Signetics Corp. v. CA Digest

G.R. No. 105141 August 31, 1993

Ponente: Vitug, J.:

Service of Summons on Foreign Corporations

Facts:

1. The petitioner, Signetics was organized under the laws of the United States of America. Through Signetics Filipinas Corporation (SigFil), a wholly-owned subsidiary, Signetics entered into lease contract over a piece of land with Fruehauf Electronics Phils., Inc. (Freuhauf). 

2. Freuhauf sued Signetics for damages, accounting or return of certain machinery, equipment and accessories, as well as the transfer of title and surrender of possession of the buildings, installations and improvements on the leased land, before the RTC of Pasig (Civil Case No. 59264). Claiming that Signetics caused SigFil to insert in the lease contract the words "machineries, equipment and accessories," the defendants were able to withdraw these assets from the cost-free transfer provision of the contract. 

3. Service of summons was made on Signetics through TEAM Pacific Corp. on the basis of the allegation that Signetics is a "subsidiary of US PHILIPS CORPORATION, and may be served summons at Philips Electrical Lamps, Inc., Las Piñas, Metro Manila and/or c/o Technology Electronics Assembly & Management (TEAM) Pacific Corporation, Electronics Avenue, FTI Complex, Taguig, Metro Manila," service of summons was made on Signetics through TEAM Pacific Corporation.

4. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over its person. Invoking Section 14, Rule 14, of the Rules of Court and the rule laid down in Pacific Micronisian Line, Inc., v. Del Rosario and Pelington  to the effect that the fact of doing business in the Philippines should first be established in order that summons could be validly made and jurisdiction acquired by the court over a foreign corporation. 

5. The RTC denied the Motion to dismiss. While the CA affirmed RTC. Hence this petition. The petitioner argues that what was effectively alleged in the complaint as an activity of doing business was "the mere equity investment" of petitioner in SigFil, which the petitioner insists, had theretofore been transferred to TEAM holdings, Ltd.

Issue: Whether or not the lower court, had correctly assumed jurisdiction over the petitioner, a foreign corporation, on its claim in a motion to dismiss, that it had since ceased to do business in the Philippines.

YES.

1. Signetics cannot, at least in this early stage, assail, on the one hand, the veracity and correctness of the allegations in the complaint and proceed, on the other hand, to prove its own, in order to hasten a peremptory escape. As explained by the Court in Pacific Micronisian, summons may be served upon an agent of the defendant who may not necessarily be its "resident agent designated in accordance with law." The term "agent", in the context it is used in Section 14, refers to its general meaning, i.e., one who acts on behalf of a principal. 

The allegations in the complaint have thus been able to amply convey that not only is TEAM Pacific the business conduit of the petitioner in the Philippines but that, also, by the charge of fraud, is none other than the petitioner itself.

2. The rule is that, a foreign corporation, although not engaged in business in the Philippines, may still look up to our courts for relief; reciprocally, such corporation may likewise be "sued in Philippine courts for acts done against a person or persons in the Philippines" (Facilities Management Corporation v. De la Osa), provided that, in the latter case, it would not be impossible for court processes to reach the foreign corporation, a matter that can later be consequential in the proper execution of judgment. Hence, a State may not exercise jurisdiction in the absence of some good basis (and not offensive to traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice) for effectively exercising it, whether the proceedings are in rem, quasi in rem or in personam.

Valmonte v. CA Digest

G.R. No. 108538 January 22, 1996

Ponente: Mendoza, J.:

Service of Summons

Facts:

1. Petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte is a foreign resident. Petitioners Lourdes and Alfredo are husband and wife both residents of 90222 Carkeek Drive South Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. Petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte, who is a member of the Philippine bar, however, practices his profession in the Philippines, commuting for this purpose between his residence in the state of Washington and Manila, where he holds office at S-304 Gedisco Centre, 1564 A. Mabini, Ermita, Manila.
2.  Private respondent Rosita Dimalanta, who is the sister of petitioner filed an action for partition against former and her husband. She alleged that, the plaintiff is of legal age, a widow and is at present a resident of 14823 Conway Road, Chesterfield, Missouri, U.S.A., while the defendants are spouses but, for purposes of this complaint may be served with summons at Gedisco Center, Unit 304, 1564 A. Mabini St., Ermita, Manila where defendant Alfredo D. Valmonte as defendant Lourdes Arreola Valmonte’s spouse holds office and where he can be found.He husband was also her counsel, who has a law office in the Philippines. The summons were served on her husband.
3. Petitioner in a letter, referred private respondent’s counsel to her husband as the party to whom all communications intended for her should be sent. Service of summons was then made upon petitioner Alfredo at his office in Manila.  Alfredo D. Valmonte accepted his summons, but not the one for Lourdes, on the ground that he was not authorized to accept the process on her behalf. Accordingly the process server left without leaving a copy of the summons and complaint for petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte.
4.  Petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte thereafter filed his Answer with Counterclaim. Petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte, however, did not file her Answer. For this reason private respondent moved to declare her in default. Petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte entered a special appearance in behalf of his wife and opposed the private respondent’s motion. RTC denied the MR of respondents. CA declared petitioner Lourdes in default. Said decision was received by Alfredo hence this petition.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte was validly served with summons.

NO.

There was no valid service of summons  on Lourdes.

