Green Star v. Nissin-Universal Robina
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A Mitsubishi L-300 van owned by Universal Robina Corporation (URC) figured in a vehicular accident with Green Star Express, Inc.'s (Green Star) passenger bus, resulting in the death of the van's driver. The bus driver, Fruto Sayson, Jr., was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. Subsequently, Green Star sent a demand letter to respondent Nissin-Universal Robina Corporation (NURC) for the repair of its passenger bus amounting to ₱567,070.68. NURC denied liability, stating that the criminal case would determine ultimate liabilities. The criminal case was dismissed without prejudice due to insufficiency of evidence. Procedural History: Sayson and Green Star filed a complaint for damages against NURC before the RTC of San Pedro, Laguna. Summons was received by Francis Tinio, an employee of NURC. NURC filed a Motion to Dismiss, claiming lack of jurisdiction due to improper service. The RTC denied the motion, ruling that there was substantial compliance as NURC actually received the summons. NURC's Motion for Reconsideration was denied. NURC elevated the case to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari. The CA reversed the RTC ruling, nullified the RTC resolutions, and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Petition: Aggrieved, Green Star and Sayson moved for reconsideration, which was denied. Hence, they filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA Decision and Resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the summons was properly served on NURC, vesting the trial court with jurisdiction. Whether substantial compliance with the rules on service of summons is sufficient to acquire jurisdiction over a domestic private juridical entity.
Ruling
The petition is without merit. The Court of Appeals Decision dated September 17, 2007 and Resolution dated January 22, 2008 in CA-G.R. SP No. 86824 are affirmed. The complaint for damages filed by Green Star Express, Inc. and Fruto Sayson, Jr. against Nissin-Universal Robina Corporation is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of proper service of summons and jurisdiction: The Court reiterated the well-established rule that the rules on service of summons upon a domestic private juridical entity must be strictly complied with; otherwise, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. NURC argued that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction because the summons was received by Francis Tinio, a cost accountant, who is not among the officers enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Court. This provision explicitly states that service may be made on the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel. The Court noted that this provision replaced the former rule which allowed service on an 'agent,' and that the new rule is more restrictive and exclusive. The Court found that Tinio, a cost accountant, is not one of the designated persons under Section 11, Rule 14. While Green Star claimed that Tinio received the summons upon instruction of the general manager, this fact was not stated in the Sheriff's Return, nor was the sheriff presented as a witness to attest to this claim. The Court emphasized that even if the corporation may have actually received the summons, service on an unauthorized person does not validly confer jurisdiction. To rule otherwise would be an outright circumvention of the rules and would aggravate the delay in the administration of justice. The Court stressed that notice, enabling a party to be heard and present evidence, is not a mere technicality but an indispensable component of due process. Disregarding the rules on service of summons would deprive corporations of their right to present their defense. On the sufficiency of substantial compliance: The Court clarified that substantial compliance with the rules on service of summons is not sufficient when the service is made on a person not authorized by Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. The rule is explicit and exclusive, and its strict observance is necessary for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant. The Court cited previous cases where service on persons not listed in the rule, even if they had control over corporate operations, did not confer jurisdiction. The revision of the rule from the 1964 Rules of Court to the 1997 Rules of Court further restricted the authorized recipients of summons. Therefore, the RTC's finding of substantial compliance was erroneous because the service was made on a cost accountant, who is not among the officers authorized to receive summons for a domestic private juridical entity.
Main Doctrine
Strict compliance with the rules on service of summons upon a domestic private juridical entity is mandatory for a court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Substantial compliance is insufficient if the service does not conform to the specific enumeration of authorized recipients under Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.