Bankruptcy Estate of Charles B. Mitich a.k.a. Charlie Mitich and James L. Kennedy, Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Charles B. Mitich vs. Mercantile Insurance Company, Inc.,
G.R. No. 238041 – 238502, February 15, 2022
Facts:
1. Charles B. Mitich was the owner and operator of a teen club in San Diego, California, USA called Club Tronix.
2. A gunfight erupted in the parking lot of Club Tronix which claimed the life of a patron - a young man named Theodros Zewdalem.
3. The estate and heirs of Zewdalem filed a wrongful death action before the San Diego Superior Court against Mitich,At that time, Mitich and Club Tronix had a comprehensive general liability insurance policy issued by Mercantile.
4. Mitich thus made a tender of defense to Mercantile.
5. The San Diego Superior Court ruled in favor of the Zewdalems and awarded USD$285,500.00 in their favor.
6. Both Mitich, et al. and the Zewdalems filed a Complaint before the Superior Court of the State of California, USA against Mercantile for insurance bad faith.
7. By Default Judgment, the California Court ruled in favor of Mitich and awarded $1,135,929.14 in his favor.
8. The judgment got entered into the records of the California Court and personally served on Mercantile at its principal place of business on General Luna St. comer Beaterio Street, Intramuros, Manila, Philippines.
9. Despite Mercantile's receipt of the Default Judgment, however, Mercantile did not file an appeal in accordance with the California Rules of Court. Consequently, the Default Judgment lapsed into finality.
10. For these reasons, they filed the petition for recognition of foreign judgment in order to compel Mercantile to pay.
11. In response, Mercantile filed a motion to dismiss on two on the ground that the Default Judgment of the California Court was void due to invalid extraterritorial service of summons on Mercantile, hence, it cannot be enforced in the Philippines.
12. RTC ruled in favor of petitioner
a. It held that Mitich, et al. successfully established the existence and authenticity of the Default Judgment dated July 21, 1994 of the California Court. Said Default Judgment had been certified by the clerk of the California Court and authenticated by the Philippine Consulate in Los Angeles, California, USA, in compliance with Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Evidence prior to amendment.
Issues:
· Whether or not Mitich, et al. were able established the authenticity of the Default Judgment
· Whether or not the Default Judgment is void by the alleged improper service of summons on Mercantile
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
FIRST ISSUE
Yes. The fact of foreign judgment may be proved through: (I) an official publication or (2) a certification or copy attested by the officer who has custody of the judgment. If the office which has custody is in a foreign country, the certification may be made by the proper diplomatic or consular officer of the Philippine foreign service in that country and authenticated by the seal of office.
Here, Mitich, et al. presented the Default Judgment dated July 21, 1994 before the trial court, together with a Certification dated August 3, 1994 of Kenneth E. Martone, Clerk of the San Diego Superior Court who has custody of the seal and all records pertaining to cases of that court, to the effect that the Default Judgment had been entered in his record last July 22, 1994, as attested to by James R. Milliken, Judge of the San Diego Superior Court. These documents were authenticated by Consul Antonio S. Curameng of our Philippine Consulate in Los Angeles, State of California, USA through Authentication dated August 9, 1994. Certainly, Mitich, et al. complied with Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Evidence.
SECOND ISSUE
No. Matters of remedy and procedure such as those relating to the service of process upon a defendant are governed by the lex Jori or the internal law of the forum.
The pertinent provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure states that summons may be served by mail, personal service on registered agent, or by personal service at the principal place of business. In the present case, summonses were served by the three modes of service.
Despite valid services of summons on these three (3) occasions, however, Mercantile chose to ignore them and refused to appear or file any responsive pleading before the California Court.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment