Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 37 views

    Case Digest - Ouna Arrastre Service, Inc. vs. Aleonor

    Uploaded by

    tany purr
    The case involved a dispute over damaged equipment imported by IPI that was insured by Mercantile but allegedly mishandled by OASI during arrival in Cebu City. The trial court found Mercantile and OASI jointly liable. Only Mercantile appealed. IPI then filed for execution of judgment against OASI, which the trial court granted. OASI claimed the decision was mistakenly sent to the LSA main office instead of the Cebu branch that handled the case. The main issue is whether the LSA main office and Cebu branch constitute separate law firms. The Supreme Court held they do not, and that LSA as a whole remained the sole counsel for OASI.

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest - Ouna Arrastre Service, Inc. vs. Aleonor

    Uploaded by

    tany purr
    37 views2 pages
    The case involved a dispute over damaged equipment imported by IPI that was insured by Mercantile but allegedly mishandled by OASI during arrival in Cebu City. The trial court found Mercantile and OASI jointly liable. Only Mercantile appealed. IPI then filed for execution of judgment against OASI, which the trial court granted. OASI claimed the decision was mistakenly sent to the LSA main office instead of the Cebu branch that handled the case. The main issue is whether the LSA main office and Cebu branch constitute separate law firms. The Supreme Court held they do not, and that LSA as a whole remained the sole counsel for OASI.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a dispute over damaged equipment imported by IPI that was insured by Mercantile but allegedly mishandled by OASI during arrival in Cebu City. The trial court found Mercantile and OASI jointly liable. Only Mercantile appealed. IPI then filed for execution of judgment against OASI, which the trial court granted. OASI claimed the decision was mistakenly sent to the LSA main office instead of the Cebu branch that handled the case. The main issue is whether the LSA main office and Cebu branch constitute separate law firms. The Supreme Court held they do not, and that LSA as a whole remained the sole counsel for OASI.

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest - Ouna Arrastre Service, Inc. vs. Aleonor

    Uploaded by

    tany purr
    The case involved a dispute over damaged equipment imported by IPI that was insured by Mercantile but allegedly mishandled by OASI during arrival in Cebu City. The trial court found Mercantile and OASI jointly liable. Only Mercantile appealed. IPI then filed for execution of judgment against OASI, which the trial court granted. OASI claimed the decision was mistakenly sent to the LSA main office instead of the Cebu branch that handled the case. The main issue is whether the LSA main office and Cebu branch constitute separate law firms. The Supreme Court held they do not, and that LSA as a whole remained the sole counsel for OASI.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Ouna Arrastre Service, Inc. vs.

    Aleonor

    G.R. No. 97664 October 10, 1991

    FACTS:

    Private respondent International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("IPI") filed a complaint before the
    Regional Trial Court of Cebu City against Mercantile Insurance Company, Inc. ("Mercantile")
    and petitioner Ouano Arrastre Service, Inc. ("OASI") for replacement of certain equipment
    imported by IPI which were insured by Mercantile but were lost on arrival in Cebu City,
    allegedly because of mishandling by petitioner OASI.

    Petitioner OASI's answer was filed by the law firm of Ledesma, Saludo and Associates ("LSA")
    and signed by Atty. Manuel Trinidad of the Cebu office or branch of LSA. However, sometime
    thereafter, Atty. Trinidad resigned from LSA and Atty. Fidel Manalo, a partner from the Makati
    office of LSA, filed a motion to postpone the hearing stating that the case had just been endorsed
    to him by petitioner OASI.

    On 12 January 1990, after trial which Atty. Manalo handled for OASI, the trial court rendered a
    decision holding Mercantile and petitioner OASI jointly and severally liable for the cost of
    replacement of the damaged equipment plus damages, totalling P435,000.00.

    Only Mercantile appealed from the decision.

    On 19 June 1990, IPI filed a motion for execution of the decision against petitioner OASI which
    public respondent judge granted on 25 June 1990.

    On 26 June 1990 petitioner's counsel, through Atty. Catipay of the Cebu Branch of the LSA,
    filed a notice of appeal 1 claiming that the decision was "mistakenly sent" by the trial court to the
    law firm's Head Office in Makati. 2

    On 27 June 1990, petitioner, through the same counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration, On 2
    July 1990, public respondent judge denied OASI's motion for reconsideration declaring that the
    appeal cannot be given due course for lack of merit and ordered that the writ of execution be
    enforced.

    ISSUES:
    Whether or not LSA main office and its branch office constitute separate law firms with separate
    and distinct personalities and responsibilities
    HELD:

    No. there never was any substitution of counsel as petitioner's counsel remained the law firm
    known as Ledesma, Saludo and Associates and that firm only, but that firm as a whole.

    You might also like