Millex Construction v. Citystate Insurance
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Citystate Insurance Corporation, a non-life domestic insurance corporation, paid insurance proceeds to its insured, Restie Perez, for damages sustained by his vehicle when it was hit by a truck owned by petitioner Millex Construction & Development Corporation. The damages amounted to P251,135.86. Following the payment, Perez executed a release and subrogated respondent in his place. Procedural History: Respondent subsequently filed an action for sum of money against petitioner in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 66. Summons was served on petitioner through its secretary, Ailyn Marasigan. As petitioner failed to file a responsive pleading, it was declared in default. The RTC rendered a decision on January 14, 1999, holding petitioner liable for P252,215.80 plus interest. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing improper service of summons. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision on August 31, 2001, also noting the late payment of docket fees. A motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review on certiorari of the CA's decision, primarily contending that the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over it due to invalid service of summons. Petitioner argues that Ailyn Marasigan, on whom summons was served, was not the corporate secretary as required by Rule 14, Section 11 of the Rules of Court, but merely a secretary of the administrative department. Petitioner seeks to overturn the lower courts' findings that service was valid, despite failing to present this evidence at the opportune time in the lower courts.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court can review factual findings of the lower courts regarding the validity of service of summons. Whether the service of summons on Ailyn Marasigan, identified as the secretary of the company, constituted valid service on petitioner Millex Construction & Development Corporation. Whether the late payment of docket fees warrants dismissal of the appeal.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the validity of the service of summons on petitioner and the trial court's decision. Costs are against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of reviewing factual findings: The Supreme Court reiterated the rule that where the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals, such findings are generally not disturbed on appeal. The resolution of whether service of summons was valid involves a study of facts, which is not within the scope of the Court's review in a petition for review on certiorari, unless exceptions apply. Petitioner failed to present evidence in the lower courts to disprove the validity of the service of summons. On the validity of service of summons: The Court held that the process server's return indicated that summons was served on Ailyn Marasigan as the secretary of the company. In the absence of any refutation that her designation as "secretary of the company" was not equivalent to the "corporate secretary" required by law, the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that there was valid service of summons. The Court rejected Millex's attempt to present an affidavit from its personnel manager in the Supreme Court to prove Marasigan was not the corporate secretary, as it was not the proper time to present additional evidence to disprove an established fact. The Court of Appeals correctly noted that Millex did not clarify Marasigan's designation in its appeal, and the return itself stated she was the "secretary of the corporation," which is considered service upon the "corporate secretary" under Section 11 of Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules. On the late payment of docket fees: While not the primary issue addressed by the Supreme Court in its main discussion, the Court of Appeals had affirmed the trial court's decision and also noted that the petition should have been dismissed outright for petitioner's failure to pay the docket fees on time. This serves as an additional procedural ground for the dismissal of the appeal.
Main Doctrine
Service of summons on the corporate secretary is valid service on the corporation, and failure to timely file responsive pleading or pay docket fees may lead to default and dismissal.