GR 147038; (April, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 147038; April 24, 2003
Richard Teh, petitioner, vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Hon. Alfredo C. Flores, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 167, EIM International Sales, Inc., respondents.
FACTS
Respondent EIM International Sales, Inc. filed a collection case against Wood Based Panels, Inc., Sinrimco, Inc., Manfred Luig, and petitioner Richard Teh, the president of the two corporations. Summons could not be served on Teh because the address provided from corporate records—138 Maria Clara Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila—was incorrect and could not be located. The other defendants filed answers, and the trial court set the case for pre-trial. Teh then filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing the court never acquired jurisdiction over his person due to improper service of summons. The trial court denied his motion and ordered the issuance of an alias summons to be served at the same address, which the respondent later corrected to “138 Maria Clara Street, Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City.”
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Teh’s petition for certiorari challenging the trial court’s interlocutory order denying his motion to dismiss.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The appellate court initially dismissed Teh’s certiorari petition for a technical defect—failure to attach certified true copies of annexes. Upon reconsideration, it correctly ruled on the merits, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the trial court. An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and generally not subject to certiorari unless there is a clear capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. The trial court acted within its discretion under Rule 16, Section 3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in denying the dismissal and ordering alias summons to properly acquire jurisdiction over Teh. The failure of initial service was partly attributable to the incorrect address supplied by the corporations Teh headed. The trial court’s action to fully resolve the case with all parties present was prudent and justified. Thus, the Court of Appeals committed no error in ultimately dismissing the certiorari petition for lack of merit.