Poizat v. Morgan
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case concerns a dispute arising from a judgment entered against The Negros Philippine Lumber Co. (appellant), a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippine Islands. The core issue revolves around the validity of the service of summons upon the corporation in the original action. 2. Procedural History: The appellant, The Negros Philippine Lumber Co., is appealing an order from the Court of First Instance of Manila that denied its motion to set aside a judgment. This judgment was entered against the appellant on the grounds that no valid service of summons was made upon it. 3. The Petition: The appellant argues that the summons in the original action was not served on its designated agent as required by law. Instead, it was served on an employee. The appellant contends that because it had formally designated an agent for service of process, service upon any other individual was invalid, rendering the subsequent judgment void for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant sought to have this judgment set aside through a motion to the lower court.
Issue(s)
Whether the service of summons on an employee of a foreign corporation, who was not the designated agent, is valid and confers jurisdiction upon the court. Whether a judgment rendered without valid service of summons is subject to a motion to set aside.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the service of summons was invalid. Consequently, the court a quo did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the appellant. The judgment rendered against the appellant was set aside and declared of no force and effect.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that when a foreign corporation has designated an agent for the service of summons and legal processes in accordance with Section 68 of Act No. 1459 (Corporation Law), that designation is exclusive. Service of summons must be made upon this designated agent. The Court found that the summons in this case was not served upon the agent designated by The Negros Philippine Lumber Co. but upon an employee. Therefore, the service was not in accordance with the law. The Court explicitly stated that Section 396 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with service on a 'managing agent,' is not applicable when a specific agent has been designated by the foreign corporation. The Court emphasized that the designation of an agent is a prerequisite for doing business in the Philippines, and compliance therewith is mandatory for valid service of process. The failure to serve the designated agent meant that the court did not obtain jurisdiction over the person of the appellant. On Issue 2: The Court affirmed that a judgment rendered by a court that lacks jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is void and may be attacked. The proper remedy for such a defect, where jurisdiction was not obtained by voluntary appearance, is a motion to set aside the judgment. The Court found that the motion to set aside the judgment was properly made and should have been sustained by the lower court. The appellant did not appear voluntarily or generally in the action, thus waiving the defect in service. Therefore, the judgment was subject to attack on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
When a foreign corporation has complied with the Corporation Law by designating an agent for the service of summons and other legal processes, service of such summons or process must be made exclusively upon the designated agent. Failure to serve the summons on the designated agent renders the service invalid, and the court consequently acquires no jurisdiction over the person of the foreign corporation, making any judgment rendered against it void and subject to attack.