Hyatt Elevators and Escalators Corporation v. Goldstar Elevators Phils. Inc.

G.R. No. 161026, 24 October 2005

FACTS:

In this case, the petitioner is Goldstar Elevator Philippines Inc. and on the other hand the private respondent, Hyatt Elevators and Escalators Company. Both engaged in installing, maintaining/servicing of elavators and escalators Hyatt (herein petitioner) filed an unfair trade practices and damages against LG industrial systems Co. Ltd, and LG International Corporation alleging that it was appointed as the exclusive distributor of LG elevators and escalators in the Philippines under Distributorship Agreement LG filed a motion to dismiss alleging that lack of jurisdiction over the persons of defendant, improper venue and failure to state a cause of action.

Hyatt filed a motion for leave of court to amend the complaint, alleging that LG transferred all assets to a joint venue agreement with Otis elevator Company of the USA to LG Otis Elevator Company Goldstar filed a Motion to dismiss the amended complaint alleging that venue was improperly laid as neither the Hyatt, LG or Goldstar itself resided in Mandaluyong city where the case was originally filed.

The RTC denied the motion.

The CA dismissed the case and held that Makati was the principal place of business of both respondent and petitioner, as stated in the latter’s Articles of Incorporation, that place was controlling for purposes of determining the proper venue.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the “residence” of the corporation is the same one as stated in the Articles of Incorporation.

RULING:

Yes, although the Rules of Court do not provide that when the plaintiff is a corporation, the complaint should be filed in the location of its principal office as indicated in its articles of incorporation. Jurisprudence has, however, settled that the place where the principal office of a corporation is located, as stated in the articles, indeed establishes its residence. This ruling is important in determining the venue of an action by or against a corporation, as in the present case.

*Case Digest by Bryne Angelo M. Brillantes, JD-IV, Andres Bonifacio Law School, SY 2019-2020

By |2020-02-26T09:20:27+00:00February 3rd, 2020|Case Digests|Comments Off on Hyatt Elevators and Escalators Corporation v. Goldstar Elevators Phils. Inc.