GR L 77369; (August, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-77369 August 31, 1988
HYOPSUNG MARITIME CO., LTD., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PIONEER INSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corp., as subrogee of the consignee, filed an admiralty case against Hyopsung Maritime Co., Ltd., Aurelio Navigation Corp. S.A., and Litonjua Shipping Co. to recover the value of lost steel billets shipped aboard the MV “Don Aurelio.” The law firm of Teves, Campos, Hernandez & Lim filed an Answer on behalf of all defendants. Subsequently, new counsel appeared for Litonjua Shipping, and Atty. Eulalio A. Ventura filed a special appearance for petitioner Hyopsung solely to question the trial court’s jurisdiction. Hyopsung then filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction over its person and the subject matter. The trial court initially dismissed the complaint but later reinstated it. Hyopsung’s motion for reconsideration led the court to revive the dismissal order. Pioneer appealed to the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner Hyopsung Maritime Co., Ltd.
RULING
No, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals, in the body of its decision, explicitly found that the Answer filed by the Teves law firm was not authorized by Hyopsung. The law firm itself admitted the representation was a mistake, and Hyopsung’s president certified it never engaged that firm’s services, having only authorized Atty. Ventura to raise the jurisdictional issue. Therefore, there was no voluntary general appearance by Hyopsung to confer jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Supreme Court, modifying the appellate court’s dispositive portion, ruled that the complaint against Hyopsung must be dismissed. The contract of carriage was entirely entered into, executed, and consummated in Korea; the bill of lading was issued and freight prepaid in Seoul; the vessel never docked in the Philippines; and Hyopsung did not appoint a local agent nor conduct business in the country. Consequently, Hyopsung, a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines and involved in a contract with no Philippine situs, was beyond the reach of Philippine courts. The case was remanded for trial only against the remaining defendants.