Service of summons on domestic private juridical entity
Service may be made on the: [1] President [2] Managing partner [3] General manager [4] Corporate secretary [5] Treasurer, or [6] In-house Counsel.
The Rules of Court used to include in the list the term "agent." However, service on an agent of the corporation is now not permitted. The designation of persons or officers who are authorized to accept summons for a domestic corporation is limited and more clearly specified. The rule states “general manager” instead of only “manager”, “corporate secretary” instead of “secretary” and “treasurer” instead of “cashier.”
E. B. VILLAROSA v. JUDGE BENITO (G.R. No. 136426: August 6, 1999): Service of summons upon the Branch Manager of petitioner at its branch office in Cagayan de Oro City instead of upon the general manager at its principal office in Davao City is improper. Consequently, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. Any proceeding undertaken by the trial court will consequently be null and void.
The reason for this is that the law specifically qualifies the term "manager" with the adjective "general."
Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled that the service of summons upon the branch manager of petitioner at its branch office at Cagayan de Oro, instead of upon the general manager at its principal office at Davao City is improper. Consequently, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.Clearly, the summons was not served personally on the defendant (respondent) through any of the officers enumerated in Section 11 of Rule 14; rather, summons was served by substituted service on the defendant’s staff member, Romel Dolahoy. Substituted service was resorted to on the server’s first attempt at service of summons, and there was no indication that prior efforts were made to render prompt personal service on the defendant.
Service upon foreign private juridical entity (Rule 14, Sec. 12).
When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines. If the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the Philippines or has no resident agent, service may, with leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines through any of the following means:
[a] By personal service coursed through the appropriate court in the foreign country with the assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs;
[b] By publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in the country where the defendant may be found and by serving a copy of the summons and the court order by registered mail at the last known address of the defendant;
[c] By facsimile or any recognized electronic means that could generate proof of service; or
[d] By such other means as the court may in its discretion direct. (As amended by A.M. No. 11-3-6-SC, March 15, 2011)
This will be allowed only if there are well-pleaded allegations of having transacted or doing business in the Philippines.
The fact of doing business in the Philippines must be established by appropriate allegations in the complaint. The court need not go beyond the allegations of the complaint in order to determine whether it has jurisdiction.
A determination that the foreign corporation is doing business is only tentative and is made only for the purpose of enabling the local court to acquire jurisdiction over the foreign corporation through service of summons pursuant to Rule 14, Section 12. Such determination does not foreclose a contrary finding should evidence later show that it is not transacting business in the country.
More cases to read:
[1] E. B. Villarosa & Partner Co. , Ltd. vs. Benito, 312 SCRA 65 [1999]
[2] B. D. Long Span Builders, Inc. vs. R. S. Ampeloquio Realty Development, Inc. , G.R. No. 169919, September 11, 2009
The Rules of Court used to include in the list the term "agent." However, service on an agent of the corporation is now not permitted. The designation of persons or officers who are authorized to accept summons for a domestic corporation is limited and more clearly specified. The rule states “general manager” instead of only “manager”, “corporate secretary” instead of “secretary” and “treasurer” instead of “cashier.”
E. B. VILLAROSA v. JUDGE BENITO (G.R. No. 136426: August 6, 1999): Service of summons upon the Branch Manager of petitioner at its branch office in Cagayan de Oro City instead of upon the general manager at its principal office in Davao City is improper. Consequently, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. Any proceeding undertaken by the trial court will consequently be null and void.
The reason for this is that the law specifically qualifies the term "manager" with the adjective "general."
Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled that the service of summons upon the branch manager of petitioner at its branch office at Cagayan de Oro, instead of upon the general manager at its principal office at Davao City is improper. Consequently, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.Clearly, the summons was not served personally on the defendant (respondent) through any of the officers enumerated in Section 11 of Rule 14; rather, summons was served by substituted service on the defendant’s staff member, Romel Dolahoy. Substituted service was resorted to on the server’s first attempt at service of summons, and there was no indication that prior efforts were made to render prompt personal service on the defendant.
Service upon foreign private juridical entity (Rule 14, Sec. 12).
When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines. If the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the Philippines or has no resident agent, service may, with leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines through any of the following means:
[a] By personal service coursed through the appropriate court in the foreign country with the assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs;
[b] By publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in the country where the defendant may be found and by serving a copy of the summons and the court order by registered mail at the last known address of the defendant;
[c] By facsimile or any recognized electronic means that could generate proof of service; or
[d] By such other means as the court may in its discretion direct. (As amended by A.M. No. 11-3-6-SC, March 15, 2011)
This will be allowed only if there are well-pleaded allegations of having transacted or doing business in the Philippines.
The fact of doing business in the Philippines must be established by appropriate allegations in the complaint. The court need not go beyond the allegations of the complaint in order to determine whether it has jurisdiction.
A determination that the foreign corporation is doing business is only tentative and is made only for the purpose of enabling the local court to acquire jurisdiction over the foreign corporation through service of summons pursuant to Rule 14, Section 12. Such determination does not foreclose a contrary finding should evidence later show that it is not transacting business in the country.
More cases to read:
[1] E. B. Villarosa & Partner Co. , Ltd. vs. Benito, 312 SCRA 65 [1999]
[2] B. D. Long Span Builders, Inc. vs. R. S. Ampeloquio Realty Development, Inc. , G.R. No. 169919, September 11, 2009
