GR L 4459; (May, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4459 May 18, 1951
JOHNLO TRADING COMPANY, petitioner, vs. JOSE C. ZULUETA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of La Union, and NORTHERN LUZON STEVEDORING UNION, respondents.
FACTS
On June 24, 1950, Northern Luzon Stevedoring Union filed a complaint against Johnlo Trading Company in the Court of First Instance of La Union for the collection of P4,211.58, representing excess tonnage stevedored under a contract. Summons was served on Charles T. Balcoff, claimed to be the company’s representative in the Philippines. As no one appeared for the defendant, the court declared it in default, received evidence, and rendered judgment on October 3, 1950, ordering Johnlo Trading Company to pay the sum. A writ of execution was issued on November 4, 1950, leading to garnishment proceedings against money owed to the company by the Department of Economic Coordination. J.A. Wolfson, a creditor of Johnlo Trading Company, filed a pleading suggesting the decision be set aside as void for lack of proper service of summons, but the request was denied. After being informed, the company’s principals in the United States instructed their attorneys to take steps to have the decision set aside, leading to this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the person of Johnlo Trading Company through the service of summons on Charles T. Balcoff, claimed to be its agent or representative in the Philippines.
RULING
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the service of summons on Charles T. Balcoff was valid and binding upon Johnlo Trading Company. Citing a previous case (G.R. No. L-3787, Johnlo Trading Company vs. Jose P. Flores, et al.) involving the same issue, the Court concluded that whether Balcoff is considered an attorney or a representative of the company, the service made upon him is sufficient in contemplation of law. The Court reasoned that allowing the company to deny the authority of its agent to receive process, while having no other designated person in the Philippines for such purpose, would place local creditors without a remedy to press their claims, as service by publication under the Rules of Court was not applicable under the circumstances. This would be unfair and unreasonable. Therefore, the respondent judge acted properly, and the lower court acquired jurisdiction.