G.R. No. 172242 ; August 14, 2007
PERKIN ELMER SINGAPORE PTE LTD., Petitioner, vs. DAKILA TRADING CORPORATION, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Dakila Trading Corporation filed a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money and Damages against Perkin-Elmer Instruments Asia Pte Ltd. (PEIA) and its Philippine affiliate, PEIP, after PEIA unilaterally terminated their Distribution Agreement. An Alias Summons was served in Singapore on “Perkinelmer Asia,” described as a sole proprietorship owned by petitioner Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. Respondent subsequently filed an Amended Complaint, alleging that PEIA had become the sole proprietorship “Perkinelmer Asia” owned by the petitioner, which thus assumed PEIA’s obligations. The Amended Complaint substituted the petitioner for PEIA as a party-defendant. Summons for the Amended Complaint was then served on the petitioner in Singapore through a deputized private person.
Petitioner filed a Special Appearance and Motion to Dismiss, arguing primarily that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over its person due to invalid extraterritorial service of summons. It contended that the service was improper as the case did not fall under any of the instances for extraterritorial service under Rule 14, Section 15 of the Rules of Court, and that service through a deputized private individual was invalid. The Regional Trial Court denied the motion, ruling that the Amended Complaint’s allegation that petitioner owned shares in PEIP constituted an allegation of personal property in the Philippines, justifying extraterritorial service under Rule 14, Section 15.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner through the extraterritorial service of summons.

RULING

No, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the extraterritorial service of summons was invalid. For such service to be valid under Rule 14, Section 15, the action must fall under any of the enumerated categories: (1) an action affecting the personal status of the plaintiff; (2) an action relating to, or involving property within the Philippines, in which the defendant claims a lien or interest; or (3) an action in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest in property located in the Philippines. The respondent’s action for collection of a sum of money and damages based on a terminated distribution agreement is an action in personam. It does not involve any of the property-related instances specified in the rule. The mere allegation in the Amended Complaint that petitioner owned shares in a domestic corporation (PEIP) does not transform the in personam action into an action that “relates to, or involves” that property within the meaning of the rule. The shares are not the subject matter of the litigation; the cause of action arose from the contract. Furthermore, service through a deputized private individual, not a court official or diplomatic channels, did not comply with the prescribed modes for extraterritorial service under Rule 14, Section 15. Consequently, the service was void, and the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the petitioner. The Orders denying the Motion to Dismiss were reversed and set aside.