You are on page 1of 1

Civil Procedure

Prosecutor Salazar
CASE FACTS ISSUE/HELD DOCTRINE/NOTES
E.B. Villarosa &  This case involves a complaint for breach of contract and  WON trial court acquired jurisdiction over person of  The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other
Partner Ltd vs Benito damages filed by against petitioner for failure to comply. petitioner upon service of summons on its Branch grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the
GR No 136426  Summons were serve together with the complaint to Manager person of the defendant shall not be deemed
6 August 1999 defendant through its Branch manager Engr. Sabulbero  No. a voluntary appearance.
at stated address at Kolambog, Lapasan
 However, Sheriff’s Return of Service states summons was  The designation of persons or officers who are authorized
duly served upon Engr Sabulbero at their new office Villa to accept summons for a domestic corporation or
Gonzalo, Nazareth partnership is now limited and more clearly specified in
 Petitioner filed a Special Appearance with MTD on the Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
ground of improper service of summons and for lack of  Under the new rules, service of summons upon an agent
jurisdiction over person of the defendant. of the corporation is no longer authorized.
 Petitioner: the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over  Strict compliance with the rules has been enjoined. The
its person since summons was improperly served upon its officer upon whom service is made must be one who is
employee in its branch office who is not one of those named in the statute; otherwise the service is
named in Sec 11 Rule 14 insufficient.
 Private respondent: filed a Motion to Declare defendant  The liberal construction rule cannot be invoked and
in default for failing to answer despite receipt of summons utilized as a substitute for the plain legal requirements as
and complaint to the manner in which summons should be served on a
 Private respondent: Opposition to MTD alleging the domestic corporation.
defendant transferred its office to Villa Gonzalo and  Service of summons upon persons other than those
purpose of rule is to bring home to corporation notice of mentioned in Section 13 of Rule 14 (old rule) has been
filing the action. held as improper.
 Trial Court: denied MTD and Motion to declare defendant  Court rules that the service of summons upon the branch
in default. There is substantial compliance with service of manager of petitioner at its branch office at Cagayan
summons thru receipt by branch manager. de Oro, instead of upon the general manager at its
 Petitioner: MR alleging Sec 11 Rule 14 restricted service of principal office at Davao City is improper. Trial court did
summons on persons enumerated. Denied not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.