Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 59 views

    GV Florida Vs Tiara Commercial

    Uploaded by

    Angelo John M. Valiente
    1) The case involved a vehicle collision between two bus companies, GV Florida Transport Inc. and Victory Liner Inc. GV Florida filed a third-party complaint against Tiara Commercial Corporation, the seller of tires that allegedly had defects causing the accident. 2) The summons served on Tiara was improper as it was not served on any of the officers specified in Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. However, this procedural defect does not dismiss the case, and an alias summons can be issued. 3) The Supreme Court held that the trial court acquired jurisdiction over Tiara despite the improper summons, because Tiara voluntarily appeared before the trial court by filing motions and pleadings

    Copyright:

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

    GV Florida Vs Tiara Commercial

    Uploaded by

    Angelo John M. Valiente
    59 views1 page
    1) The case involved a vehicle collision between two bus companies, GV Florida Transport Inc. and Victory Liner Inc. GV Florida filed a third-party complaint against Tiara Commercial Corporation, the seller of tires that allegedly had defects causing the accident. 2) The summons served on Tiara was improper as it was not served on any of the officers specified in Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. However, this procedural defect does not dismiss the case, and an alias summons can be issued. 3) The Supreme Court held that the trial court acquired jurisdiction over Tiara despite the improper summons, because Tiara voluntarily appeared before the trial court by filing motions and pleadings

    Original Description:

    Case Digest Law

    Original Title

    GV Florida vs Tiara Commercial

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The case involved a vehicle collision between two bus companies, GV Florida Transport Inc. and Victory Liner Inc. GV Florida filed a third-party complaint against Tiara Commercial Corporation, the seller of tires that allegedly had defects causing the accident. 2) The summons served on Tiara was improper as it was not served on any of the officers specified in Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. However, this procedural defect does not dismiss the case, and an alias summons can be issued. 3) The Supreme Court held that the trial court acquired jurisdiction over Tiara despite the improper summons, because Tiara voluntarily appeared before the trial court by filing motions and pleadings

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    59 views1 page

    GV Florida Vs Tiara Commercial

    Uploaded by

    Angelo John M. Valiente
    1) The case involved a vehicle collision between two bus companies, GV Florida Transport Inc. and Victory Liner Inc. GV Florida filed a third-party complaint against Tiara Commercial Corporation, the seller of tires that allegedly had defects causing the accident. 2) The summons served on Tiara was improper as it was not served on any of the officers specified in Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. However, this procedural defect does not dismiss the case, and an alias summons can be issued. 3) The Supreme Court held that the trial court acquired jurisdiction over Tiara despite the improper summons, because Tiara voluntarily appeared before the trial court by filing motions and pleadings

    Copyright:

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

    G.V. FLORIDA TRANSPORT INC. v.

    TIARA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION


    October 18, 2017, Jardaleza, J.

    Topic: Summons / Voluntary Appearance

    Section 11 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court states that when the defendant is a corporation, partnership or association
    organized under the laws of the Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be made on the president, managing
    partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel. This enumeration is exclusive. However,
    service of summons is not the only mode through which a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. There
    is voluntary appearance when a party, without directly assailing the court's lack of jurisdiction, seeks affirmative relief from
    the court.

    Facts:

    There was a vehicle collision between the buses of Victory Liner, Inc. (VLI) and GV Florida
    Transport Inc. (GV Florida). VLI claimed that the negligence of the driver of the GV Florida bus was
    the proximate cause of the collision and that GV Florida failed to exercise due diligence in supervising
    its employee.

    GV Florida alleged, however, that the Michelin tires of its bus had factory and mechanical
    defects which caused a tire blow-out. GV Florida instituted a third-party complaint against Tiara
    Commercial Corporation (TCC), seller of said tires. The sheriff served the summons to a certain Cherry
    Gino-gino who represented herself as an accounting manager authorized by TCC to receive summons
    on its behalf.

    TCC eventually filed a motion to dismiss GV Florida's third-party complaint. It argued among
    others that the summons was not served on any of the persons listed in Section 11 of Rule 14. It argues
    that there was no proper service of summons on TCC that would vest the RTC with jurisdiction over it.
    GV Florida claims that TCC voluntarily appeared and submitted to the jurisdiction of the RTC when it
    filed motions and pleadings seeking affirmative relief from said court.

    ISSUE: Whether the court has acquired jurisdiction over TCC despite the failure to serve summons
    upon the latter.

    HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court held that there was an improper service of summons because it was
    not served upon any of the officers expressly enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
    This enumeration is exclusive. Section 11 of Rule 14 changed the old rules pertaining to the service of
    summons on corporations. This procedural defect, however, does not automatically dismiss the case.
    Remedy is to issue alias summons. Still, the court acquired jurisdiction over TCC. Service of summons
    is not the only mode through which a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. SC
    finds that TCC has voluntarily appeared before (and submitted itself to) the RTC.

    You might also like