GR 156848; (October, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156848 October 11, 2007
PIONEER INTERNATIONAL, LTD., petitioner, vs. HON. TEOFILO GUADIZ, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 147, Makati City, and ANTONIO D. TODARO, respondents.
FACTS
Antonio D. Todaro filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against Pioneer International, Ltd. (PIL), a foreign corporation, and its local affiliates. Todaro alleged that PIL, through its officers, engaged him as a consultant with the promise of permanent employment to manage its Philippine concrete business. He performed consultancy services from November 1996 but was never given the promised permanent position. PIL filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of summons and lack of cause of action, arguing the claim fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. It held that summons was properly served on PIL through its agent, Cecille L. De Leon, at the office of its local subsidiary, and that Todaro’s complaint for damages based on alleged tortious acts—fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contractual duties—stated a cause of action within the regular court’s jurisdiction, not an employer-employee claim.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly denied the motion to dismiss based on (1) proper service of summons on a foreign corporation and (2) jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint.
RULING
Yes, the trial court correctly denied the motion to dismiss. On the first issue, service of summons on a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines without a license may be effected through its resident agent or, if none, on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines. PIL was found to be doing business in the country through its investments and control over local subsidiaries. Service at the office of its local subsidiary, received by an executive assistant to one of its officers, constituted valid substituted service on an agent under the Rules of Court.
On the second issue, the complaint alleged a cause of action for damages arising from pre-employment tortious conduct, not from an employer-employee relationship. Todaro’s allegations centered on fraudulent inducement to render consultancy services with a false promise of permanent employment, causing him financial damage. This claim for abuse of rights and culpa aquiliana under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code is distinct from a labor dispute over terms of employment or termination. Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint. Since the complaint pleaded a cause of action based on quasi-delict and contractual breach in bad faith, the regular courts have jurisdiction, not the Labor Arbiter. The trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss the case.