Scribd
Upload
256 views

G.R. No. 149177 November 23, 2007 Kazuhiro Hasegawa and Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., LTD., Petitioners, vs. MINORU KITAMURA, Respondent

The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners incorrectly filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to question the trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss. Generally, an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not subject to an extraordinary petition. The appropriate action is to file an answer, proceed to trial, and appeal an adverse decision. While there are exceptions, the petitioners' case did not fall under them. The trial court properly had jurisdiction over the subject controversy, as the case was for specific performance and damages within the RTC's cognizable claims. The petitioners' grounds regarding foreign law principles did not demonstrate a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

Janex Tolinero
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
256 views

G.R. No. 149177 November 23, 2007 Kazuhiro Hasegawa and Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., LTD., Petitioners, vs. MINORU KITAMURA, Respondent

The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners incorrectly filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to question the trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss. Generally, an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not subject to an extraordinary petition. The appropriate action is to file an answer, proceed to trial, and appeal an adverse decision. While there are exceptions, the petitioners' case did not fall under them. The trial court properly had jurisdiction over the subject controversy, as the case was for specific performance and damages within the RTC's cognizable claims. The petitioners' grounds regarding foreign law principles did not demonstrate a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

Janex Tolinero
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

149177 November 23, 2007

KAZUHIRO HASEGAWA and NIPPON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CO., LTD., Petitioners,

vs.

MINORU KITAMURA, Respondent.

Facts:

Respondent filed case no. 00-0264 for specific performance and damages with the RTC of Lipa upon
being employed with Nippon and informed that his service shall be only until the expiration of the
Independent contractor agreement (ICA). Petitioner contending that ICA had been perfected in Japan
and executed between Japanese nationals, moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction
following the principle of lex loci celebrationis and lex contractus. Petitioner filed petition for certiorari
still within the reglementary period, and a second Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 already stating
therein the material dates and attaching thereto the verification and certification.

Ruling:

The Court has observed that petitioners incorrectly filed a Rule 65 petition to question the trial court's
denial of their motion to dismiss. It is a well-established rule that an order denying a motion to dismiss is
interlocutory, and cannot be the subject of the extraordinary petition for certiorari or mandamus. The
appropriate recourse is to file an answer and to interpose as defenses the objections raised in the
motion, to proceed to trial, and, in case of an adverse decision, to elevate the entire case by appeal in
due course.44 While there are recognized exceptions to this rule, petitioners' case does not fall among
them. In the instant case, petitioners, in their motion to dismiss, do not claim that the trial court is not
properly vested by law with jurisdiction to hear the subject controversy for, indeed, Civil Case No. 00-
0264 for specific performance and damages is one not capable of pecuniary estimation and is properly
cognizable by the RTC of Lipa City. What they rather raise as grounds to question subject matter
jurisdiction are the principles of lex loci celebrationis and lex contractus, and the "state of the most
significant relationship rule." The Court finds the invocation of these grounds unsound.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy