Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 597 views

    REPUBLIC V DOMINGO

    Uploaded by

    Ivy Clarize Amisola Bernardez
    The Republic of the Philippines appealed a judgment against the Department of Public Works and Highways Region III. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction because summons was not served on the Solicitor General, as required when the defendant is the Republic. Section 13 of Rule 14 states that when the defendant is the Republic, service must be on the Solicitor General. As the DPWH and its regions are agents of the Republic, the Republic was the real party in interest, so summons needed to be served on the Solicitor General for the court to have jurisdiction. The trial court's judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    REPUBLIC V DOMINGO

    Uploaded by

    Ivy Clarize Amisola Bernardez
    597 views1 page
    The Republic of the Philippines appealed a judgment against the Department of Public Works and Highways Region III. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction because summons was not served on the Solicitor General, as required when the defendant is the Republic. Section 13 of Rule 14 states that when the defendant is the Republic, service must be on the Solicitor General. As the DPWH and its regions are agents of the Republic, the Republic was the real party in interest, so summons needed to be served on the Solicitor General for the court to have jurisdiction. The trial court's judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    REPUBLIC v DOMINGO

    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 Republic of the Philippines appealed a judgment against the Department of Public Works and Highways Region III. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction because summons was not served on the Solicitor General, as required when the defendant is the Republic. Section 13 of Rule 14 states that when the defendant is the Republic, service must be on the Solicitor General. As the DPWH and its regions are agents of the Republic, the Republic was the real party in interest, so summons needed to be served on the Solicitor General for the court to have jurisdiction. The trial court's judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    REPUBLIC V DOMINGO

    Uploaded by

    Ivy Clarize Amisola Bernardez
    The Republic of the Philippines appealed a judgment against the Department of Public Works and Highways Region III. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction because summons was not served on the Solicitor General, as required when the defendant is the Republic. Section 13 of Rule 14 states that when the defendant is the Republic, service must be on the Solicitor General. As the DPWH and its regions are agents of the Republic, the Republic was the real party in interest, so summons needed to be served on the Solicitor General for the court to have jurisdiction. The trial court's judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALBERTO A. DOMINGO (G.R. No.

    175299 , September 14, 2011)

    DOCTRINE: When the defendant is the Republic of the Philippines, service may be effected on the
    Solicitor General. [Rule 13 was not mentioned. Only Section 13, Rule 14]

    FACTS: Alberto A. Domingo filed a Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages against the
    Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Region III for the payment of unpaid rentals on the
    lease of his construction equipment to the agency. The lease contracts were allegedly executed in order
    to implement the emergency projects of the DPWH Region III, which aimed to control the flow of lahar
    from Mt. Pinatubo in the adjacent towns in the provinces of Tarlac and Pampanga.

    Thereafter, summons was issued by the RTC, which was duly served. Domingo filed a Motion to Declare
    Defendant in Default in view of the failure of the DPWH Region III to file a responsive pleading within
    the reglementary period. RTC declared the DPWH Region III in default and thereafter set the date for the
    reception of Domingo’s evidence ex parte. RTC ruled in favor of Domingo. Domingo filed a Motion for
    Issuance of Writ of Execution, asserting that the DPWH Region III failed to file an appeal or a motion for
    new trial and/or reconsideration despite its receipt of a copy of the RTC decision.

    The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed with the
    Court of Appeals a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary
    Restraining Order and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, arguing that it was not impleaded as an
    indispensable party in the civil case. The seven contracts sued upon in the trial court stated that they
    were entered into by the Regional Director, Assistant Regional Director and/or Project Manager of the
    DPWH Region III for and in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, which purportedly was the real
    party to the contract. Moreover, the Republic averred that, under the law, the statutory representatives
    of the government for purposes of litigation are either the Solicitor General or the Legal Service Branch
    of the Executive Department concerned. Since no summons was issued to either of said representatives,
    the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the Republic. The absence of indispensable parties
    allegedly rendered null and void the subsequent acts of the trial court because of its lack of authority to
    act, not only as to the absent parties, but even as to those present. The Republic prayed for the
    annulment of the RTC Decision, and the dismissal of the said case, without prejudice to the original
    action being refiled in the proper court. CA dismissed the Republic’s petition.

    ISSUE: Whether the RTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over a government agency because the service of
    summons was not effected on the OSG

    HELD: YES, the RTC failed to acquire jurisdiction. Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court states that
    when the defendant is the Republic of the Philippines, service may be effected on the Solicitor General;
    in case of a province, city or municipality, or like public corporations, service may be effected on its
    executive head, or on such other officer or officers as the law or the court may direct. Jurisprudence
    further instructs that when a suit is directed against an unincorporated government agency, which,
    because it is unincorporated, possesses no juridical personality of its own, the suit is against the
    agency's principal, i.e., the State. In the instant case, the Complaint for Specific Performance with
    Damages filed by Domingo specifically named as defendant the DPWH Region III. As correctly argued by
    the Republic, the DPWH and its regional office are merely the agents of the former (the Republic), which
    is the real party in interest in Civil Case No. 333-M-2002. Thus, as mandated by Section 13, Rule 14 of
    the Rules of Court, the summons in this case should have been served on the OSG.

    You might also like