Paramount v AC Ordonez digest.docx

G.R. No. 175109

August 6, 2008 YNARES-SANTIAGO, YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

PARAMONT INSRAN!E !ORP., "#t$t$o%#&, 's. A.!. OR(O)E* !ORPORATION +% RAN/IN SSPINE, &#s"o%#%ts. Dissolution or even the expiration of the three-year liquidation period should not be a bar to a corporation’s enforcement of its rights as a corporation.

A!TS: Petitioner Paramount Insurance Corp. is the subrogee of Maximo Mata the registered o!ner of a "onda City sedan involved in a vehicular accid accident ent !ith !ith a truc# truc# mixer mixer o! o!ne ned d by respo respond nden entt corpo corporat ration ion and and driven by respondent $ran#lin %. &uspine on &eptember '( '))* at +rgy. Panungyanan ,en. rias Cavite. Petitioner Petitioner led before before the MC MC of Ma#ati City a complaint for damages damages agai agains nstt res espo pond nden ents ts.. +a +ase sed d on the the &her &heri/ i/’s ’s 0etur eturn n of &erv &ervic ice e summo summons ns rema remaine ined d unser unserved ved on respo respond nden entt &uspi &uspine ne !hile !hile it !a !as s serv se rved ed on res espo pond nden entt corp corpo orati ration on and and recei eceive ved d by &amu &amuel el D. Marcoleta of its 0eceiving &ection on %pril 1 2(((. 3n May ') 2((( petitioner led a Motion to Declare Defendants in Default4 ho!ever on 5une 26 2((( respondent corporation led an 3mni 3mnibu bus s Moti Motion on 7%nd 7%nd 3ppo 3pposi siti tion on to Plai Plaint nti/ i/’s ’s Moti Motion on to De Decl clar are e Defendant in Default8 alleging that summons !as improperly served upon it because it !as made to a secretarial sta/ !ho !as unfamiliar !ith !ith court court proc process esses4 es4 and and that that the summo summons ns !a !as s recei receive ved d by Mr. Mr. %rmando C. 3rdo9e: President and ,eneral Manager of respondent corporation only on 5une 2; 2(((. 0espondent corporation as#ed for an extension of '< days !ithin !hich to le an %ns!er.  he 0 0C issued a decision decision granting granting the petition. petition.

ISSE: =>? % party !ithout corporate existence may le an appeal

E/(:  @es.  @es. here is no merit in petitioner’s petitioner’s claim that respondent respondent corporation lac#s legal personality to le an appeal. %lthough the cancellation of a corpo corporat ratio ion’s n’s certi certicat cate e of regis registra tratio tion n puts puts an end end to its Aurid Auridica icall

personality &ec. '22 of the Corporation Code ho!ever provides that a corporation !hose corporate existence is terminated in any manner continues to be a body corporate for three years after its dissolution for purposes of prosecuting and defending suits by and against it and to enable it to settle and close its a/airs. Moreover the rights of a corporation !hich is dissolved pending litigation are accorded protection by la! pursuant to &ec. ';< of the Corporation Code to !itB &ection ';<. %mendment or repeal. ?o right or remedy in favor of or against any corporation its stoc#holders members directors trustees or ocers nor any liability incurred by any such corporation stoc#holders members directors trustees or ocers shall be removed or impaired either by the subsequent dissolution of said corporation or by any subsequent amendment or repeal of this Code or of any part thereof. Dissolution or even the expiration of the three-year liquidation period should not be a bar to a corporation’s enforcement of its rights as a corporation. ="0$30 the petition is D?ID. he assailed Decision of the Court of %ppeals dated 5uly '* 2((E reinstating the %ugust 2< 2((( and &eptember 2E 2((( 3rders of the Metropolitan rial Court of Ma#ati City +ranch EE !hich admitted respondent corporation’s %ns!er and set the case for pre-trial as !ell as the 0esolution dated 3ctober '2 2((E denying the motion for reconsideration are %$$I0MD.