Philamgen v. Breva Digest

Facts:

1. Respondent Milagros P. Morales filed a Complaint for damages and reimbursement of insurance premiums at RTC Davao against the petitioner Philamgen, a domestic corporation. The complaint specifically stated that the petitioner could be served with summons and other court processes through its Manager at its branch office located at Rizal St., Davao City.

2. Thereafter, Summons was served upon the petitioner's Davao regional office, and was received by its Insurance Service Officer.

3. In December 8, 1999, the petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over its person due to improper service of summons. It contended that summons was improperly served upon its employee in its regional office at Davao City, and that the said employee was not among those named in Section 11, Rule 14 upon whom service of summons may be properly made.The respondent filed an Amended Complaint, alleging that summons and other court processes could also be served at its principal office at the Philamlife Building, U.N. Avenue, Ermita, Manila, through the president or any of its officers authorized to receive summons.

4. The RTC denied the MD and directed the issuance of alias summons on its branch in Manila. the petitioner filed with the CA a special action for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65, with application for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order, assailing the Orders dated December 10, 1999 and January 14, 2000.

5. On October 24, 2000, the CA dismissed the petition and affirmed the assailed orders of the RTC. The CA held that the service of the alias summons on the amended complaint upon the authorized officers of the petitioner at its principal office in Manila vested the RTC with jurisdiction over its person. The CA, likewise, denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the said decision on April 25, 2001.

6. Hence, this petition for review, with petitioner averring that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied the motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over its person because the service of the summons at its regional office through an insurance service officer was improper.

Issue:  Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner as the defendant therein despite the amendment of the complaint

YES. 

1. Where the defendant has already been served summons on the original complaint, the amended complaint may be served upon him without need of another summons.  Conversely, when no summons has yet been validly served on the defendant, new summons for the amended complaint must be served on him

2. The complaint was amended after the petitioner filed the motion to dismiss.  The Rules provide that the amended complaint supersedes the complaint that it amends. Contrary to the petitioner’s claim, the summons issued on the amended complaint does not become invalid. In fact, summons on the original complaint which has already been served continues to have its legal effect. 

3. It is not pertinent whether the summons is designated as an “original” or an “alias” summons as long as it has adequately served its purpose. What is essential is that the summons complies with the requirements under the Rules of Court and it has been duly served on the defendant together with the prevailing complaint. In this case, the alias summons satisfies the requirements under the Rules, both as to its content and the manner of service. It contains all the information required under the rules, and it was served on the persons authorized to receive the summons on behalf of the petitioner at its principal office in Manila. Moreover, the second summons was technically not an alias summons but more of a new summons on the amended complaint. It was not a continuation of the first summons considering that it particularly referred to the amended complaint and not to the original complaint.