Scribd
Upload
65 views1 page

Marinduque Vs Napocor

This case involved an expropriation action filed by NAPOCOR against Marinduque Mining to acquire a portion of Marinduque's property for a transmission line project. The trial court ruled in favor of Marinduque. NAPOCOR filed a notice of appeal by registered mail instead of personal service, explaining it lacked the manpower for personal service. The trial court denied the appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding NAPOCOR's explanation for non-personal service acceptable under the rules and that the trial court gravely abused its discretion.

Uploaded by

kristinevillanueva
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
65 views1 page

Marinduque Vs Napocor

This case involved an expropriation action filed by NAPOCOR against Marinduque Mining to acquire a portion of Marinduque's property for a transmission line project. The trial court ruled in favor of Marinduque. NAPOCOR filed a notice of appeal by registered mail instead of personal service, explaining it lacked the manpower for personal service. The trial court denied the appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding NAPOCOR's explanation for non-personal service acceptable under the rules and that the trial court gravely abused its discretion.

Uploaded by

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

CIVPRO [RULE 13 FILING SERVICE OF PLEADINGS]

4 - Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corp. v. NAPOCOR

Petitioner: Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation & Industrial Enterprises Inc.
Respondent: Court of Appeals & National Power Corporation

Facts:
Private respondent NAPOCOR instituted an action for expropriation against Marinduque Mining for the construction of a
Transmission Line Project. Respondent sought to expropriate only a portion of the property owned by Marinduque
Mining. Marinduque, in its answer, countered that respondent should expropriate the whole of the property since the
remaining portion would be useless to it anyway, if only the desired portion would be taken by respondent. The trial
court rendered a decision in favor of Marinduque Mining, and denied respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal with the trial court by registered mail. Marinduque Mining claimed that respondent
had enough resources and manpower to effectuate personal delivery. The trial court granted the petition, and denied
respondent’s Notice of Appeal. Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and ordered the trial court to give
due course to the Notice of Appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not it was proper for NAPOCOR to file its Notice of Appeal by registered mail

HELD:
Personal service of pleadings and other papers is the general rule while resort to the other modes of service and filing is
the exception. When recourse is made to the other modes, a written explanation why service or filing was not done
personally becomes indispensable. If no explanation is offered to justify resorting to the other modes, the discretionary
power of the court to expunge the pleading comes into play. In this case, NAPOCOR complied with the Rules. NAPOCOR's
notice of appeal sufficiently explained why the notice of appeal was served and filed by registered mail - due to lack of
manpower to effect personal service. This explanation is acceptable for it satisfactorily shows why personal service was
not practicable. Moreover, the Court of Appeals correctly considered the importance of the issue involved in the case.
Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not err when it ruled that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in the
issuance of its Orders.

You might also like