Motion To Dismiss: Regional Trial Court

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRSTJUDICIALREGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Cordillera Administrative Region
Branch 14, Baguio City
VIOLETTE I. GAINZA
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 2741- 3-D
- versus For: Collection of Sum of Money
NICA SUHAN TRADING INC.,
Accused.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
MOTION TO DISMISS
COMES NOW the Respondent, NICA SUHAN TRADING INC.,
through the undersigned counsel, appearing especially and solely for
this purpose, and to this Honorable Court, most respectfully moves
for the dismissal of the above captioned case on the ground that THE
HONORABLE COURT HAS NOT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER
THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDING PARTY.
DISCUSSION
SUMMONS WAS NOT SERVED UPON DEFENDANT NICA SUHAN
TRADING INC. AS MANDATED BY THE RULES. HENCE, THIS
HONORABLE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER ITS
PERSON
Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides the different modes by
which service of summons may be made on a particular defendant.
Such modes must be complied with because the manner in which
service of summons should be effected is jurisdictional in character
and its proper observance is what dictates the courts ability to take
cognizance of the litigation before it.
Where a defendant is a private juridical entity like defendant
Nica Suhan Trading Inc., Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court
provides that service of summons may be made either on the
president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary,
treasurer or in house counsel. Said provision thus states: Sec. 11.
Service upon domestic private juridical entity. When the defendant
Page 1 of 3
is a corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws

of the Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be made on
the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate
secretary, treasurer or inhouse counsel.
In Villarosa vs. Benito , it was held that service of summons on
a corporation is exclusive to persons specified in the above-quoted
provision of the Rules of Court. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled in
said case: The designation of persons or officers who are authorized
to accept summons for a domestic corporation or partnership is now
limited and more clearly specified in Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule now states general manager
instead of only manager; corporate secretary instead of secretary;
and treasurer instead of cashier. The phrase agent, or any of its
directors is now conspicuously deleted in the new rule. xxx Retired
Justice Oscar Herrera, who is also a consultant of the Rules of Court
Revision Committee, stated that The rule must be STRICTLY
observed. Service must be made to one named in the statuexxx
And in the case of Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. vs. Hon. Helen
Bautista Ricafort, et. al. the Court succinctly clarified that, FOR THE
GUIDANCE OF THE BENCH AND BAR, STRICTEST
COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 11 OF THE RULE 14 OF THE 1997
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (ON PRIORITIES IN MODES OF
SERVICE AND FILING) IS MANDATED AND THE COURT CANNOT
RULE OTHERWISE, lest we allow circumvention of the innovation by
the 1997 Rule in order to obviate delay in the administration of
justice.
In the case at bar, there is no showing that summons was
served either on defendant Ban Goza Corporations president,
managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer,
or in-house counsel, or that, at least, efforts were made to serve the
summons upon said persons.
There being no service of summons upon defendant Ban Goza
Corporation in accordance with the requirement of the rules, it follows
that this Honorable Court has not acquired jurisdiction over said
defendants person.
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, defendants respectfully pray that the herein
complaint be ordered dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
over the persons of the defendants and/or for failure of the plaintiff to
state a cause of action. Other relief, just and equitable are also
prayed for.
Baguio City, 28 March 2016.
Respectfully Submitted.
Page 2 of 3
MAXIMO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Defendant
Unit 3, Golden Arcade, C.V. Glitz Ave.
Coconut Village, Baguio City 2600
Telephone No. (074) 442- 7845
By:
ATTY. HENRIETTA TANGONAN LASUDEN
PTR No. 89898; 2/14/2018; Baguio City
IBP OR No. 642741; 1/04/2017; Baguio City Chapter
Attorneys Roll No. 62741; 09/12/2020
MCLE Compliance No. VI-4567890; 02/21/2018
Copy furnished by personal service:

ATTY. CHUCK A. HALAGA
Counsel for Plaintiff
Rm. 10, 4th Flr. Florentine Bldg.,Kennon Rd. Baguio City
Page 3 of 3

Motion To Dismiss: Regional Trial Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion To Dismiss: Regional Trial Court

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion To Dismiss: Regional Trial Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

is a corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws

MAXIMO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE

Copy furnished by personal service:

You might also like