Practice question
A municipality and a private contractor are separately named as defendants. Summons directed only to the municipality is properly delivered to its executive head. The contractor has not been served and has not voluntarily appeared. The plaintiff says the municipality’s service automatically binds the contractor because both worked on the same project. Which is correct?
- The project connection makes every defendant represented by the municipal executive head
- The municipality’s service does not itself constitute service on the separate private contractor
- The contractor is automatically dismissed from the case with prejudice
- The municipality’s summons converts the contractor into a public corporation
- The municipality must automatically pay every amount claimed against both
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-10-20-sc_2019.html — current Rule 14 sections 2, 15 and 21, summons upon the Republic, local and like public corporations, and proof of service.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.