The instant petition seeks to have this Court review the


    evidence petitioner presented before the RTC which would allegedly
    show respondent's knowledge of the pendency of the complaint for
    damages petitioner filed against it and that respondent should have
    therefore, filed a motion to set aside the RTC's order of default rather
    than a Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam.

    Time and again, this Court has explained that only questions of
    law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. The factual
    findings of the CA bind this Court. 1 This is especially true here where
    the RTC and the CA are unanimous in their factual findings.

    - over - two (2>) pages ...


    31/

    1
    Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil, 167, 169 (2016), citing Section I, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and
    Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Leobrera, 461 Phil. 461, 469 (2003).

    ·~
    RESOLUTION 2 G.R. No. 243835
    June 3, 2019

    The same can be said on the issue of laches. This Court ruled
    in BU:ol.Agro-lndustrial Producers Coop., Inc. (BAPCJ) v. Obias 2 that
    "whetlier or not the elements of laches are present is a question
    involving the factual determination by the trial court. Hence, the
    same being a question of fact, it cannot be the proper subject of herein
    petition." 3

    Anent petitioner's insistence that the process server enjoys the


    presumption of regularity in his service of summons on respondent,
    this Court cannot accede to the same. In several cases, this Court has
    clarified that the presumption of regularity is a disputable presumption
    and can be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the
    contrary. 4 Here, it is undisputed that summons was served on
    respondent's branch manager - contrary to the exclusive list of people
    under Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court who are authorized to
    receive summons. As we have held in E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co.,
    Ltd. v. Hon. Benito: 5

    xxx [W]e rule that the service of summons upon the branch
    manager of petitioner at its branch office at Cagayan de Oro,
    instead of upon the general manager at its principal office at Davao
    City is improper. Consequently, the trial court did not acquire
    jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. 6

    It is, therefore, undeniable in this case that the service of summons


    upon the respondent was improperly made. Consequently, the trial and
    appellate courts properly ruled that jurisdiction over respondent was not
    obtained, necessitating the reversal of the RTC's decision.

    It may be well to remind petitioner that it is not "left holding the


    bag" as the RTC directed proper service of summons on respondent and for
    the latter to file its Answer after summons have been served on it.

    ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the


    Decision dated July 12, 2018 and the Resolution dated December 27,
    2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 152575.

    The Regional Trial Court Branch 276, Muntinlupa City is


    dropped as party-respondent pursuant to Section 4(a), Rule 45 of the
    Rules of Court.

    - over -
    31./
    2
    618 Phil. 170 (2009).
    3
    Id. at 195. Citation omitted.
    4
    See People v. Jolliffe, 105 Phil. 677 (1959); Umandap v. Hon. Sabio, Jr., 393 Phil. 657 (2000);
    and Sps. Palada v. Solidbank Corporation, 668 Phil. 172 (2011)
    5 3 70 Phil. 921 ( 1999).
    6
    Id. at 931.

    ~
    RESOLUTION 3 G.R. No. 243835
    June 3, 2019

    SO ORDERED." Carandang, J., on official leave.

    Very truly yours,

    Divisi

    R.E. BULAY LAW OFFICES Court of Appeals (x)


    Counsel for Petitioner Manila
    Suite l 104B Richville Corporate Tower (CA-G.R. SP No. 152575)
    Madrigal Business Park, Ayala Alabang
    1780 Muntinlupa City CADIZ TABA YOYONG
    AND PARTNERS
    Counsel for Respondent
    Suite 3601, 36t11 Floor, The Ante! Global
    Centre, No. 3 Julia Vargas Avenue
    Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City

    The Hon. Presiding Judge


    Regional Trial Court, Branch 276
    1770 Muntinlupa City
    (CivilCaseNo. 15-1217)

    Public Information Office (x)


    Library Services (x)
    Supreme Court
    (For uploading pursuant to A.M.
    No. 12-7-1-SC)

    Judgment Division (x)

    ~
    Supreme Court

    UR

    You might also like