0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
8 Ansichten1 Seite
The Philippine Bureau of Customs seized a vessel and its cargo that had docked in La Union due to suspicions of smuggling. Customs Commissioner Mison then forfeited the vessel and cargo. Duraproof Services filed a petition challenging these actions. Duraproof served summons by publication to defendants not residing in the country, including Banco do Brasil. The court ruled it did not have jurisdiction over Banco do Brasil since seeking damages turned the action from in rem to in personam, requiring personal service of summons rather than service by publication. As the court did not have jurisdiction over Banco do Brasil, it could not validly award damages against it.
The Philippine Bureau of Customs seized a vessel and its cargo that had docked in La Union due to suspicions of smuggling. Customs Commissioner Mison then forfeited the vessel and cargo. Duraproof Services filed a petition challenging these actions. Duraproof served summons by publication to defendants not residing in the country, including Banco do Brasil. The court ruled it did not have jurisdiction over Banco do Brasil since seeking damages turned the action from in rem to in personam, requiring personal service of summons rather than service by publication. As the court did not have jurisdiction over Banco do Brasil, it could not validly award damages against it.
The Philippine Bureau of Customs seized a vessel and its cargo that had docked in La Union due to suspicions of smuggling. Customs Commissioner Mison then forfeited the vessel and cargo. Duraproof Services filed a petition challenging these actions. Duraproof served summons by publication to defendants not residing in the country, including Banco do Brasil. The court ruled it did not have jurisdiction over Banco do Brasil since seeking damages turned the action from in rem to in personam, requiring personal service of summons rather than service by publication. As the court did not have jurisdiction over Banco do Brasil, it could not validly award damages against it.
vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ARSENIO M. GONONG, and CESAR S. URBINO, SR., respondents. Poro Point Shipping Services requested permission for its vessel M/V Star Ace, which had engine trouble, to unload its cargo and to store it at the Philippine Ports Authority in, La Union while awaiting transhipment to Hongkong. The request was approved by the Bureau of Customs. Customs personnel boarded the vessel on suspicion that it was the hijacked M/V Silver Med owned by Med Line Philippines Co., and that its cargo would be smuggled into the country. The district customs collector seized said vessel and its cargo. A notice of hearing of Seizure was served on its consignee, Singkong Trading Co. of Hongkong, and its shipper, Dusit International Co., Ltd. of Thailand. Customs Commissioner Mison forfeited the vessel and its cargo. Accordingly, acting District Collector of Customs Sy issued a Decision decreeing the forfeiture and the sale of the cargo in favor of the government. Duraproof Services filed with the a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus assailing the actions of Commissioner Mison and District Collector Sy. Summonses were served. Upon motion of the private respondent, the trial court allowed summons by publication to be served upon defendants who were not residents and had no direct representative in the country. Banco du Brasil was declared in default. ISSUES: Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction over Banco Do Brasil? RULING: No. Duraproof's suit against petitioner is premised on petitioners being one of the claimants of the subject vessel M/V Star Ace. Thus, it can be said that Duraproof initially sought only to exclude petitioner from claiming interest over the subject vessel M/V Star Ace. However, Duraproof testified during the presentation of evidence that, for being a nuisance defendant, petitioner caused irreparable damage to private respondent in the amount of $300,000.00. Therefore, while the action is in rem, by claiming damages, the relief demanded went beyond the res and sought a relief totally alien to the action. It must be stressed that any relief granted in rem or quasi in rem actions must be confined to the res, and the court cannot lawfully render a personal judgment against the defendant. Clearly, the publication of summons effected by Duraproof is invalid and ineffective for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of petitioner, since by seeking to recover damages from petitioner for the alleged commission of an injury to his person or property caused by petitioners being a nuisance defendant, private respondents action became in personam. Bearing in mind the in personam nature of the action, personal or, if not possible, substituted service of summons on petitioner, and not extraterritorial service, is necessary to confer jurisdiction over the person of petitioner and validly hold it liable to private respondent for damages. Thus, the trial court had no jurisdiction to award damages amounting to $300,000.00 in favor of private respondent and as against herein petitioner.
ISSUE: Is The VFA Void and Unconstitutional & Whether or Not It Is Self-Executing. HELD: The VFA Is A Self-Executing Agreement Because The Parties Intend Its Provisions To