CASE DIGEST
Facts : 36 workers filed a complaint through Association of Democratic Labor Organization for salary differentials pursuant to the statutory minimum wage law, overtime pay and reinstatement with backwages. Respondent court granted the complaint and issued a writ of execution against Cerisco Blackat Trading owned by Petitioner Victoria Ablaza Uy, Hence the petitioner denied and filed a motion for certiorari against the respondent court. Petitioner contended that Cerisco Trading is a mere trade name belonging to herein petitioner, and this tradename is not a juridical person nor entity capable of suing or being sued in any court pursuant to sections 1 and 2 of Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court and petitioners was never informed of such complaint.
Facts : 36 workers filed a complaint through Association of Democratic Labor Organization for salary differentials pursuant to the statutory minimum wage law, overtime pay and reinstatement with backwages. Respondent court granted the complaint and issued a writ of execution against Cerisco Blackat Trading owned by Petitioner Victoria Ablaza Uy, Hence the petitioner denied and filed a motion for certiorari against the respondent court. Petitioner contended that Cerisco Trading is a mere trade name belonging to herein petitioner, and this tradename is not a juridical person nor entity capable of suing or being sued in any court pursuant to sections 1 and 2 of Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court and petitioners was never informed of such complaint.
Issue: Whether or not fraud and fatal
irregularities in services of summons, courts process and orders which deprive
a party of due notice and right to be heard constitute violation of due process
of law guaranty of the constitution.
Held: Certiorari Dismiss
Ratio: Cerisco Blackcat Trading as sole
respondent and the body of the complaint makes no mention whatsoever of
Victoria Ablaza, the petitioner was not duly served with summons. Petitioner's
contentions have no merit. Section 9, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court
provides that when persons associated in business are sued under a common name,
service may be effected upon all the defendants by serving upon any one of them
or upon the person in charge of the office or place of business maintained in
the common name. Since petitioner Ablaza Uy were doing business under the
common name Cerisco Blackcat Trading, the service of summons made upon the
person in charge of the office or place of business maintained in the common
name was adequate. This is specially true in this case where the plaintiffs are
poor laborers who are entitled under the Constitution to State protection and
who are only seeking the legitimate fruits of their employment from an
employer.
No comments:
Post a Comment