Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 101 views

    Corpo - 36. Lee VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    Donna Joyce de Belen
    The Supreme Court ruled that there was no proper service of summons on ALFA. Private respondents filed a third-party complaint against ALFA and ICB. Petitioners argued service was improper because under the voting trust agreement, management and control of ALFA was transferred to DBP, so petitioners were no longer officers of ALFA. The Court agreed, finding the voting trust agreement made DBP the stockholder of record and there was no evidence DBP caused petitioners to retain director status. Service must be on a representative integrated with the corporation, and petitioners did not fall under the enumerated officers in the rules for proper service.

    Copyright:

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

    Corpo - 36. Lee VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    Donna Joyce de Belen
    101 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that there was no proper service of summons on ALFA. Private respondents filed a third-party complaint against ALFA and ICB. Petitioners argued service was improper because under the voting trust agreement, management and control of ALFA was transferred to DBP, so petitioners were no longer officers of ALFA. The Court agreed, finding the voting trust agreement made DBP the stockholder of record and there was no evidence DBP caused petitioners to retain director status. Service must be on a representative integrated with the corporation, and petitioners did not fall under the enumerated officers in the rules for proper service.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    CORPO - 36. LEE VS CA

    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 Supreme Court ruled that there was no proper service of summons on ALFA. Private respondents filed a third-party complaint against ALFA and ICB. Petitioners argued service was improper because under the voting trust agreement, management and control of ALFA was transferred to DBP, so petitioners were no longer officers of ALFA. The Court agreed, finding the voting trust agreement made DBP the stockholder of record and there was no evidence DBP caused petitioners to retain director status. Service must be on a representative integrated with the corporation, and petitioners did not fall under the enumerated officers in the rules for proper service.

    Copyright:

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

    Corpo - 36. Lee VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    Donna Joyce de Belen
    The Supreme Court ruled that there was no proper service of summons on ALFA. Private respondents filed a third-party complaint against ALFA and ICB. Petitioners argued service was improper because under the voting trust agreement, management and control of ALFA was transferred to DBP, so petitioners were no longer officers of ALFA. The Court agreed, finding the voting trust agreement made DBP the stockholder of record and there was no evidence DBP caused petitioners to retain director status. Service must be on a representative integrated with the corporation, and petitioners did not fall under the enumerated officers in the rules for proper service.

    Copyright:

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

    LEE VS CA

    G.R. No. 93695 February 4, 1992

    FACTS:

    November 15, 1985: a complaint for a sum of money was filed by the International
    Corporate Bank, Inc. (ICB) against the private respondents

    March 17, 1986: private respondents, in turn, filed a 3rd-party complaint against
    ALFA and ICB

    September 17, 1987: petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the third party
    complaint - denied

    July 12, 1988: trial court issued an order requiring the issuance of
    an alias summons upon ALFA through the DBP

    consequence of the petitioner's letter that ALFA management was


    transferred to DBP

    July 22, 1988: DBP claimed that it was not authorized to receive summons on
    behalf of ALFA

    August 4, 1988: trial court issued an order advising the private respondents to
    take the appropriate steps to serve the summons to ALFA

    September 12, 1988: petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration submitting


    that Rule 14, section 13 of the Revised Rules of Court is not applicable since they were
    no longer officers of ALFA and that the private respondents should have availed of
    another mode of service under Rule 14, Section 16 of the said Rules, i.e., through
    publication to effect proper service upon ALFA - denied

    January 19, 1989: 2nd motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioners
    reiterating their stand that by virtue of the voting trust agreement they ceased to be
    officers and directors of ALFA

    attached a copy of the voting trust agreement between all the


    stockholders of ALFA and the DBP whereby the management and control of ALFA
    became vested upon the DBP

    April 25, 1989: trial court reversed itself by setting aside its previous Order dated
    January 2, 1989 and declared that service upon the petitioners who were no longer
    corporate officers of ALFA cannot be considered as proper service of summons on ALFA
    October 17, 1989: trial court (NOT notified of the petition for certiorari) declared
    final its decision on April 25, 1989

    ISSUE: Whether or not there was proper service of summons on ALFA

    HELD: No.

    Considering that the voting trust agreement between ALFA and the DBP transferred legal
    ownership of the stock covered by the agreement to the DBP as trustee, the latter became the
    stockholder of record with respect to the said shares of stocks. In the absence of a showing that
    the DBP had caused to be transferred in their names one share of stock for the purpose of
    qualifying as directors of ALFA, the petitioners can no longer be deemed to have retained their
    status as officers of ALFA which was the case before the execution of the subject voting trust
    agreement. There appears to be no dispute from the records that DBP has taken over full
    control and management of the firm.

    Under section 13, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court, it is provided that:
    Sec. 13. 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.

    It is a basic principle in Corporation Law that a corporation has a personality separate and
    distinct from the officers or members who compose it.

    The rationale of the afore cited rule is that service must be made on a representative so
    integrated with the corporation sued as to make it a priori supposable that he will realize his
    responsibilities and know what he should do with any legal papers served on him.

    The petitioners in this case do not fall under any of the enumerated officers. The service of
    summons upon ALFA, through the petitioners, therefore, is not valid. To rule otherwise, as
    correctly argued by the petitioners, will contravene the general principle that a corporation can
    only be bound by such a

    You might also like