Posted by: Kristina M. Egnar on July 26, 2018
FACTS:
On July 18, 2003, petitioner filed a complaint for civil forfeiture of assets with the RTC of Manila against the bank deposit in an account number CS-005-10-000121-5, maintained by the respondent. The case was filed pursuant to RA 9160 or the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001. Three days after, the RTC of Manila issued a 72-hour TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction followed. Meanwhile, summons to the respondent was returned "unserved" as it could no longer be found at its last known address.
In 2003, petitioner filed a verified omnibus motion for a.) issuance of alias summons and b) leave of court to serve summons by publication. No mention was made of the motion for leave of court to serve summons by publication to which the court archived the case for its failure to serve alias summons.
Sometime in 2004, the trial court ordered the reinstatement of the case directing the petitioner to serve the alias summons to the respondent within 15 days. A month later, the petitioner received a copy of the sheriff's return stating that the alias summons was returned "unserved".
In 2005, the petitioner filed a manifestation and ex parte motion to resolve its motion for leave of court to serve summons by publication. The OSG received a copy of GLASGOW's motion to dismiss by way of special appearance alleging that:
1) the court had no jurisdiction over its person as summons had not yet been served,
2) the complaint was premature and stated no cause of action and
3) there was failure to prosecute on the part of the Republic
On October 17, 2005, the trial court dismissed the case on the grounds of
1) Improper venue
2) Insufficiency of the complaint in form and substance; and
3) Failure to prosecute
The petitioner filed a petition for review.
ISSUE:
Whether the complaint for civil forfeiture was correctly dismissed on grounds of improper venue, insufficiency in form and substance and failure to prosecute.
HELD:
Yes, the court ruled with the Republic. The October 27, 2005 order of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 47, in Civil Case No. 03-107319 was set aside. The August 11, 2005 motion to dismiss of Glasgow Credit and Collection Services, Inc. is denied. And the complaint for forfeiture of the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council, is reinstated.
FACTS:
On July 18, 2003, petitioner filed a complaint for civil forfeiture of assets with the RTC of Manila against the bank deposit in an account number CS-005-10-000121-5, maintained by the respondent. The case was filed pursuant to RA 9160 or the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001. Three days after, the RTC of Manila issued a 72-hour TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction followed. Meanwhile, summons to the respondent was returned "unserved" as it could no longer be found at its last known address.
In 2003, petitioner filed a verified omnibus motion for a.) issuance of alias summons and b) leave of court to serve summons by publication. No mention was made of the motion for leave of court to serve summons by publication to which the court archived the case for its failure to serve alias summons.
Sometime in 2004, the trial court ordered the reinstatement of the case directing the petitioner to serve the alias summons to the respondent within 15 days. A month later, the petitioner received a copy of the sheriff's return stating that the alias summons was returned "unserved".
In 2005, the petitioner filed a manifestation and ex parte motion to resolve its motion for leave of court to serve summons by publication. The OSG received a copy of GLASGOW's motion to dismiss by way of special appearance alleging that:
1) the court had no jurisdiction over its person as summons had not yet been served,
2) the complaint was premature and stated no cause of action and
3) there was failure to prosecute on the part of the Republic
On October 17, 2005, the trial court dismissed the case on the grounds of
1) Improper venue
2) Insufficiency of the complaint in form and substance; and
3) Failure to prosecute
The petitioner filed a petition for review.
ISSUE:
Whether the complaint for civil forfeiture was correctly dismissed on grounds of improper venue, insufficiency in form and substance and failure to prosecute.
HELD:
Yes, the court ruled with the Republic. The October 27, 2005 order of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 47, in Civil Case No. 03-107319 was set aside. The August 11, 2005 motion to dismiss of Glasgow Credit and Collection Services, Inc. is denied. And the complaint for forfeiture of the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council, is reinstated.
