By: Kristina M. Egnar on July 26, 2018
FACTS:
In May 1992, the Ludo & Luym Oleochemical Co. (LLOC) filed a complaint against French Oil Mill Machinery Co., Inc. (FOMMCO), a foreign corporation. In its Complaint, LLOC alleged that OMMCO's agent in conducting business here in the Philippines is Trans-World Trading Company. RTC-Cebu took cognizance of the case and it issued summons which was served to Trans-World.
FACTS:
In May 1992, the Ludo & Luym Oleochemical Co. (LLOC) filed a complaint against French Oil Mill Machinery Co., Inc. (FOMMCO), a foreign corporation. In its Complaint, LLOC alleged that OMMCO's agent in conducting business here in the Philippines is Trans-World Trading Company. RTC-Cebu took cognizance of the case and it issued summons which was served to Trans-World.
FOMMCO filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that Trans-World is not its agent; and that FOMMCO is not doing business in the Philippines hence, since it is not doing business in the Philippines the summons should have been served in accordance with Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court (extraterritorial service) and should not have been served upon Trans-World.
In sum, FOMMCO denies the allegations in the complaint which states that it is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines and that its agent here is Trans-World.
ISSUE:
In sum, FOMMCO denies the allegations in the complaint which states that it is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines and that its agent here is Trans-World.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over its person due to improper service of summons
HELD:
No. Under the Rules of Court, if the defendant is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines, summons may be served on (a) its resident agent designated in accordance with law; (b) if there is no resident agent, the government official designated by law to that effect, or (c) any of its officer or agent within the Philippines. Private respondent alleged in its complaint that Trans-World is petitioners agent, so that the service was made on the latter. Such general allegation is insufficient to show the agency relationship between petitioner and Trans-World. However, although there is no requirement to first substantiate the allegation of agency yet it is necessary that there must be specific allegations in the complaint that establishes the connection between the principal foreign corporation and its alleged agent with respect to the transaction in question.
The filing of an answer per se should not be automatically treated as voluntary appearance by the defendant for purposes of summons. It should be noted that when the appearance of defendant is precisely to object to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, it cannot be considered as appearance in court.
HELD:
No. Under the Rules of Court, if the defendant is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines, summons may be served on (a) its resident agent designated in accordance with law; (b) if there is no resident agent, the government official designated by law to that effect, or (c) any of its officer or agent within the Philippines. Private respondent alleged in its complaint that Trans-World is petitioners agent, so that the service was made on the latter. Such general allegation is insufficient to show the agency relationship between petitioner and Trans-World. However, although there is no requirement to first substantiate the allegation of agency yet it is necessary that there must be specific allegations in the complaint that establishes the connection between the principal foreign corporation and its alleged agent with respect to the transaction in question.
The filing of an answer per se should not be automatically treated as voluntary appearance by the defendant for purposes of summons. It should be noted that when the appearance of defendant is precisely to object to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, it cannot be considered as appearance in court.
