Hamilton Vs Levy
Hamilton Vs Levy
Hamilton Vs Levy
The instant petition for review seeks to set aside the April 16, 1999
Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 48299 which
ordered the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 57, to dismiss
Civil Case No. 8696. Also challenged is the June 30, 1999
Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals denying petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration.
IDCHTE
The case commenced on June 30, 1997 with the filing by petitioner of a
complaint for sum of money and damages, with prayer for preliminary
attachment against respondents and one Pablo de Borja with the
Regional Trial Court of Angeles, Pampanga.
On July 14, 1997, the trial court issued an Order for the issuance of a
writ of preliminary attachment. The Writ of Preliminary Attachment was
issued on July 15, 1997. On the strength of said Writ, the court sheriff
levied on a Cherokee 180 Piper aircraft, allegedly owned by respondent
David Levy. The corresponding Sheriff's Return, dated November 11,
1997, manifested that the sheriff (1) personally served summons and a
1
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
IN GRANTING THE RESPONDENTS' PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI THAT WAS FILED BEYOND THE SIXTY (60) DAYPRESCRIBED PERIOD.
2
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
FOR NOT OBSERVING THE REQUIREMENTS OF "PLAIN, SPEEDY
AND ADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF LAW"
BEFORE GRANTING THE RESPONDENTS' PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI.
3
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
IN GRANTING THE RESPONDENTS' PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI EVEN IF THE CERTIFICATION AGAINST NONFORUM SHOPPING WAS EXECUTED BY ONE WHO WAS NOT A
PARTY TO THE CASE.
4
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
IN DISMISSING CIVIL CASE NO. 8696 EVEN IF THE
RESPONDENTS, PARTICULARLY DAVID LEVY, HAVE ACTUAL
KNOWLEDGE OF THE FILING OF THE SAID CIVIL CASE NO.
8696. 4
In support of the first assigned error, petitioner points out that the
assailed February 20, 1998 Order of the trial court was received by
respondents on March 23, 1998 while the Petition for Certiorari was
filed only four (4) months thereafter, or on July 16, 1998. Under Rule
65, Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, petitions
for certiorari should be filed within sixty (60) days from notice of the
assailed Order. In the case at bar, respondents point out that they were
no longer holding office at the address where summons and the
questioned Order were served. Precisely, the issue in the instant
Petition is the propriety of the service of summons made upon
11
the Rules. 16 This is especially true in the instant case where the duty
to be performed has a direct bearing on the acquisition of jurisdiction
of the trial court over the persons of the respondents.
All told, we find no reason to set aside the Decision challenged, which
ordered the dismissal of Civil Case No. 8696 without prejudice on the
ground of improper service of summons.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 48299 is AFFIRMED in toto.
cAEDTa
SO ORDERED.