G.R. No. 111187 February 1, 1995
R. TRANSPORT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Former 15th Division, Manila, HON. SALVADOR S. ABAD SANTOS, as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of, Metro Manila, Branch 65 and FLOSERIDA L. CASTAÑEDA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Floserida L. Castañeda filed a complaint for damages against petitioner R. Transport Corporation for breach of contract of carriage. Summons was addressed to the corporation at “Sucat Road, Parañaque.” The process server’s Officer’s Return stated that on December 4, 1991, the summons was served upon “R. Transport, Inc., of Sucat Road, Parañaque” and receipt was acknowledged by “Mr. Cesar Pasquin who identified himself as the operation manager of said company.” The trial court, upon ex parte motion, declared petitioner in default. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting improper service of summons because it was not served on any of the officers enumerated in Section 13, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court. Petitioner later filed a motion for reconsideration, adding that summons was served at its bus terminal in Sucat, Parañaque, and not at its principal office in Makati. The trial court denied both motions. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, which included an affidavit from its president stating that the Operations Manager was Roger F. Lemi and not Cesar Pasquin, was also denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether there was valid service of summons upon petitioner corporation.

RULING

Yes, there was valid service of summons. The Court held that service of summons on petitioner’s Operations Manager was valid. While Section 13, Rule 14 generally requires service on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any director, the rule has been liberalized. The rationale is that service must be made on a representative so integrated with the corporation that he will realize his responsibilities. Persons holding positions of responsibility who can appreciate the importance of legal papers and deliver them to the proper officer, such as an Operations Manager, are considered “agents” within the contemplation of the rule. The Operations Manager is an officer who may be relied upon for this purpose. The service at the bus terminal in Sucat, Parañaque, where the corporation conducts the bulk of its business, was also valid, and the address discrepancy did not invalidate the service. The affidavit from petitioner’s president was given scant weight as it could not overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the process server. The petition was denied.