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 ';