Filoil Marketing Corporation v. Marine Development Corporation Of The Philippines
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: FILOIL MARKETING CORPORATION (plaintiff-appellee) filed a complaint for a sum of money against MARINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (defendant-appellant), alleging a balance of P45,604.76. Procedural History: Summons was initially served on a house girl of the General Manager. Defendant-appellant, through counsel, filed a Motion to Dismiss for improper service. The lower court ordered a new summons to be issued. Subsequent attempts at service, including on a Purchasing Chief of Stock and later through the corporation's lawyers, were also contested by the defendant-appellant. The lower court denied the plaintiff's motion to declare the defendant in default and failed to resolve the defendant's motion to dismiss. The court then ordered that summons be served through the defendant-corporation's lawyers. An alias summons was served on Atty. Paulino Al. Aquino, an Assistant Attorney in the Syquia Law Offices, who represented the defendant. The lower court granted the plaintiff's motion to declare the defendant in default and allowed the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte. The court rendered a decision sentencing the defendant to pay the plaintiff P45,604.71 plus interest, attorney's fees, and costs. The Petition: The defendant-appellant appealed, arguing that the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction over its person due to improper service of summons, and therefore, the default order and subsequent judgment were erroneous.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant-private corporation when summons and a copy of the complaint were served on its retained counsel. Whether the service of summons on Atty. Paulino Al. Aquino, the defendant-corporation's counsel, constituted valid service under Section 13, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's order declaring the defendant-corporation in default and denied the prayer to set aside the decision. The Court found that the service of summons upon the defendant-corporation's counsel was valid.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant-private corporation when summons and a copy of the complaint were served on its retained counsel: The Court held that the lower court did acquire jurisdiction. The defendant-appellant's position that the lower court erred in declaring it in default and rendering judgment against it was not persuasive. The Court emphasized that Section 13, Rule 14 of the New Rules of Court provides that service of summons upon a domestic corporation may be made on its president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors. In this case, the summons and complaint were served upon Atty. Paulino Al. Aquino, who had appeared in court on behalf of the defendant-corporation in relation to motions to dismiss based on improper service of summons. The Court reasoned that in receiving the summons, Atty. Aquino was acting for and in behalf of the defendant-corporation in connection with the ongoing legal proceedings concerning the validity of service. Therefore, he was considered the defendant's agent for the purpose of service of process. On whether the service of summons on Atty. Paulino Al. Aquino, the defendant-corporation's counsel, constituted valid service under Section 13, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court: The Court affirmed the validity of the service. Citing the principle that service upon an agent of a corporation is sufficient, the Court applied this to the situation where the counsel received the summons. The Court found that Atty. Aquino, by appearing and filing motions on behalf of the defendant-corporation regarding the very issue of service of summons, was acting as the corporation's agent. This conclusion was further supported by the Court's reliance on the precedent set in Republic vs. Ker and Co., Ltd., where it was held that service upon counsel who was acting for and in behalf of the taxpayer in connection with the tax liability involved in the case constituted valid service upon the taxpayer's agent. Thus, the service upon Atty. Aquino was deemed sufficient under the aforecited rule.
Main Doctrine
Service of summons upon the retained counsel of a domestic corporation, who had appeared in court in connection with motions to dismiss on the ground of improper service of summons, constitutes valid service of summons upon the corporation as the counsel was acting as its agent.