G & G Trading Corporation v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Private respondent Lancaster Commercial & Trading Corporation filed an action for the recovery of a sum of money against petitioner G & G Trading Corporation. The suit included a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment. Summons was initially served on Melinda Molo, a clerical secretary at G & G Trading Corporation. Subsequently, respondent Judge Baylen granted the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment on the properties of the petitioner. 2. Procedural History: Petitioner G & G Trading Corporation, through counsel, filed a special appearance and an urgent motion to lift the order of attachment, arguing that jurisdiction was not validly acquired due to improper service of summons on a clerical employee. Respondent Lancaster Commercial & Trading Corporation opposed this, suggesting an alias writ could be issued if the defect prevailed. However, the lower court denied the motion to lift the attachment. Petitioner then filed a petition with the Court of Appeals seeking to nullify the lower court's order and to enjoin further proceedings. The Court of Appeals dismissed this petition for lack of merit. 3. The Petition: This is a petition for review on certiorari filed with the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. The core issue presented is whether summons was properly served on petitioner G & G Trading Corporation to confer jurisdiction on the Regional Trial Court. Petitioner argues that service on Melinda Molo, a clerical secretary, does not constitute valid service under Section 13 of Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court. The petition contends that Molo is not an officer, director, or agent of the corporation as defined by the rule, and therefore, the lower court lacked jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether summons was properly served on petitioner G & G Trading Corporation so as to confer jurisdiction on the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City over the corporation, considering the circumstances of service on Melinda Molo. Whether the service of summons on Melinda Molo, allegedly a clerical secretary, constituted substantial compliance with the rules on service of summons, and whether actual receipt of the summons by the corporation cures any defect in service.
Ruling
The petition is denied. G & G Trading Corporation is directed to file an answer to the complaint within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the decision, and the trial court is directed to terminate the proceedings with deliberate dispatch. The decision is immediately executory, and no motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of proper service of summons and jurisdiction: The Court reiterated the rule on service of summons on a private domestic corporation under Section 13 of Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court, which allows service on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors. The purpose of this rule is to ensure that the corporation receives prompt and proper notice of an action against it, or that the summons is served on a representative so integrated with the corporation that they will know what to do with the legal papers. The Court noted that the lower court found valid service because Melinda Molo identified herself as the "secretary" in the return, although this was denied by the petitioner, which claimed she was merely a clerical secretary. The lower court also considered her an "agent" at the very least. On the issue of substantial compliance and actual receipt: The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, citing Villa-Rey Transit vs. Far East Motor Corporation, which held that an Assistant General Manager for Operations is embraced within the terms "manager" or "agent." The Supreme Court found that the records showed the petitioner had actually received the summons and complaint when served on Miss Molo. The Court of Appeals correctly maintained that the summons served at the office of the petitioner constituted substantial compliance with the rule on service of summons. The Court emphasized that even if the service was made on a person not explicitly authorized, if the summons and complaint were in fact received by the corporation through that person, the purpose of the rule—to assure service of summons on the corporation—had been attained. The need for speedy justice must prevail over a technicality. Therefore, the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner corporation.
Main Doctrine
Service of summons on a corporation is deemed substantially compliant with the rules if, despite being served on a person not explicitly listed in the rules, the summons and complaint were in fact received by the corporation, thereby achieving the purpose of assuring the corporation of notice of the action.