Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANITA MANGILA v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 173336 2012-11-26	PABLO PUA v. LOURDES L. DEYTO BRION, J.
In Santos, Jr. v. PNOC Exploration Corporation,[20] the Court authorized resort to service of summons by publication even in actions in personam, considering that the provision itself allow this mode in any action, i.e., whether the action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. The ruling, notwithstanding, there must be prior resort to service in person on the defendant[21] and substituted service,[22] and proof that service by these modes were ineffective before service by publication[23] may be allowed for defendants whose whereabouts are unknown, considering that Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court requires a diligent inquiry of the defendant's whereabouts.[24]
	GR No. 166759 2009-11-25	SOFIA TORRES v. NICANOR SATSATIN PERALTA, J.
This Court has long put to rest the issue of when jurisdiction over the person of the defendant should be acquired in cases where a party resorts to provisional remedies. A party to a suit may, at any time after filing the complaint, avail of the provisional remedies under the Rules of Court. Specifically, Rule 57 on preliminary attachment speaks of the grant of the remedy "at the commencement of the action or at any time before entry of judgment."[40] This phrase refers to the date of the filing of the complaint, which is the moment that marks "the commencement of the action." The reference plainly is to a time before summons is served on the defendant, or even before summons issues.[41]
	GR No. 172595 2008-04-10	BIENVENIDO EJERCITO v. M.R. VARGAS CONSTRUCTION TINGA, J,
A sole proprietorship does not possess a juridical personality separate and distinct from the personality of the owner of the enterprise. The law does not vest a separate legal personality on the sole proprietorship or empower it to file or defend an action in court.[34] Only natural or juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be parties to a civil action and every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real parties-in-interest.[35]
	GR NO. 173979 2007-02-12	AUCTION IN MALINTA v. WARREN EMBES LUYABEN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
[18] Mangila v. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 870, 883-884 (2002).
	GR NO. 165500 2006-08-30	PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. ELENITA B. TRAZO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Nevertheless, We agree with the Court of Appeals that it was incorrect for the RTC to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue. The parties must be able to show that the stipulation is exclusive. Thus, sans words expressing the parties' intention to restrict the filing of a suit in a particular place, courts will allow the filing of a case in any of the venues prescribed by law or stipulated by the parties, as long as the jurisdictional requirements are followed.[9] The subject clause contains no qualifying nor restrictive words, such as "must," or "exclusively," as would indicate the parties' intention "mandatorily to restrict the venue of actions to the courts of (Manila) only."[10] In the 8 December 2000 case of Langkaan Realty Development, Inc. v. United Coconut Planters Bank,[11] where the venue stipulation contained the word "shall,"[12] we held that the stipulations of the parties "lack qualifying or restrictive words to indicate the exclusivity of the agreed forum,"[13] and therefore "the stipulated place is considered only as an additional, not a limiting venue."[14] Consequently, the dismissal by the RTC of the complaint against CBC and Lim on ground of improper venue is erroneous, and was correctly reversed by the Court of Appeals.
	GR NO. 160053 2006-08-28	SPS. RENATO v. JANE AURORA C. LANTION QUISUMBING, J.
At the outset, we must make clear that under Section 4 (b) of Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the general rules on venue of actions shall not apply where the parties, before the filing of the action, have validly agreed in writing on an exclusive venue. The mere stipulation on the venue of an action, however, is not enough to preclude parties from bringing a case in other venues. The parties must be able to show that such stipulation is exclusive.[6] In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, the stipulation should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place.[7]
	GR NO. 160854 2006-03-03	BIG AA MANUFACTURER v. EUTIQUIO ANTONIO QUISUMBING, J
A sole proprietorship does not possess a juridical personality separate and distinct from the personality of the owner of the enterprise. The law merely recognizes the existence of a sole proprietorship as a form of business organization conducted for profit by a single individual and requires its proprietor or owner to secure licenses and permits, register its business name, and pay taxes to the national government. The law does not vest a separate legal personality on the sole proprietorship or empower it to file or defend an action in court.[31]
	GR NO. 154630 2005-05-06	BERMAN MEMORIAL PARK v. FRANCISCO CHENG CALLEJO, SR., J.
The rule is that only natural or juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil case.[39] A sole proprietorship is not vested with juridical personality and cannot sue or file or defend an action. There is no law authorizing sole proprietorship to file a suit. A sole proprietorship does not possess a judicial personality separate and distinct from the personality of the owner of the enterprise.[40]