GR 182153; (April, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 182153, April 7, 2014.
TUNG HO STEEL ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. TING GUAN TRADING CORPORATION, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Tung Ho Steel Enterprises Corp. (Tung Ho), a foreign corporation from Taiwan, and respondent Ting Guan Trading Corp. (Ting Guan), a domestic Philippine corporation, entered into a contract of sale. Due to Ting Guan’s failure to fully deliver the goods, Tung Ho obtained a favorable arbitral award from the ICC International Court of Arbitration in Singapore. Tung Ho filed a case for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award before the RTC of Makati. Ting Guan moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing, among other grounds, improper service of summons, claiming that Ms. Fe Tejero, who received the summons, was not its corporate secretary. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss, ruling that Ting Guan voluntarily submitted to its jurisdiction by raising other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction. Ting Guan filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. The CA dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over Ting Guan’s person, finding that Tung Ho failed to establish Tejero was the corporate secretary. The CA also ruled that a petition for certiorari was the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction. Both parties moved for partial reconsideration. While Tung Ho’s motion was pending, Ting Guan filed a petition before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 176110), raising additional grounds for dismissal. The Supreme Court denied Ting Guan’s petition in G.R. No. 176110 for lack of merit, and an entry of judgment was issued. Subsequently, the RTC, upon referral, declared the case closed and terminated. The CA later denied Tung Ho’s pending motion for reconsideration. Tung Ho then filed the present petition (G.R. No. 182153) before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
1. Whether the present petition is barred by res judicata.
2. Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of Ting Guan, specifically:
a. Whether Tejero was the proper person to receive the summons; and
b. Whether Ting Guan made a voluntary appearance before the trial court.
RULING
1. The petition is not barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court’s ruling in G.R. No. 176110 did not operate as res judicata because it did not conclusively rule on the merits of the case, particularly on whether Tung Ho could enforce the foreign arbitral award. The disposition in G.R. No. 176110 only addressed technical or collateral aspects and not the substantive issues. Furthermore, the CA retained jurisdiction over the case as Tung Ho’s motion for reconsideration of the CA decision was still pending when G.R. No. 176110 was promulgated.
2. The trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Ting Guan.
a. Tejero was not shown to be the proper person to receive the summons. The burden of proving proper service rests on the party asserting jurisdiction. Tung Ho failed to substantiate its claim that Tejero was Ting Guan’s corporate secretary. The sheriff’s return of service, while prima facie evidence of its contents, was contradicted by Ting Guan’s submission of its corporate secretary’s certificate showing a different person. Tung Ho did not rebut this evidence.
b. Ting Guan did not make a voluntary appearance. A party appears voluntarily when it seeks affirmative relief or files a motion that does not explicitly object to the court’s jurisdiction over its person. Ting Guan’s motions to dismiss were precisely based on lack of jurisdiction, specifically improper service of summons. Raising other grounds in conjunction with the jurisdictional objection does not constitute voluntary submission. The rules require that an objection to jurisdiction over the person must be raised either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer; otherwise, it is deemed waived. Ting Guan timely raised the objection in its motion to dismiss and subsequent pleadings, thereby preserving the defense.
Therefore, the Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over Ting Guan’s person due to improper service of summons.