protocolo de ejecución, para los subtest: Búsqueda de símbolos y Claves de WISC VDescripción completa
Tawas, atau dalam bahasa Inggrisnya disebut "Alum" adalah suatu kristal sulfat dari logam-logam seperti lithium, potassium, calcium, alumunium, dan logam-logam lainnya. Kristal tawas ini cukup muda...
Full description
Descripción: un poco de historia
Descripción: Velocidades V
Mecanismos 3
info generalDescripción completa
Descripción: PARTITION
Descripción: Economía
Hukum V
Desarrollo de los Componentes Didácticos 5.1- Los planes de clase. 5.2- Integración de las Áreas del conocimiento. 5.3- Aprovechamiento de las inteligencias múltiples. 5.4- Los cierres Pedagógi...Full description
fajas en v
CLAVECILLA Radio System v. Hon. Agustin Antillon Facts: 1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
New Cagayan Grocery (NECAGRO) filed a complaint for damages against Clavecilla Radio system. They alleged that Clavecilla omitted the word “NOT” in the letter addressed to NECAGRO for transmittal at Clavecilla Cagayan de Oro Branch. NECAGRO alleged that the omission of the word “not” between the word WASHED and AVAILABLE altered the contents of the same causing them to suffer from damages. Clavecilla filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action and improper venue. City Judge of CDO denied the MTD. Clavecilla filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary Injunction with the CFI praying that the City Judge be enjoined from further proceeding with the case because of improper venue. CFI – dismissed the case and held that Clavecilla may be sued either in Manila (principal office) or in CDO (branch office). Clavecilla appealed to the SC contending that the suit against it should be filed in Manila where it holds its principal office.
Issue: WON the present case against Clavecilla should be filed in Manila where it holds its principal office. Held: YES It is clear that the case from damages is based upon a written contract. Under par. (b)(3) Sec. 1 Rule 4 of the New Rules of Court, when an action is not upon a written contract then the case should be filed in the municipality where the defendant or any of the defendant resides or maybe served upon with summons. In corpo. Law, the residence of the corporation is the place where the principal office is established. Since Clavecilla’s principal office is in Manila, then the suit against it may properly be file in the City of Manila. As stated in Evangelista v. Santos, the laying of the venue of an action is not left to plaintiff’s caprice because the matter is regulated by the Rules of Court.