FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243835. June 3, 2019.]
KOBE CLINIC CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.TOM'S WORLD PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 3, 2019which 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. DETACa
The same can be said on the issue of laches. This Court ruled in Bicol Agro-Industrial Producers Coop., Inc. (BAPCI) v. Obias2 that "whether 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
x x x [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.
SO ORDERED." Carandang, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167, 169 (2016), citing Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Leobrera, 461 Phil. 461, 469 (2003).
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. 370 Phil. 921 (1999).
6.Id. at 931.