Specialist Dutch Lawyer: Top Law Firm in The Netherlands Topverdediging in Rechtszaken Go To
Specialist Dutch Lawyer: Top Law Firm in The Netherlands Topverdediging in Rechtszaken Go To
com™
Search
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > June 2011 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 195482 : June 21, 2011] ELIZA M.
HERNANDEZ, ET AL. V. PLACER DOME, INC.:
Search
EN BANC
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review ELIZA M. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. V. PLACER DOME, INC.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JUNE 21, 2011,
which reads as follows:
RESOLUTION
In the Resolution dated 8 March 2011, the Court granted petitioners' prayer for the
issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan and for the service of said writ as well as the summons
issued in the case, by their counsel and representative, Civic Action Group Ltd./APS
International, Ltd. In the same resolution, the Court likewise ordered respondents Placer
Dome, Inc. (PDI) and Barrick Gold Corporation (BGC) to make a verified return of the
same writ and referred the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) for hearing, reception of
evidence and rendition of judgment. On 29 March 2011, the Court additionally issued a
resolution granting petitioners' motion for the inclusion of AI Legal Service & Training
Ltd. and Select Document Services among those authorized to serve summons on
respondents, on the ground that Civic Action Group Ltd./APS International, Ltd. had
DebtKollect Company, Inc. limited their services to the United States of America.
Subsequent to its filing of a 29 March 2011 Urgent Motion to Suspend Filing of Return,
BGC filed a 31 March 2011 Urgent Motion for Ruling on Jurisdiction, questioning the
constitutionality of Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (AMC No.
09-6-8-SC) as well as the validity of the issuance and service of summons in the case.
On 4 April 2011, BGC also filed a Return Ad Cautelam, accompanied by a Manifestation
dated 4 April 2011, undertaking to submit within a reasonable time the authenticated
copies of the sworn statements attached to said Return in view of time constraints. On
12 April 2011, the Court issued a Resolution noting the foregoing motions and incidents
and requiring petitioners to file their comment to BGC's Urgent Motion for Ruling on
Jurisdiction.
On 12 April 2011, petitioners also filed an Urgent Motion of even date, seeking leave to
serve summons upon respondents through any of in the means provided under Section
ChanRobles Intellectual Property Division 12, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. As amended by A.M. No. 11-3-6-SC which was issued
on 15 March 2011, said provision allows service of summons through any of the
following means to a foreign private juridical entity not registered in the Philippines or
without a resident agent, viz.: (a) by personal service coursed through the appropriate
court in the foreign country with the assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs; (b)
by publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in the country where the
defendant may be found and by serving a copy of the summons and the court order by
registered mail at the last known address of the defendant; (c) by facsimile or any
recognized electronic means that could generate proof of service; and, (d) by such
other means as the court may in its discretion direct.
On 18 April 2011, petitioners filed a Manifestation and Compliance dated 15 April 2011,
submitting the affidavit executed by Brian Nolan of the Civic Action Group Ltd./APS
International, Ltd. attesting to the 25 March 2011 service of summons on BGC. Without
prejudice to the Urgent Motion for Ruling on Jurisdiction it earlier filed, BGC in turn filed
a Submission dated 19 April 2011, proffering the original authenticated copies of the
affidavits executed by Debra Bilous and James Donald Robertson and reiterating its
commitment to submit within a reasonable time the authenticated copies of the other
affidavits attached to its Return Ad Cautelam. On 6 May 2011, Sycip Salazar Hernandez
and Gatmaitan, BGC's counsel of record, filed a Manifestation dated 5 May 2011 stating,
among other matters, that they have been served with copies of petitioners' Notice of
Deposition, Interrogatories and Motion for Production of Inspection of Documents
(Discovery Papers) intended for their client, in connection with the proceedings pending
before the CA as CA-G.R. SP No. 00001; that being for the limited purpose of raising
constitutional and jurisdictional issues, their special appearance is not of such nature
as would authorize them to receive said Discovery Papers for and in behalf of BCG.
On 12 May 2011, petitioners filed their Manifestation with Reiterated Motion dated 11
May 2011, alleging that they have received a copy of the 3 May 2011 Manifestation and
Motion filed before the CA by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on behalf of the
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), praying that petitioners be directed to manifest
whether they have already caused the service of summons upon PDI and, if not, to
coordinate with the OSG with respect to the mode of service as well as the manner of
payment thereof; that although it had been served with copies of their petition and its
annexes by registered mail, PDI has yet to be served with summons; and, that while they
are willing to coordinate with the OSG regarding the mode and manner of payment for
the service of summons to PDI, the Court has yet to resolve their motions for the
inclusion of AI Legal Service & Training Ltd. and Select Document Services among those
authorized to serve summons on respondents and for the service of summons in
accordance with Section 12, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
On 17 May 2011, BGC filed a Clarificatory Manifestation dated 16 May 2011, alleging
that it received the Resolution dated 4 May 2011 issued by the CA's First Division in CA-
G.R. SP No. 00001, the decretal portion of which states:
[G.R. No. 177268 : June 22, 2011] JUDGE ADORACION G. Very truly yours,
ANGELES V. MA. CRISTINA A. VISTAN
[G.R. No. 195482 : June 21, 2011] ELIZA M. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. (Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
V. PLACER DOME, INC.
Clerk of Court
[A.M. No. 10-9-278-RTC : June 21, 2011] RE: REQUEST OF
EXECUTIVE JUDGE JOSE S. JACINTO JR., RTC, BRANCH 45, SAN
JOSE, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO, TO BE TRANSFERRED TO REGION I,
PREFERABLY IN PANGASINAN
Ads by Google Law GR Court Cases GR Case GR V
[A.M. No. JBC-023 : June 21, 2011] RE: PROPOSED SCHEDULE
OF ACTIVITIES FROM MAY TO JULY 2011 AND SCHEDULE FOR THE Ads by Google GR V Court GR GR No GR L
PROCESSING OF EXISTING AND FORTHCOMING VACANCIES IN THE
APPELLATE COURTS AND IN THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN Ads by Google GR 15 VS GR Summons Court Forms
[G.R. No. 183697 : June 13, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
V. ANGELO MANIAGO 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
[A.M. No. P-11-2938 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3437-P] : 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
June 13, 2011] LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. JESSICA O.
2013 2014
ORBON, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 70, PASIG
CITY
[G.R. No. 179811 : June 06, 2011] FAMA REALTY, INC. AND FELIX
ASSAD V. SPS. GERARDO & CORAZON TRINIDAD
Copyright © 1998 - 2016 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED