Far Corporation v. Francisco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Elizabeth P. Nicolas was the lessee of an apartment owned by petitioner Far Corporation, managed by co-petitioner Rosa O. de Caram. Petitioners allegedly terminated the lease and refused rental payment, padlocking the unit. Private respondent filed a complaint for damages with preliminary injunction. Procedural History: Summonses were served on petitioners' retained counsel, Atty. Melquiades Parades, who declined to accept them. The summonses were then served on Mr. Enrique Dizon, head of the Finance and Administrative Section, who was believed to be the cashier. Petitioners filed motions to dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction over their persons due to invalid service of summons. The lower court denied these motions. The Petition: Petitioners seek annulment of the orders denying their motions to dismiss, contending that the service of summons on Mr. Dizon was invalid for both the corporation and its manager, Rosa O. de Caram.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners through the service of summons on Mr. Enrique Dizon. Whether the service of summons on Mr. Enrique Dizon, head of the Finance and Administrative Section, was valid for the corporation. Whether the service of summons on Mr. Enrique Dizon, as substituted service for the owner and manager Rosa O. de Caram, was valid.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The restraining order previously issued is lifted, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. The Supreme Court found the service of summons to be valid, thereby conferring jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of service of summons on the corporation: The Court held that service of summons on Mr. Enrique Dizon, head of the Finance and Administrative Section of Far Corporation, was valid. The rationale behind rules for service of process on a corporation is that service must be made on a representative so integrated with the corporation as to ensure they realize their responsibilities. Mr. Dizon, as Administrative Chief and Chief of Finance, manages vital and sensitive functions, placing him on the level of a manager contemplated by the Rules and squarely within the term 'agent' authorized by law to receive court processes. The Court cited Villa Rey Transit Inc. v. Far East Motor Corporation and Summit Trading and Development Corp. v. Avendaño in support of this reasoning, emphasizing that such an officer is not a lesser officer who would not appreciate the importance of legal papers. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if the initial service on Atty. Parades was technically refused, he had constructive notice, and his attempt to avoid service by technicalities was not in good faith. On the validity of substituted service for Rosa O. de Caram: The Court ruled that for the owner and manager, Rosa O. de Caram, Mr. Enrique Dizon could be considered a competent person in charge of the office for substituted service, as provided in Section 8, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, since she could not be served personally due to her absence. The Sheriff's resort to substituted service was justified when prompt personal service was not possible. The Court reiterated the purpose of summons is to give notice, and in this case, even the petitioners' counsel was aware of the processes, negating any claim of surprise or lack of notice. The reasons advanced against the validity of the service for Rosa O. de Caram were deemed to border on mere technicality. On the dismissal of the case based on service of summons: The Court affirmed that a case should not be dismissed simply because an original summons was wrongfully served, especially when the defendant appears before the court complaining about the service. An alias summons can be served. The Court cited Linger & Fisher GMBH v. Intermediate Appellate Court in support of this principle, indicating that the lower court did not err in denying the motions to dismiss.
Main Doctrine
Service of summons on the head of the Finance and Administrative Section of a corporation, who is responsible for management and holds vital and sensitive functions, is valid as he falls under the term 'agent' authorized by law to receive court processes for the corporation, thereby conferring jurisdiction over the corporation's person. Similarly, for an individual owner/manager, service on such an officer in charge of the office during her absence is valid substituted service.