Dole Philippines v. All Season Farm
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent All Season Farm Corporation filed a complaint for recovery of sum of money, accounting, and damages against petitioner Dole Philippines, Inc. (Tropifresh Division) and its officers. An alias summons was served upon Dole through Marifa Dela Cruz, a legal assistant employed by Dole Pacific General Services, Ltd., an entity separate from Dole. Procedural History: Dole filed a motion to dismiss, asserting lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of summons, failure to state a cause of action, lack of real party in interest, and that officers cannot be sued personally for corporate acts. The RTC denied the motion. Dole moved for partial reconsideration, which was also denied. Dole then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing improper service of alias summons. The CA affirmed the RTC's order, reasoning that Dole's president was aware of the summons and that corporate officers' staff often receive documents on their behalf. Dole's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner Dole Philippines, Inc. filed a petition for review, assailing the CA's decision and resolution, raising the sole issue of whether the CA committed an error of law in allowing substituted service on a private corporation despite the summons not being served on the officers enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed an error of law when it allowed substituted service on a private corporation when it held that Dole was validly served with summons, despite the summons not being served on its president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel, thereby ignoring the rule on service of summons on private domestic corporations. Whether the Regional Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the corporate defendant, considering the initial improper service and the subsequent actions of the defendant.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated May 20, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 87723 and its Resolution dated June 28, 2005 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals committed an error of law when it allowed substituted service on a private corporation: The Court reiterated that service of summons on a domestic corporation is restricted to the persons enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel), following expressio unios est exclusio alterius. Service on a legal assistant, Marifa Dela Cruz, who was not among the designated persons, did not validly confer jurisdiction. However, the Court also considered the defendant's subsequent actions. On the issue of whether the Regional Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the corporate defendant: The Court invoked Section 20, Rule 14, stating that a defendant's voluntary appearance is equivalent to service of summons. The petitioner's filing of an "Entry of Appearance with Motion for Time" constituted a voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction, as it sought affirmative relief by acknowledging receipt of the alias summons and requesting additional time to file a responsive pleading. By invoking the RTC's jurisdiction, the petitioner effectively submitted voluntarily and is estopped from asserting otherwise. Thus, the RTC properly took cognizance of the case.
Main Doctrine
While service of summons on a domestic corporation must strictly adhere to Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a voluntary appearance by the corporation, such as by filing a motion seeking affirmative relief, is equivalent to service of summons and confers jurisdiction upon the court.