1.       The action herein is in the nature of an action quasi in rem. Such an action is essentially for the purpose of affecting the defendant’s interest in a specific property and not to render a judgment against him. As petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte is a nonresident who is not found in the Philippines, service of summons on her must be in accordance with Rule 14, § 17. Such service, to be effective outside the Philippines, must be made either (1) by personal service; (2) by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court should be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant; or (3) in any other manner which the court may deem sufficient.

2.       In the case at bar, the service of summons upon petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte was not done by means of any of the first two modes.  This mode of service, like the first two, must be made outside the Philippines, such as through the Philippine Embassy in the foreign country where the defendant resides.  The service of summons on petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte was not made upon the order of the court as required by Rule 14, § 17 and certainly was not a mode deemed sufficient by the court which in fact refused to consider the service to be valid and on that basis declare petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte in default for her failure to file an answer.

3.       Secondly, the service in the attempted manner on petitioner was not made upon prior leave of the trial court as required also in Rule 14, § 17. As provided in § 19, such leave must be applied for by motion in writing, supported by affidavit of the plaintiff or some person on his behalf and setting forth the grounds for the application.

4.       Finally, and most importantly, because there was no order granting such leave, petitioner Lourdes was not given ample time to file her Answer which, according to the rules, shall be not less than sixty (60) days after notice. 

Asiavest Limited v. CA Digest

Facts:

1. The plaintiff Asiavest Limited filed a complaint against the defendant Antonio Heras praying that said defendant be ordered to pay to the plaintiff the amounts awarded by the Hong Kong Court Judgment. The action filed in Hong Kong against Heras was in personam, since it was based on his personal guarantee of the obligation of the principal debtor. 

2. The trial court concluded that the Hong Kong court judgment should be recognized and given effect in this jurisdiction for failure of HERAS to overcome the legal presumption in favor of the foreign judgment.

3. Asiavest moved for the reconsideration of the decision. It sought an award of judicial costs and an increase in attorney's fees with interest until full payment of the said obligations. On the other hand, Heras no longer opposed the motion and instead appealed the decision to CA. 

4. The Court of Appeals (CA) agreed with Heras that notice sent outside the state to a non-resident is unavailing to give jurisdiction in an action against him personally for money recovery. Summons should have been personally served on Heras in Hong Kong,

Issue: Whether or not the judgment of the Hong Kong Court has been repelled by evidence of want of jurisdiction due to improper notice to the party

YES.

1. Asiavest cannot now claim that Heras was a resident of Hong Kong at the time since the stipulated fact that Heras "is a resident of New Manila, Quezon City, Philippines" refers to his residence at the time jurisdiction over his person was being sought by the Hong Kong court. Accordingly, since Heras was not a resident of Hong Kong and the action against him was, ne in personam, summons should have been personally served on him in Hong Kong. 

The extraterritorial service in the Philippines was therefore invalid and did not confer on the Hong Kong court jurisdiction over his person. It follows that the Hong Kong court judgment cannot be given force and effect here in the Philippines for having been rendered without jurisdiction.

2. On the same note, Heras was also an absentee,hence, he should have been served with summons in the same manner as a non-resident not found in Hong Kong. Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court providing for extraterritorial service will not apply because the suit against him was in personam. Neither can we apply Section 18, which allows extraterritorial service on a resident defendant who is temporarily absent from the country, because even if Heras be considered as a resident of Hong Kong, the undisputed fact remains that he left Hong Kong not only temporarily but for good. 

Venturanza v. CA Digest

G.R. No. 77760 December 11, 1987

Ponente: Padilla, J.:

Service of Summons

Facts: 

1. Plaintiff Nieves Y. Senoran (now private respondent) filed a complaint against spouses Violeta S. Venturanza and Romy Venturanza (now petitioners) with MTC for collection of sums of money for loans evidenced by promissory notes and due to non-payment became demandable. 

2. The summons was served on the petitioners through the father who refused to sign the receipt. Due to petitioners failure to file an Answer, the court rendered a decision ordering petitioners to pay. However, the said decision could not be served to petitioners address since they were no longer residing there, hence it was served in the Office of Violeta at ADB.

3.  The petitioners filed a "Motion to Set Aside Decision and to Declare Past Proceedings Null and Void for Lack of Jurisdiction," alleging that there was no proper and valid service of summons upon them in accordance with either Section 7 or Section 8 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court and that the court a quonever acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioners, since the address where the summons was served is the residence of Violeta S. Venturanza's father, and not on her address. Hence this petition. 

Issue: Whether or not the Metropolitan Trial Court validly acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners when the summons was served upon Augusto Soan’s address which is not the residence of petitioners

NO.

1. There is no question that the case at bar which is an action for collection of sum of money, an action in personam thereby requiring personal service of summons on the defendants.  It is only when a defendant can not be personally served with summons within a reasonable time that a substituted service may be availed of. For a substituted service to be valid, summons served at the defendant's residence must be served at his residence at the time of such service and not at his former place of residence.

2. It is further required by law that an effort or attempt should first be made to personally serve the summons and after this has failed, a substituted service may be caused upon the defendant, and the same must be reflected in the proof of service. Upon examination of the sheriff 's Return in this case, no statement was made that an effort or attempt was exerted to personally serve the summons on the defendants and that the same had failed. In fact, said Return did not indicate the address of the defendants to whom summons was supposed to have been served. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions by the sheriff is not applicable in this case where it is patent that the sheriff's return is defective. CA decision reversed and set aside.