Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 324 views

    No. 9 - Lapid (KT Constn Vs Ps Bank

    Uploaded by

    netzkee10
    The Supreme Court ruled that the lower courts did not have jurisdiction over William Go and Nancy Go-Tan to hold them jointly and severally liable with KT Construction Supply, Inc. Jurisdiction over a party must be acquired through service of summons or voluntary appearance, but Go and Go-Tan were not impleaded in the civil case against KT Construction nor served with summons. They merely acted as representatives of KT Construction in signing documents but were not made parties to the case in their personal capacities. Therefore, the lower courts' decision did not bind Go and Go-Tan as the courts never acquired jurisdiction over their persons.

    Copyright:

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

    No. 9 - Lapid (KT Constn Vs Ps Bank

    Uploaded by

    netzkee10
    324 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the lower courts did not have jurisdiction over William Go and Nancy Go-Tan to hold them jointly and severally liable with KT Construction Supply, Inc. Jurisdiction over a party must be acquired through service of summons or voluntary appearance, but Go and Go-Tan were not impleaded in the civil case against KT Construction nor served with summons. They merely acted as representatives of KT Construction in signing documents but were not made parties to the case in their personal capacities. Therefore, the lower courts' decision did not bind Go and Go-Tan as the courts never acquired jurisdiction over their persons.

    Original Description:

    Remedial Law Case Digest (Topic: Jurisdiction over the persons)

    Original Title

    No. 9 - Lapid (Kt Constn vs Ps Bank

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the lower courts did not have jurisdiction over William Go and Nancy Go-Tan to hold them jointly and severally liable with KT Construction Supply, Inc. Jurisdiction over a party must be acquired through service of summons or voluntary appearance, but Go and Go-Tan were not impleaded in the civil case against KT Construction nor served with summons. They merely acted as representatives of KT Construction in signing documents but were not made parties to the case in their personal capacities. Therefore, the lower courts' decision did not bind Go and Go-Tan as the courts never acquired jurisdiction over their persons.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    324 views1 page

    No. 9 - Lapid (KT Constn Vs Ps Bank

    Uploaded by

    netzkee10
    The Supreme Court ruled that the lower courts did not have jurisdiction over William Go and Nancy Go-Tan to hold them jointly and severally liable with KT Construction Supply, Inc. Jurisdiction over a party must be acquired through service of summons or voluntary appearance, but Go and Go-Tan were not impleaded in the civil case against KT Construction nor served with summons. They merely acted as representatives of KT Construction in signing documents but were not made parties to the case in their personal capacities. Therefore, the lower courts' decision did not bind Go and Go-Tan as the courts never acquired jurisdiction over their persons.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    TOPIC: JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE PARTIES

    KT CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY, INC., represented by WILLIAM GO


    vs.
    PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK
    G.R. No. 228435, June 21, 2017

    Mendoza, J.:

    FACTS: Petitioner obtained a P2.5M Loan from respondent which was evidenced by a
    Promissory Note signed by William K. Go and Nancy Go-Tan (in their own
    personal capacities) as the petitioners Vice President/General Manager and
    Secretary/Treasurer, respectively. The loan became due and demandable when
    petitioner failed to pay an installment. Respondent then filed a complaint for sum
    of money when petitioner failed to pay despite demand. The RTC and the Court of
    Appeals decided in favor of the respondent bank holding William Go and Nancy
    Go Tan jointly and severally liable with petitioner.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the courts acquired jurisdiction over the persons of William Go
    and Nancy Go Tan to hold them jointly and severally liable with petitioner

    RULING: No. The Supreme Court held in Guy v. Gacott that a judgment binds only those
    who were made parties in the case, to wit:

    In relation to the rules of civil procedure, it is elementary that a judgment


    of a court is conclusive and binding only upon the parties and their
    successors-in-interest after the commencement of the action in court. A
    decision rendered on a complaint in a civil action or proceeding does not
    bind or prejudice a person not impleaded therein, for no person shall be
    adversely affected by the outcome of a civil action or proceeding in which he
    is not a party. The principle that a person cannot be prejudiced by a ruling
    rendered in an action or proceeding in which he has not been made a party
    conforms to the constitutional guarantee of due process of law.

    In short, jurisdiction over the person of the parties must be acquired so that the
    decision of the court would be binding upon them. It is a fundamental rule that
    jurisdiction over a defendant is acquired in a civil case either through service of
    summons or voluntary appearance in court and submission to its authority.

    In the case at bench, Go and Go-Tan were neither impleaded in the Civil case nor
    served with summons. They merely acted as representatives of KT Construction,
    which was impleaded as the defendant in the complaint. It is for this reason that
    only KT Construction filed an answer to the complaint. Thus, it is clear that the
    trial court never acquired jurisdiction over Go and Go-Tan.

    You might also like