G.R. No. 136426 , August 6, 1999
E. B. VILLAROSA & PARTNER CO., LTD., petitioner, vs. HON. HERMINIO I. BENITO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 132, Makati City and IMPERIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd., a limited partnership, and private respondent Imperial Development Corporation executed a Deed of Sale with Development Agreement containing a venue stipulation for Makati courts. On April 3, 1998, private respondent filed a Complaint for Breach of Contract and Damages against petitioner before the RTC of Makati. Summons and the complaint were served on May 5, 1998, upon Engr. Wendell Sabulbero, the Branch Manager at petitioner’s Cagayan de Oro City branch office, as indicated in the Sheriff’s Return. Petitioner, by special appearance, filed a Motion to Dismiss on June 9, 1998, arguing improper service of summons and lack of jurisdiction over its person, contending that service upon a branch manager did not comply with Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court denied the motion in an Order dated August 5, 1998, holding there was substantial compliance since the summons was actually received by the corporation through its branch manager. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied in an Order dated November 20, 1998.

ISSUE

Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner upon service of summons on its Branch Manager under Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

RULING

No. The trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. Service of summons upon a branch manager is not valid under the 1997 Rules. Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that service upon a domestic corporation may be made only on the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel. This enumeration is restrictive, limited, and exclusive. The rule revised the old Section 13, Rule 14, which allowed service on, among others, a “manager” or “agent.” The new rule deliberately omitted “agent” and changed “manager” to “general manager,” indicating an intent to limit authorized recipients. Since the summons was served only on a branch manager, who is not among the persons enumerated in the new rule, the service was improper and did not vest the court with jurisdiction over the petitioner. The cases cited by private respondent, which upheld service under the old, more liberal rule, are not applicable. The petition was granted, and the assailed orders were annulled and set aside.