Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 363 views

    Gentle Supreme Philippines vs. Consulta

    Uploaded by

    Zaira Gem Gonzales
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that there was valid service of summons on the defendant Ricardo Consulta. According to the sheriff's return, he served copies of the complaint on Agnes Canave, who was identified as an authorized representative of both Consulta and the vice president of the defendant company. Consulta did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the sheriff properly performed his duties or to prove that Canave was not competent to receive the summons. As Canave appeared to be in charge of receiving documents at the defendant's place of business, this constituted valid substituted service of summons.

    Copyright:

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

    Gentle Supreme Philippines vs. Consulta

    Uploaded by

    Zaira Gem Gonzales
    363 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that there was valid service of summons on the defendant Ricardo Consulta. According to the sheriff's return, he served copies of the complaint on Agnes Canave, who was identified as an authorized representative of both Consulta and the vice president of the defendant company. Consulta did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the sheriff properly performed his duties or to prove that Canave was not competent to receive the summons. As Canave appeared to be in charge of receiving documents at the defendant's place of business, this constituted valid substituted service of summons.

    Original Description:

    Summons

    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 of the Philippines ruled that there was valid service of summons on the defendant Ricardo Consulta. According to the sheriff's return, he served copies of the complaint on Agnes Canave, who was identified as an authorized representative of both Consulta and the vice president of the defendant company. Consulta did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the sheriff properly performed his duties or to prove that Canave was not competent to receive the summons. As Canave appeared to be in charge of receiving documents at the defendant's place of business, this constituted valid substituted service of summons.

    Copyright:

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

    Gentle Supreme Philippines vs. Consulta

    Uploaded by

    Zaira Gem Gonzales
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that there was valid service of summons on the defendant Ricardo Consulta. According to the sheriff's return, he served copies of the complaint on Agnes Canave, who was identified as an authorized representative of both Consulta and the vice president of the defendant company. Consulta did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the sheriff properly performed his duties or to prove that Canave was not competent to receive the summons. As Canave appeared to be in charge of receiving documents at the defendant's place of business, this constituted valid substituted service of summons.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The key takeaways are that there was a valid service of summons on the defendant at his place of business through his secretary, who appeared to be in charge of receiving documents.

    Gentle Supreme Philippines filed a collection case against Consar Trading Corporation, its president Ricardo Consulta, and vice president Norberto Sarayba for failing to pay for merchandise purchased.

    The issue in the case was whether there was a valid service of summons at the defendant's place of business.

    GENTLE SUPREME PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. RICARDO F.

    CONSULTA
    G.R. No. 183182
    September 1, 2010
    This case is about the service of summons on a corporation and its officers, allegedly
    done improperly, resulting in the failure of the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over the
    persons of the defendants and in the nullity of its proceedings.
    FACTS: Petitioner Gentle Supreme Philippines, Inc. (GSP) filed a collection case with
    application for a writ of preliminary attachment against Consar Trading Corporation
    (CTC), its president Ricardo Consulta (Consulta), and its vice-president, Norberto
    Sarayba (Sarayba) before the RTC of Pasig City. GSP alleged that CTC, through
    Consulta and Sarayba, bought certain merchandise from it but refused to pay for them.
    The sheriff failed to serve the summons and copies of the complaint on any of CTCs
    authorized officers as well as on Consulta and Sarayba, he left copies of such
    documents with Agnes Canave (Canave) who, according to the sheriffs return, was
    Saraybas secretary and an authorized representative of both Sarayba and Consulta.
    None of the defendants filed an answer to the complaint. After trial, the RTC ruled that
    having defrauded GSP, defendants CTC, Consulta, and Sarayba were solidarily liable
    for the value of the supplied goods plus attorneys fees and costs of the suit. And upon
    motion, the RTC issued a writ of execution against the defendants.
    Respondent Consulta filed a petition for annulment of the RTC decision before the
    Court of Appeals (CA) on the ground that he was not properly served with summons
    because, although his address stated in the complaint was his regular place of
    business, Canave, who received the summons, was not in charge of the matter.
    ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid service of summons at defendants place of
    business.
    HELD: YES.There is valid substituted service of summons on Consulta at his place of
    business with some competent person in charge thereof. According to the sheriffs
    return, which is prima facie evidence of the facts it states, he served a copy of the
    complaint on Canave, an authorized representative of both Consulta and Sarayba.
    Besides Consultas bare allegations, he did not present evidence to rebut the
    presumption of regularity on the manner that the sheriff performed his official duty. Nor
    did Consulta present clear and convincing evidence that Canave was not competent to
    receive the summons and the attached documents for him. In fact, Canave was a
    person charged with authority to receive court documents for the company as well as its
    officers who held office in that company. Absent contrary evidence, the veracity of the
    returns content and its effectiveness stand.

    The Court has ruled that "it is not necessary that the person in charge of the
    defendants regular place of business be specifically authorized to receive the
    summons. It is enough that he appears to be in charge." In this case, Canave, a
    secretary whose job description necessarily includes receiving documents and other
    correspondence, would have the semblance of authority to accept the court documents.
    Further, Consulta does not deny a) that summons had been properly served on
    Sarayba, his vice-president, through Canave at the companys office; b) that the
    summons on him was served on the same occasion also through Canave; c) that the
    sheriff had succeeded in garnishing his companys bank deposits; and d) that his
    company subsequently made an offer to settle the judgment against it. The Court is not
    dumb as to believe that Consulta became aware of the suit only when the sheriff served
    a notice of execution sale covering his house and lot.

    You might also like