GR 168723; (July, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 168723 ; July 9, 2008
DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC. (TROPIFRESH DIVISION), Petitioner, vs. HON. REINATO G. QUILALA in his capacity as pairing judge of Branch 150, RTC-Makati City, and ALL SEASON FARM, CORP., Respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent All Season Farm Corporation filed a complaint for sum of money, accounting, and damages against petitioner Dole Philippines, Inc. and its officers before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati. An alias summons was served upon Dole through Marifa Dela Cruz, a legal assistant employed by Dole Pacific General Services, Ltd., a separate entity. Dole filed a motion to dismiss, arguing improper service of summons, among other grounds, claiming the RTC lacked jurisdiction over its person. The RTC denied the motion, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Dole elevated the case, contending the appellate court erred in upholding the service. It argued that service was invalid as it was not made upon any of the corporate officers enumerated in the Rules of Civil Procedure, but upon an employee of a different corporation.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC validly acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner Dole Philippines, Inc. through the service of summons.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the lower courts. The Court first clarified the rule on service of summons upon a domestic private juridical entity under Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Service is restricted and exclusive to the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel. The service on Marifa Dela Cruz, a legal assistant not employed by petitioner and not among the designated officers, was therefore improper and did not initially vest the trial court with jurisdiction over Dole.
However, the Court ruled that Dole voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the defendant can be acquired not only by proper service of summons but also by the defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action, which is equivalent to service under Section 20, Rule 14. The filing of motions seeking affirmative relief constitutes such voluntary appearance. Here, Dole filed an “Entry of Appearance with Motion for Time” on May 5, 2003. This was not a conditional appearance to challenge the service but an act acknowledging receipt of the summons and invoking the court’s jurisdiction to obtain an extension to file a pleading. By seeking affirmative relief, Dole voluntarily submitted to the RTC’s authority and was thus estopped from later questioning the jurisdiction over its person. Consequently, the RTC properly exercised jurisdiction.