G.R. No. L-78299 February 29, 1988
G & G TRADING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Fifth Division; Hon. Salvador J. Baylen, Presiding Judge of Branch CIII, Regional Trial Court, NCJR; LANCASTER COMMERCIAL & TRADING CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Lancaster Commercial & Trading Corporation filed a collection case against petitioner G & G Trading Corporation. Summons and the complaint were served upon and received by a certain Melinda Molo at the petitioner’s office. The trial court subsequently granted Lancaster’s application for a writ of preliminary attachment against G & G’s properties. G & G, through counsel, filed a special appearance and an urgent motion to lift the attachment, arguing that the court did not validly acquire jurisdiction over it. The petitioner contended that Melinda Molo was merely a clerical secretary and not among the corporate officers authorized under the Rules of Court to receive summons, such as the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any director.
The trial court denied the motion to lift attachment, finding that there was valid service of summons. It concluded that Melinda Molo, who signed the receipt with the word “secretary,” was the corporation’s secretary or, at the very least, its agent. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, prompting G & G to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether or not summons was properly served on petitioner G & G Trading Corporation so as to confer jurisdiction on the Regional Trial Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that there was substantial compliance with the rules on service of summons, thereby vesting jurisdiction over the petitioner corporation. The applicable rule is Section 13, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court, which permits service on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any director of a domestic corporation. The Court explained that the purpose of this rule is to ensure the corporation receives prompt and proper notice of the action, or that service is made on a representative so integrated with the corporation that they know what to do with the legal papers.
While the petitioner insisted Melinda Molo was only a clerical secretary and not the corporate secretary, the records established that the summons and complaint were in fact received by the corporation through her. The Court emphasized that the paramount objective of the rule—to bring home to the corporation notice of the suit—had been achieved. Technical strictness was subordinated to the reality of actual receipt. Citing the need for speedy justice, the Court held the service valid. The petition was denied, and G & G was ordered to file its answer. The decision was declared immediately executory.