Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

    E.B. Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd. I. Benito, 312 SCRA 65, 1999 - Facts

    Uploaded by

    Juni Vega
    The case discusses whether service of summons on an agent of a corporation is valid to confer jurisdiction to the court. The court held that under the new rules, service of summons on an agent of a corporation is no longer authorized. Only service to a general manager, corporate secretary, or treasurer complies with the rule. As the summons in this case was served to a branch manager, who is not one of the authorized persons under the rule, service was improper and the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the corporation. Strict compliance with service of summons on the specified officers under the rule is required.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    E.B. Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd. I. Benito, 312 SCRA 65, 1999 - Facts

    Uploaded by

    Juni Vega
    23 views1 page
    The case discusses whether service of summons on an agent of a corporation is valid to confer jurisdiction to the court. The court held that under the new rules, service of summons on an agent of a corporation is no longer authorized. Only service to a general manager, corporate secretary, or treasurer complies with the rule. As the summons in this case was served to a branch manager, who is not one of the authorized persons under the rule, service was improper and the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the corporation. Strict compliance with service of summons on the specified officers under the rule is required.

    Original Description:

    case

    Original Title

    eb

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case discusses whether service of summons on an agent of a corporation is valid to confer jurisdiction to the court. The court held that under the new rules, service of summons on an agent of a corporation is no longer authorized. Only service to a general manager, corporate secretary, or treasurer complies with the rule. As the summons in this case was served to a branch manager, who is not one of the authorized persons under the rule, service was improper and the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the corporation. Strict compliance with service of summons on the specified officers under the rule is required.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    23 views1 page

    E.B. Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd. I. Benito, 312 SCRA 65, 1999 - Facts

    Uploaded by

    Juni Vega
    The case discusses whether service of summons on an agent of a corporation is valid to confer jurisdiction to the court. The court held that under the new rules, service of summons on an agent of a corporation is no longer authorized. Only service to a general manager, corporate secretary, or treasurer complies with the rule. As the summons in this case was served to a branch manager, who is not one of the authorized persons under the rule, service was improper and the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the corporation. Strict compliance with service of summons on the specified officers under the rule is required.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    E.B. Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd. i.

    Benito, 312 SCRA 65 ,1999|

    FACTS:
    E.B. Villarosa & Partners is a limited partnership with principal office
    address at 102 Juan Luna St., Davao City and with branch offices at Parañaque and
    Cagayan de Oro City (CDO). Villarosa and Imperial Development (ID) executed
    an Agreement wherein Villarosa agreed to develop certain parcels of land in CDO
    belonging to ID into a housing subdivision. ID, filed a Complaint for Breach of
    Contract and Damages against Villarosa before the RTC allegedly for failure of the
    latter to comply with its contractual obligation.
    Summons, together with the complaint, were served upon Villarosa, through its
    Branch Manager Wendell Sabulbero at the address at CDO but the Sheriff’s Return
    of Service stated that the summons was duly served "E.B. Villarosa & Partner thru
    its Branch Manager at their new office Villa Gonzalo, CDO, and evidenced by the
    signature on the face of the original copy of the summons." Villarosa prayed for
    the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of improper service of summons and
    for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Villarosa contends that the
    RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over its person since the summons was
    improperly served upon its employee in its branch office at CDO who is not one of
    those persons named in Sec. 11, Rule 14 upon whom service of summons may be
    made. ID filed a Motion to Declare Villarosa in Default alleging that Villarosa has
    failed to file an Answer despite its receipt allegedly on May 5, 1998 of the
    summons and the complaint, as shown in the Sheriff's Return.

    Issue: Won an agent of a corporation can receive summons in behalf of their


    corporation?

    HELD: The court agrees with the contention of Villarosa. Earlier cases have
    uphold service of summons upon a construction project manager; a corporation's
    assistant manager; ordinary clerk of a corporation; private secretary of corporate
    executives; retained counsel; officials who had charge or control of the operations
    of the corporation, like the assistant general manager; or the corporation's Chief
    Finance and Administrative Office. In these cases, these persons were considered
    as "agent" within the contemplation of the old rule.”
    “Notably, under the new Rules, service of summons upon an AGENT of the
    corporation is NO LONGER authorized.”
    “The designation of persons or officers who are authorized to accept summons for
    a domestic corporation or partnership is now limited and more clearly specified in
    Section11, Rule 14. The rule now states "general manager" instead of only
    "manager";"corporate secretary" instead of "secretary"; and "treasurer" instead of
    "cashier." The phrase “agent, or any of its directors" is conspicuously deleted in
    the new rule.”
    “A strict compliance with the mode of service is necessary to confer jurisdiction of
    the court over a corporation. The officer upon whom service is made must be one
    who is named in the statute; otherwise the service is insufficient. . . The liberal
    construction rule cannot be invoked and utilized as a substitute for the plain legal
    requirements as to the manner in which summons should be served on a domestic
    corporation. .”

    You might also like