G.R. No. 81093 . March 6, 1990.
PORAC TRUCKING, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (Fifteenth Division), HON. EUGENIO S. LABITORIA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the RTC-Macabebe, Pampanga (Branch LV) and EMERENCIANA GUEVARRA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Emerenciana Guevarra filed a complaint for damages against Porac Trucking, Inc. and its driver, Albert Mercado, arising from a vehicular collision. The trial court issued summons. While Mercado was personally served, the sheriff’s return for Porac Trucking indicated that a certain Hermie Lansangan refused to receive the summons, leaving the return unsigned. Consequently, the trial court declared Porac Trucking in default. Subsequently, Atty. Rodolfo Macalino, counsel for Rico General Insurance Corporation (Porac Trucking’s insurer), filed a motion for leave to file an answer on behalf of the defendants without Porac Trucking’s knowledge or authorization. The trial court treated this as a voluntary submission to its jurisdiction and later rendered a judgment against both defendants.
Porac Trucking, represented by new counsel, later filed a petition for relief from judgment, arguing improper service of summons. It also raised on appeal that Guevarra had executed an “Affidavit of Desistance” or “Release of Claim” after receiving payment from her insurer, which in turn had been reimbursed by Porac Trucking’s insurer, purportedly waiving all claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Porac Trucking elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Was summons properly served upon petitioner Porac Trucking, Inc. to confer jurisdiction upon the trial court?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that the service of summons was fatally defective and did not vest the trial court with jurisdiction over Porac Trucking. Under Section 13, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court, service upon a domestic corporation must be made on its president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors. The purpose is to ensure the corporation receives prompt and proper notice. Here, the summons was merely tendered to Hermie Lansangan, who refused receipt. His capacity was never established; he was merely a middleman for specific delivery contracts and was not among the officers enumerated by the rules. The sheriff’s return remained unsigned, indicating no actual receipt.
The Court rejected the argument that Atty. Macalino’s unauthorized appearance cured the jurisdictional defect. Atty. Macalino was counsel for the insurer, not Porac Trucking. He filed the answer without the knowledge, consent, or authority of the corporation. A lawyer cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court by appearing for a party without a valid attorney-client relationship. The subsequent petition for relief filed by Porac Trucking’s own counsel was a timely objection to this improper appearance and the lack of jurisdiction.
Concerning the “Release of Claim,” the Supreme Court found it necessary for the document to be properly presented and litigated on the merits. However, the fundamental issue of jurisdiction was paramount. Due to the invalid service of summons, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over Porac Trucking. Consequently, all proceedings, including the default judgment, were null and void. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the Court of Appeals’ decision, and remanded the case to the trial court for proper proceedings, including a hearing on the merits of the “Release of Claim.” The Court also ordered an investigation into Atty. Macalino’s professional conduct.