Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 490 views

    G.R. No. 81123 Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jec Luceriaga Biraquit
    1) Pepsi Cola, which owned the truck involved in the accident and existed as a corporation at the time of the incident, was the real party in interest to whom summons should have been served in the civil case, even though it was a dissolved corporation. 2) Service of summons to Nanette Sison, who received court processes as secretary of Pepsi Cola's legal department, constituted valid service to Pepsi Cola according to the rules on service to corporations. 3) The Supreme Court therefore ruled that the lower court had proper jurisdiction over Pepsi Cola and that its default judgment against Pepsi Cola was valid and binding on PEPSICO, requiring PEPSICO to satisfy

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. No. 81123 Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jec Luceriaga Biraquit
    490 views2 pages
    1) Pepsi Cola, which owned the truck involved in the accident and existed as a corporation at the time of the incident, was the real party in interest to whom summons should have been served in the civil case, even though it was a dissolved corporation. 2) Service of summons to Nanette Sison, who received court processes as secretary of Pepsi Cola's legal department, constituted valid service to Pepsi Cola according to the rules on service to corporations. 3) The Supreme Court therefore ruled that the lower court had proper jurisdiction over Pepsi Cola and that its default judgment against Pepsi Cola was valid and binding on PEPSICO, requiring PEPSICO to satisfy

    Original Description:

    bn

    Original Title

    G.R. No. 81123 digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Pepsi Cola, which owned the truck involved in the accident and existed as a corporation at the time of the incident, was the real party in interest to whom summons should have been served in the civil case, even though it was a dissolved corporation. 2) Service of summons to Nanette Sison, who received court processes as secretary of Pepsi Cola's legal department, constituted valid service to Pepsi Cola according to the rules on service to corporations. 3) The Supreme Court therefore ruled that the lower court had proper jurisdiction over Pepsi Cola and that its default judgment against Pepsi Cola was valid and binding on PEPSICO, requiring PEPSICO to satisfy

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    490 views2 pages

    G.R. No. 81123 Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jec Luceriaga Biraquit
    1) Pepsi Cola, which owned the truck involved in the accident and existed as a corporation at the time of the incident, was the real party in interest to whom summons should have been served in the civil case, even though it was a dissolved corporation. 2) Service of summons to Nanette Sison, who received court processes as secretary of Pepsi Cola's legal department, constituted valid service to Pepsi Cola according to the rules on service to corporations. 3) The Supreme Court therefore ruled that the lower court had proper jurisdiction over Pepsi Cola and that its default judgment against Pepsi Cola was valid and binding on PEPSICO, requiring PEPSICO to satisfy

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    81123 February 28, 1989


    CRISOSTOMO REBOLLIDO, FERNANDO VALENCIA and EDWIN
    REBOLLIDO,
    vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PEPSICO, INC.,
    respondents.
    Facts:
    The case arose out of a vehicular accident on March 1, 1984, involving
    a a schoolbus driven by petitioners Crisostomo Rebollido and Fernando
    Valencia, respectively and a truck trailer owned at that time by Pepsi Cola
    and driven by Alberto Alva. On August 7, 1984, the petitioners filed Civil
    Case damages against Pepsi Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines, Inc.
    and Alberto Alva before the Regional Trial Court of Makati.
    On September 21, 1984, the sheriff of the lower court served the
    summons addressed to the defendants. It was received by one Nanette Sison
    who represented herself to be the authorized person receiving court
    processes as she was the secretary of the legal department of Pepsi Cola.
    Pepsi Cola failed to file an answer and was later declared in default. The
    lower court heard the case ex-parte and adjudged the defendants jointly and
    severally liable for damages in a decision.
    On August 5, 1985, when the default judgment became final and
    executory, the petitioners filed a motion for execution, a copy of which was
    received no longer by the defendant Pepsi Cola but by private respondent
    PEPSICO, Inc., which held offices here for the purpose, among others, of
    settling Pepsi Cola's debts, liabilities and obligations to the expected
    dissolution of Pepsi Cola.
    Realizing that the judgment of the lower court would eventually be
    executed against it, respondent PEPSICO, Inc., opposed the motion for
    execution and moved to vacate the judgment on the ground of lack of
    jurisdiction. The private respondent questioned the validity of the service of
    summons to a mere clerk. It invoked Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court
    on the manner of service upon a private domestic corporation and Section 14
    of the same rule on service upon a private foreign corporation.
    On August 14, 1985, the lower court denied the motion of the private
    respondent holding that under Section 122 of the Corporation Code, the
    defendant continued its corporate existence for three (3) years from the date
    of dissolution.
    On December 29, 1986, the Court of Appeals granted the
    petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction ruling that there was no valid
    service of summons which should be made upon the private respondent
    itself in accordance with Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. It
    remanded the case to the lower court and ordered that the private
    respondent be summoned and be given its day in court.
    On November 27, 1987, a motion for reconsideration was denied.
    Hence this petition.
    Issues:

    (1) whether or not Pepsi Cola, the dissolved corporation,


    is the real party in interest to whom summons should be
    served in the civil case for damages; and
    (2) whether or not there was valid service of summons
    through Nanette Sison, allegedly the secretary of the
    legal department of Pepsi Cola. If there was valid service
    of summons upon Pepsi Cola, the issue arises as to
    whether or not such service validly vested jurisdiction on
    the lower court over the person of the respondent
    corporation.

    Digested by Dayanara Rom

    Held:1. Yes. A real party in interest-plaintiff is one who has a legal right
    while a real party in interest-defendant is one who has a correlative legal
    obligation whose act or omission violates the legal rights of the former.
    For purposes of valid summons, the dissolved Pepsi Cola was the real
    party in interest-defendant in the civil case filed by the petitioners not only
    because it is the registered owner of the truck involved but also because,
    when the cause of action accrued, Pepsi Cola still existed as a corporation
    and was the party involved in the acts violative of the legal right of another.
    Also, the law provides that a corporation whose corporate term has
    ceased can still be made a party to a suit. Under paragraph 1, Section 122 of
    the Corporation Code, a dissolved corporation: xxx shall nevertheless be
    continued as a body corporate for three (3) years after the time
    when it would have been so dissolved, for the purpose of
    prosecuting and defending suits by or against it and enabling it to
    settle and close its affairs, to dispose of and convey its property and
    to distribute its assets, but not for the purpose of continuing the
    business for which it was established.xxx
    2. Yes. Section 13, Rule 14 mandates:
    Service upon private domestic corporation or partnership. - If
    the defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the
    Philippines or a partnership duly registered, service may be made
    on the president, manager, secretary , cashier, agent or any of its
    directors.
    Therefore, service upon a dissolved corporation may be made through
    any of the persons enumerated in Section 13, Rule 14. Whomsoever Miss
    Sison was acting for in receiving the summons there is no question that the
    notice of the action was promptly delivered either to Pepsi Cola or PEPSICO
    with whom she is admittedly connected. We rule, as in G & G Trading
    Corporation v. Court of Appeals (supra), that there was substantial
    compliance with Section 13, Rule 14 because the purpose of notice was
    satisfied. Contrary to the decision of the Court of Appeals, we therefore, hold
    that there was proper service of summons to bind Pepsi Cola and that the
    decision of the lower court against Pepsi Cola rendered on June 24, 1985 is
    valid and enforceable against the private respondent.
    Therefore, we rule that the private respondent is bound to satisfy the
    judgment by default which has become final and executory. The lower court
    did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of the private respondent
    to vacate judgment.
    Motion GRANTED and CA is REVERSE

    Digested by Dayanara Rom

    You might also like