![]() ![]() 11 Therein, it stated that the summons was received by Gino-gino, its financial supervisor. TCC filed a Special Entry of Appearance with an Ex-parte Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading and/or Motion to Dismiss. In the return of summons, it appears that the sheriff served the summons to a certain Cherry Gino-gino (Gino-gino) who represented herself as an accounting manager authorized by TCC to receive summons on its behalf. The RTC ordered the service of summons on TCC. ![]() GV Florida maintains that the '"proximate cause of the accident is the tire blow out which was brought about by factory and mechanical defects in the Michelin tires which third-party plaintiff GV Florida absolutely and totally had no control over." 9 It claimed that though Vizquera exerted all efforts humanly possible to avoid the accident, the bus nevertheless swerved to the oncoming south-bound lane and into the VLI bus. According to GV Florida, on March 23, 2007, it purchased from TCC fifty (50) brand new Michelin tires, four (4) of which were installed into the bus that figured in the collision. On April 8, 2008, GV Florida instituted a third-party complaint 8 against TCC. This, it claimed, was the proximate cause of the vehicle collision. In its Answer, 6 GV Florida alleged that the Michelin tires of its bus had factory and mechanical defects which caused a tire blow-out. In its complaint, VLI claimed that Vizquera's negligence was the proximate cause of the collision and GV Florida failed to exercise due diligence in supervising its employee. This action arose out of a vehicle collision between the buses of VLI and GV Florida along Capirpiwan, Cordon, Isabela on May I, 2007. (VLI) filed an action for damages 4 against GV Florida and its bus driver Arnold Vizquera (Vizquera) before the RTC. It found that Branch 129 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Caloocan City, acted with grave abuse of discretion when it refused to grant TCC's motion to dismiss GV Florida's third-party complaint in an action for damages pending before the RTC. The CA granted respondent Tiara Commercial Corporation's (TCC) petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. ![]() 110760 dated Octo(Decision) 2 and its Resolution dated Ma(Resolution) 3 which denied GV Florida's subsequent motion for reconsideration. (GV Florida) to challenge the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. This is a petition for review on certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner G.V. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |