Civil Code of the Philippines

DIVISION [ GR NO. 161026, Oct 24, 2005 ] HYATT ELEVATORS v. GOLDSTAR ELEVATORS  DECISION D E C I S I O N PANGANIBAN, J .: Fact: In this case, the petitioner is Goldstar Elevator Philippines Inc. and on the other hand the private respondent, Hyatt Elevators and Escalators Company. Both engaged in installing, maintaining/servicing of elavators and escalators Hyatt (herein petitioner) filed an unfair trade practices and damages against LG industrial systems Co. Ltd, and LG International Corporation alleging that it was appointed as the exclusive distributor of LG elevators and escalators in the Philippines under Distributorship Agreement LG filed a motion to dismiss alleging that lack of jurisdiction over the persons of defendant, improper venue and failure to state a cause of action. Hyatt filed a motion for leave of court to amend the complaint,  alleging that LG transferred all assets to a joint venue agreement with Otis elevator Company ...

The CIVIL CODE R.A. No. 386 ARTICLE 51 Reported by: JOY G. DE LOYOLA MARY GRACE DE LUMBAN ARTICLE 51 When the law creating or recognizing them, or any other provision does not state the domicile of juridical persons, the same shall be understood to be the place where their legal representation is established or where they exercise their principal functions. The law contemplates a situation where a juridical person is created by law, but the law does not state its domicile. Article 50 governs the domicile of natural persons . Article 51 talks about the domicile of juridical persons. Domicile – denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, when absent, one has the intention of returning Residence – used to indicate a place of abode, whether permanent or temporary Juridical person – is a being of legal existence susceptible of rights and obligations, or of being the subject of juridical relations e xample: A private corporati...

Case Digest [G.R. No. 145391. August 26, 2002] AVELINO CASUPANAN and ROBERTO CAPITULO, petitioners, vs. MARIO LLAVORE LAROYA, respondent.  CARPIO, J.:  Facts : The two vehicle, driven by the respondent Laroya and the petitioner Capitulo and Avelino had an accident. As a result two cases were filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Laroya filed a criminal case against Casupanan for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property. On the other hand, Casupanan and Capitulo filed a civil case against Laroya for quasi-delict. ISSUE:  Whether an accused in a pending criminal case for reckless imprudence can validly file, simultaneously and independently, a separate civil action for quasi-delict against the private complainant in the criminal case.  Ruling: Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, the independent civil action in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code is not deemed instituted with the criminal action but may...

The CIVIL CODE R.A. No. 386 ARTICLE 35 Reported by: JOY G DE LOYOLA MARY GRACE DE LUMBAN ARTICLE 35 When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal offense, charges another with the same, for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code or any special law, but the justice of peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the complainant may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offended. Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence. Upon the defendant’s motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should be presented by the prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings. RESERVATIO...