G.R. No. 142272 ; May 2, 2006
ABOITIZ INTERNATIONAL FORWARDERS, INC., Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation (PCIC) filed a complaint for collection against petitioner Aboitiz International Forwarders, Inc. (AIFI) and others, alleging that a shipment of glass-making machine parts insured by PCIC was lost while in the defendants’ custody. Summons and the complaint were served on Lita Apostol, identified by the process server as AIFI’s documentary clerk. AIFI did not file an answer, leading the trial court to declare it in default. After ex parte proceedings, a judgment was rendered ordering AIFI and its co-defendants to pay PCIC the insured value plus attorney’s fees.
AIFI later filed a petition for relief from judgment, arguing that the court never acquired jurisdiction over it. It claimed Lita Apostol was merely a customer service representative, not a documentary clerk, and was unauthorized to receive summons. AIFI also asserted it had a meritorious defense, having exercised extraordinary diligence, and that the loss was due to its co-defendants’ negligence.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over AIFI through the service of summons on Lita Apostol, and whether AIFI presented a meritorious defense to warrant relief from judgment.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the trial court’s jurisdiction and finding no meritorious defense. Service of summons upon a corporation may be made on an agent, which includes any person authorized by appointment or by law to receive service. The term “agent” is not limited to corporate officers. The Court found that Lita Apostol, as a documentary clerk, was sufficiently integrated into AIFI’s business operations such that she could be reasonably expected to relay legal documents to the responsible officers. Her role facilitated the company’s operations, making her a proper agent for service.
Furthermore, AIFI failed to substantiate its claim of a meritorious defense. Its allegation of exercising extraordinary diligence was a bare conclusion without factual support in the record. Similarly, its claim that co-defendants were solely responsible for the loss was unsubstantiated. A petition for relief from judgment requires not only a showing of excusable negligence but also the existence of a substantial defense. AIFI’s failure to prove any such defense was fatal to its petition. Consequently, the default judgment, including the award for attorney’s fees which was within the court’s discretion despite the prayer’s omission, was valid.