This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-08-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| When the defendant is a domestic corporation like herein petitioner, service of summons may be made only upon the persons enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules.[27] The enumeration of persons to whom summons may be served is restricted, limited and exclusive following the rule on statutory construction expressio unios est exclusio alterius.[28] Substantial compliance cannot be invoked.[29] Service of summons upon persons other than those officers specifically mentioned in Section 11, Rule 14 is void, defective and not binding to said corporation.[30] | |||||
|
2015-07-06 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is a well-established rule that the rules on service of summons upon a domestic private juridical entity must be strictly complied with. Otherwise, the court cannot be said to have acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.[5] | |||||
|
2014-01-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| These issues could be resolved by consulting the evidence extant on records, such as the IMAs, the passbooks, the letters of instructions, withdrawal and deposit slips, statements of account, and the Board's reports. Land Bank's heavy reliance on Section 43, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court[61] also attests to the factual nature of the issues involved in this case. "Well-settled is the rule that in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law can be raised."[62] In Velayo-Fong v. Spouses Velayo,[63] we defined a question of law as distinguished from a question of fact: A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact. (Italics supplied) | |||||