G.R. No. L-57218 December 12, 1986
FAR CORPORATION and ROSA O. DE CARAM, petitioners, vs. HON. RICARDO J. FRANCISCO, Presiding Judge of Branch VI, CFI of Rizal at Pasig, Metro Manila, and ELIZABETH P. NICOLAS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Far Corporation owned a residential apartment in Makati, leased by private respondent Elizabeth P. Nicolas. The corporation, through its manager and owner Rosa O. de Caram, terminated the lease. After a dispute over rental payment and the alleged padlocking of the apartment, Nicolas filed a complaint for damages with a prayer for preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The deputy sheriff attempted to serve summons at the corporate address. He first offered it to Atty. Melquiades Parades, the corporation’s retained counsel who held office at the same address. Parades declined, stating he was not an agent of the corporation, and suggested the sheriff serve it on Enrique Dizon, whom he believed was the cashier. The sheriff then served the summons on Enrique Dizon, who was actually the Finance and Administrative Manager. Both petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons due to invalid service of summons.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners through valid service of summons.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that there was valid service of summons, and thus the lower court acquired jurisdiction. For the corporation, service on Enrique Dizon was valid. The Court rejected the technical argument that Dizon, as Finance and Administrative Manager, was not among the officers enumerated in Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court (president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or director). The Court held that Dizon, as the head of finance and administration with vital management functions, was effectively a “manager” or at the very least an “agent” authorized to receive court processes. His position was higher than a cashier, and he was competent to appreciate the importance of the summons. Furthermore, the initial attempt to serve the corporation’s counsel, Atty. Parades, who was an internal counsel in charge of legal matters, constituted constructive notice to the corporation. For Rosa O. de Caram, the substituted service on Dizon was also valid. Dizon was a competent person in charge of her office, as she was absent. The purpose of summons—to notify a defendant of an action—was satisfied, as counsel was aware of the suit. The Court emphasized that dismissal on mere technicalities of service is disfavored, noting that even if service were defective, an alias summons could be issued rather than dismissing the case. The petition was dismissed.