Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EXCELLENT QUALITY APPAREL v. WIN MULTI RICH BUILDERS

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 212025 2015-07-01	EXCELLENT QUALITY APPAREL v. VISAYAN SURETY MENDOZA, J.
On October 3, 2014, Visayan Surety filed its Comment.[35] It asserted that no application for damages was filed before the Court in G.R. No. 175048. Thus, there was no occasion to direct the RTC to hear and decide the claim for damages, which constituted a violation of its right to due process. Also, Visayan Surety contended that Section 20, Rule 57 provided a mandatory rule that an application for damages must be filed before the judgment becomes final and executory.
	GR No. 212025 2015-07-01	EXCELLENT QUALITY APPAREL v. VISAYAN SURETY MENDOZA, J.
On October 8, 2014, FESICO filed its Comment.[36] It averred that petitioner failed to comply with Section 20, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court because the hearing on the motion for execution was conducted after the decision in G.R. No. 175048 had already become final and executory. It also stated that petitioner failed to implead the surety respondents as parties in G.R. No. 175048.
	GR No. 212025 2015-07-01	EXCELLENT QUALITY APPAREL v. VISAYAN SURETY MENDOZA, J.
In the present case, petitioner's answer with compulsory counterclaim, which contained the application for damages, was not served on Visayan Surety.[59] Also, a perusal of the records[60] revealed that Visayan Surety was not furnished any copies of the pleadings, motions, processes, and judgments concerned with the application for damages against the surety bond. Visayan Surety was only notified of the application when the motion for execution was filed by petitioner on June 29, 2009, after the judgment in G.R. No. 175048 had become final and executory on June 2, 2009.
	GR No. 186732 2013-06-13	ALPS TRANSPORTATION v. ELPIDIO M. RODRIGUEZ SERENO, C.J.
Finally, the CA correctly ruled that since ALPS Transportation is a sole proprietorship owned by petitioner Alfredo Perez, it is he who must be held liable for the payment of backwages to Rodriguez.[57] A sole proprietorship does not possess a juridical personality separate and distinct from that of the owner of the enterprise.[58] Thus, the owner has unlimited personal liability for all the debts and obligations of the business, and it is against him that a decision for illegal dismissal is to be enforced.[59]