Kobe Vs Tom's

~
l\epublic of tbe flbilippines

~upreme <!Court
;fffianila. ---------· ·-·+--
FIRST DIVISION
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a

Resolution dated June 3, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243835 - Kobe Clinic Corporation, petitioner, v.

Tom's World Philippines Corporation, respondent.
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for

Extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary
period within which to file its petition for review on certiorari.
This Court has carefully reviewed the allegations, issues, and

arguments adduced in the instant petition for review on certiorari and
accordingly further resolves to DENY the same for: (1) raising a
factual issue; and (2) failure to sufficiently show that the Court of
Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 152575, committed any reversible
error in affirming the Regional Trial Court, Branch 276, Muntinlupa
City's (RTC) March 30, 2017 and July 11, 2017 Orders.
The instant petition seeks to have this Court review the

evidence petitioner presented before the RTC which would allegedly
show respondent's knowledge of the pendency of the complaint for
damages petitioner filed against it and that respondent should have
therefore, filed a motion to set aside the RTC's order of default rather
than a Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam.
Time and again, this Court has explained that only questions of
law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. The factual
findings of the CA bind this Court. 1 This is especially true here where
the RTC and the CA are unanimous in their factual findings.
- over - two (2>) pages ...

31/
1
Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil, 167, 169 (2016), citing Section I, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Leobrera, 461 Phil. 461, 469 (2003).
·~
RESOLUTION 2 G.R. No. 243835
June 3, 2019
The same can be said on the issue of laches. This Court ruled
in BU:ol.Agro-lndustrial Producers Coop., Inc. (BAPCJ) v. Obias 2 that
"whetlier or not the elements of laches are present is a question
involving the factual determination by the trial court. Hence, the
same being a question of fact, it cannot be the proper subject of herein
petition." 3
Anent petitioner's insistence that the process server enjoys the

presumption of regularity in his service of summons on respondent,
this Court cannot accede to the same. In several cases, this Court has
clarified that the presumption of regularity is a disputable presumption
and can be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the
contrary. 4 Here, it is undisputed that summons was served on
respondent's branch manager - contrary to the exclusive list of people
under Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court who are authorized to
receive summons. As we have held in E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co.,
Ltd. v. Hon. Benito: 5
xxx [W]e rule that the service of summons upon the branch
manager of petitioner at its branch office at Cagayan de Oro,
instead of upon the general manager at its principal office at Davao
City is improper. Consequently, the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. 6
It is, therefore, undeniable in this case that the service of summons

upon the respondent was improperly made. Consequently, the trial and
appellate courts properly ruled that jurisdiction over respondent was not
obtained, necessitating the reversal of the RTC's decision.
It may be well to remind petitioner that it is not "left holding the

bag" as the RTC directed proper service of summons on respondent and for
the latter to file its Answer after summons have been served on it.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the

Decision dated July 12, 2018 and the Resolution dated December 27,
2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 152575.
The Regional Trial Court Branch 276, Muntinlupa City is

dropped as party-respondent pursuant to Section 4(a), Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court.
- over -
31./
2
618 Phil. 170 (2009).
3
Id. at 195. Citation omitted.
4
See People v. Jolliffe, 105 Phil. 677 (1959); Umandap v. Hon. Sabio, Jr., 393 Phil. 657 (2000);
and Sps. Palada v. Solidbank Corporation, 668 Phil. 172 (2011)
5 3 70 Phil. 921 ( 1999).
6
Id. at 931.
~
RESOLUTION 3 G.R. No. 243835
June 3, 2019
SO ORDERED." Carandang, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
Divisi
R.E. BULAY LAW OFFICES Court of Appeals (x)

Counsel for Petitioner Manila
Suite l 104B Richville Corporate Tower (CA-G.R. SP No. 152575)
Madrigal Business Park, Ayala Alabang
1780 Muntinlupa City CADIZ TABA YOYONG
AND PARTNERS
Counsel for Respondent
Suite 3601, 36t11 Floor, The Ante! Global
Centre, No. 3 Julia Vargas Avenue
Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City
The Hon. Presiding Judge

Regional Trial Court, Branch 276
1770 Muntinlupa City
(CivilCaseNo. 15-1217)
Public Information Office (x)

Library Services (x)
Supreme Court
(For uploading pursuant to A.M.
No. 12-7-1-SC)
Judgment Division (x)
~
Supreme Court
UR

Kobe Vs Tom's

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kobe Vs Tom's

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kobe Vs Tom's

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

~

l\epublic of tbe flbilippines

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a

"G.R. No. 243835 - Kobe Clinic Corporation, petitioner, v.

The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for

This Court has carefully reviewed the allegations, issues, and

The instant petition seeks to have this Court review the

- over - two (2>) pages ...

Anent petitioner's insistence that the process server enjoys the

It is, therefore, undeniable in this case that the service of summons

It may be well to remind petitioner that it is not "left holding the

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the

The Regional Trial Court Branch 276, Muntinlupa City is

SO ORDERED." Carandang, J., on official leave.

Very truly yours,

R.E. BULAY LAW OFFICES Court of Appeals (x)

The Hon. Presiding Judge

Public Information Office (x)

Judgment Division (x)

You might also like