Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 737 views

    Banco Do Brasil Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Hiroshi Carlos
    Banco do Brasil was impleaded in a case simply because it had a claim over a sunken ship owned by Poro Point Shipping Services that caused losses to Cesar Urbino. However, Banco do Brasil is a foreign corporation not engaged in business in the Philippines and without any office or agent there. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Banco do Brasil because personal service of summons within the country is required for in personam cases against non-resident defendants, and this was not done since Banco do Brasil was not physically present. The publication of the summons was also invalid to acquire jurisdiction in this case.

    Copyright:

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

    Banco Do Brasil Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Hiroshi Carlos
    737 views2 pages
    Banco do Brasil was impleaded in a case simply because it had a claim over a sunken ship owned by Poro Point Shipping Services that caused losses to Cesar Urbino. However, Banco do Brasil is a foreign corporation not engaged in business in the Philippines and without any office or agent there. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Banco do Brasil because personal service of summons within the country is required for in personam cases against non-resident defendants, and this was not done since Banco do Brasil was not physically present. The publication of the summons was also invalid to acquire jurisdiction in this case.

    Original Description:

    d

    Original Title

    Banco Do Brasil vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Banco do Brasil was impleaded in a case simply because it had a claim over a sunken ship owned by Poro Point Shipping Services that caused losses to Cesar Urbino. However, Banco do Brasil is a foreign corporation not engaged in business in the Philippines and without any office or agent there. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Banco do Brasil because personal service of summons within the country is required for in personam cases against non-resident defendants, and this was not done since Banco do Brasil was not physically present. The publication of the summons was also invalid to acquire jurisdiction in this case.

    Copyright:

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

    Banco Do Brasil Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Hiroshi Carlos
    Banco do Brasil was impleaded in a case simply because it had a claim over a sunken ship owned by Poro Point Shipping Services that caused losses to Cesar Urbino. However, Banco do Brasil is a foreign corporation not engaged in business in the Philippines and without any office or agent there. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Banco do Brasil because personal service of summons within the country is required for in personam cases against non-resident defendants, and this was not done since Banco do Brasil was not physically present. The publication of the summons was also invalid to acquire jurisdiction in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Banco do Brasil vs CA

    G.R. Nos. 121576-78

    June 16, 2000

    Petitioner: BANCO DO BRASIL

    Respondents: THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ARSENIO M.


    GONONG, and CESAR S. URBINO, SR.

    Topic: Extra-territorial service of summons;

    Facts:

    Cesar Urbino, Sr. sued Poro Point Shipping Services for


    damages the former incurred when one of the latter’s ship ran
    aground causing losses to Urbino. Urbino impleaded Banco Do
    Brasil (BDB), a foreign corporation not engaged in business in
    the Philippines nor does it have any office here or any agent.
    BDB was impleaded simply because it has a claim over the
    sunken ship. BDB however failed to appear multiple times.
    Eventually, a judgment was rendered and BDB was adjudged to
    pay $300,000.00 in damages in favor of Urbino for BDB being a
    nuisance defendant.
    BDB assailed the said decision as it argued that there was no
    valid service of summons because the summons was issued to
    the ambassador of Brazil. Further, the other summons which
    were made through publication is not applicable to BDB as it
    alleged that the action against them is in personam.
    ISSUE: Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction over Banco
    Do Brasil.
    HELD: No. Banco Do Brasil is correct. Although the suit is
    originally in rem as it was BDB’s claim on the sunken ship which
    was used as the basis for it being impleaded, the action
    nevertheless became an in personam one when Urbino asked
    for damages in the said amount. As such, only a personal service
    of summons would have vested the court jurisdiction over BDB.
    Where the action is in personam, one brought against a person
    on the basis of his personal liability, jurisdiction over the person of
    the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide
    the case. When the defendant is a non-resident, personal
    service of summons within the state is essential to the
    acquisition of jurisdiction over the person. This cannot be
    done, however, if the defendant is not physically present in the
    country, and thus, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his
    person and therefore cannot validly try and decide the case
    against him.

    Significantly, the publication of summons effected by private


    respondent is invalid and ineffective for the trial court to acquire
    jurisdiction over the person of petitioner.

    You might also like