G.R. No. L-29636 September 30, 1982
Filoil Marketing Corporation, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Marine Development Corporation of the Philippines, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Filoil Marketing Corporation filed a complaint for a sum of money against Marine Development Corporation. The initial service of summons was improper, being served on a house girl of the General Manager. The trial court ordered a new summons to be properly served within fifteen days. Subsequent attempts at service were contested by the defendant, which filed multiple motions to dismiss on the ground of improper service, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction over its person. These motions were filed through its retained counsel, Atty. Paulino Al. Aquino of the Syquia Law Offices.
After protracted proceedings concerning the validity of service, the lower court eventually ordered that summons be issued and served through the defendant’s lawyers, Messrs. Syquia and Associates. Pursuant to this order, an alias summons and complaint were served on Atty. Aquino. The defendant failed to answer, leading the trial court to declare it in default, receive evidence ex-parte, and render a judgment in favor of Filoil.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant corporation when the summons and copy of the complaint were served on its retained counsel.

RULING

Yes, the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction. Section 13, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that service upon a domestic corporation may be made on its president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Aquino qualified as an “agent” of the corporation for the purpose of receiving summons. He had made several special appearances in court, filing motions to dismiss specifically challenging the improper service of summons. These acts were undertaken for and on behalf of the defendant corporation in connection with the very case.
The Court cited the precedent in Republic vs. Ker and Co., Ltd., where service of summons upon a law firm that had been representing the corporate defendant in the same matter was deemed valid service upon an agent. By analogy, Atty. Aquino, in acting for the corporation in the motions to dismiss, was its agent in the litigation. Therefore, service of summons upon him was sufficient and vested the court with jurisdiction over the defendant corporation. The default judgment was consequently upheld.