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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 308 views

    GR No. 151215 (2010) - PCI Leasing v. Milan

    Uploaded by

    Nikki Estores Gonzales
    1) PCI Leasing filed a complaint against Antonio and Laura Milan for unpaid loans totaling P2,327,833.33. The loans were secured by deeds of assignment signed by the Milans. 2) The court was unable to serve summons on the Milans as they had moved without leaving a forwarding address. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of service. 3) PCI Leasing appealed but the appellate court dismissed the appeal as filed out of time. The Supreme Court granted PCI Leasing's petition and reversed the lower courts' dismissal, reinstating the case. The Court ruled that procedural technicalities should not frustrate substantial justice, especially where the core issue is repayment of a

    Copyright:

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

    GR No. 151215 (2010) - PCI Leasing v. Milan

    Uploaded by

    Nikki Estores Gonzales
    308 views2 pages
    1) PCI Leasing filed a complaint against Antonio and Laura Milan for unpaid loans totaling P2,327,833.33. The loans were secured by deeds of assignment signed by the Milans. 2) The court was unable to serve summons on the Milans as they had moved without leaving a forwarding address. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of service. 3) PCI Leasing appealed but the appellate court dismissed the appeal as filed out of time. The Supreme Court granted PCI Leasing's petition and reversed the lower courts' dismissal, reinstating the case. The Court ruled that procedural technicalities should not frustrate substantial justice, especially where the core issue is repayment of a

    Original Description:

    4. GR No. 151215 (2010) - PCI Leasing v. Milan

    Original Title

    4. GR No. 151215 (2010) - PCI Leasing v. Milan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) PCI Leasing filed a complaint against Antonio and Laura Milan for unpaid loans totaling P2,327,833.33. The loans were secured by deeds of assignment signed by the Milans. 2) The court was unable to serve summons on the Milans as they had moved without leaving a forwarding address. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of service. 3) PCI Leasing appealed but the appellate court dismissed the appeal as filed out of time. The Supreme Court granted PCI Leasing's petition and reversed the lower courts' dismissal, reinstating the case. The Court ruled that procedural technicalities should not frustrate substantial justice, especially where the core issue is repayment of a

    Copyright:

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

    GR No. 151215 (2010) - PCI Leasing v. Milan

    Uploaded by

    Nikki Estores Gonzales
    1) PCI Leasing filed a complaint against Antonio and Laura Milan for unpaid loans totaling P2,327,833.33. The loans were secured by deeds of assignment signed by the Milans. 2) The court was unable to serve summons on the Milans as they had moved without leaving a forwarding address. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of service. 3) PCI Leasing appealed but the appellate court dismissed the appeal as filed out of time. The Supreme Court granted PCI Leasing's petition and reversed the lower courts' dismissal, reinstating the case. The Court ruled that procedural technicalities should not frustrate substantial justice, especially where the core issue is repayment of a

    Copyright:

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

    PCI LEASING and FINANCE, INC.

    v.
    ANTONIO C. MILAN, Doing Business Under the Name and Style
    of A. MILAN TRADING, and LAURA M. MILAN

    G.R. No. 151215 April 5, 2010


    PONENTE: LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

    FACTS:

    The instant case was commenced upon the filing of a


    Complaint for Sum of Money by petitioner PCI Leasing and Finance,
    Inc. (PCI Leasing) against respondents Antonio C. Milan (Antonio)
    and Laura M. Milan. PCI Leasing alleged that it extended loans to
    respondents for which Deeds of Assignment were duly executed by
    respondents. Under the terms of the Deeds, respondents sold,
    assigned and transferred to PCI Leasing the former’s rights to various
    checks for and in consideration of the amounts obtained.
    Subsequently, when PCI Leasing presented the checks for payment,
    the same were dishonored. Despite repeated demands, respondents
    failed to settle their obligation, which amounted to P2,327,833.33.
    PCI Leasing was then compelled to litigate to enforce payment of the
    total loan obligation.

    The RTC issued summons to respondents however the


    summons and the copy of the complaint were returned unserved for
    the reason that when the process server went to the respondents’
    residence, he was told by the neighbors that the respondents had
    already transferred to an unknown location. PCI Leasing filed a
    Motion for Issuance of Alias Summons, which the RTC scheduled for
    hearing. During the hearing of the motion, there was no appearance
    from both counsels of PCI Leasing and respondents. Accordingly, the
    RTC issued an Order dismissing the case. PCI Leasing sought a
    reconsideration of the above Order but was denied.

    PCI Leasing filed a Notice of Appeal in an attempt to challenge


    the Order of the RTC. The RTC rendered a Resolution dismissing the
    Notice of Appeal, on the ground that the same was filed beyond the
    reglementary period. Without filing a Motion for Reconsideration, PCI
    Leasing assailed the above Resolution before the Court of Appeals
    through a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
    The appellate court dismissed outright the petition holding that the
    petition for certiorari was filed out of time.
    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petition filed by


    petitioner, depriving petitioner of its right to recover the sums it had
    loaned to the private respondents, for being filed out of time

    RULING:

    The Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the


    Rules of Court is granted. The assailed Resolutions dated
    September 20, 2001 and December 20, 2001 of the Court of Appeals
    in CA-G.R. SP No. 66546, as well as the Order dated October 13,
    2000 and the Resolution dated August 3, 2001 of the Regional Trial
    Court of Quezon City, Branch 226, in Civil Case No. Q-00-40010, are
    hereby reversed and set aside. Civil Case No. Q-00-40010 is hereby
    ordered reinstated.

    The Court held that the rules of procedure should be viewed as


    mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict
    and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to
    frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be
    eschewed.

    In the instant case, the crux of the controversy involves the


    property of PCI Leasing, i.e., the sum of money supposedly owed to it
    by the respondents. It will not serve the ends of substantial justice if
    the RTC’s dismissal of the case with prejudice on pure technicalities
    would be automatically upheld by appellate courts likewise on solely
    procedural grounds, unless the procedural lapses committed were so
    gross, negligent, tainted with bad faith or tantamount to abuse or
    misuse of court processes.

    You might also like