G.R. No. 131724 February 28, 2000
Millenium Industrial Commercial Corporation, petitioner, vs. Jackson Tan, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Millenium Industrial Commercial Corporation executed a real estate mortgage in favor of respondent Jackson Tan to secure a P2 million loan, payable as P4 million at maturity. Respondent filed a complaint for foreclosure. Summons and the complaint were served upon petitioner corporation through Lynverd Cinches, described in the sheriff’s return as a draftsman and the highest ranking officer present. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint on two grounds: first, for invalid service of summons, arguing Cinches was not an authorized agent under the Rules of Court and was not even its employee, thus the court lacked jurisdiction; and second, that the obligation had been extinguished as respondent had allegedly opted to be paid in shares of stock per the mortgage contract’s stipulation. The motion also included a prayer for “other reliefs just and equitable.”
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. It ruled that by interposing the second affirmative defense on payment, petitioner voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction, thereby curing any defect in the service of summons. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, holding that the filing of the motion to dismiss, which included a plea for other reliefs, constituted voluntary appearance.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether service of summons upon a person not enumerated in Rule 14, §13 of the 1964 Rules of Court is valid; and (2) whether including an affirmative defense alongside a jurisdictional challenge in a motion to dismiss constitutes voluntary appearance and waives the objection to jurisdiction.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s decision and dismissed the complaint. On the first issue, the Court held that while Rule 14, §13 enumerates specific corporate officers for valid service, the doctrine of substantial compliance applies if it is shown the corporation actually received the summons. Here, petitioner successfully rebutted the presumption of receipt. It categorically denied Cinches was its employee and asserted it learned of the suit only by checking court records. Without proof Cinches delivered the summons to a corporate officer, there was no substantial compliance, and the service was invalid.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that petitioner did not voluntarily submit to jurisdiction. Citing La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals, the Court emphasized that estoppel relative to jurisdiction must be clear and intentional. Merely pleading an alternative ground for dismissal, such as payment, and praying for “other reliefs” while simultaneously challenging jurisdiction does not constitute a voluntary appearance. The inclusion of other defenses is not an unequivocal submission to the court’s authority, especially when the primary and explicit prayer is for dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction. The trial court thus never acquired jurisdiction over petitioner.