196 G & G Trading Vs Court of Appeals

G & G v.
Court of Appeals
Gancayco, J. | 29 February 1988
Topic 1: Powers of Corporate Officers; General Managers
Nature: Petition for Review on Certiorari
PARTIES:
Petitioner: G &G Trading Corporation
Respondents: Court of Appeals, 5th Division; Hon. Salvador J. Baylen, Presiding Judge of
Branch CIII, Regional Trial Court; NCJR; Lancaster Commercial & Trading Corporation
DISPUTED MATTER: G&G is disputing the trial court’s jurisdiction over it arguing that
jurisdiction over said corporation has not been validly acquired.
SYNOPSIS:
G&G is disputing the trial court’s jurisdiction over it arguing that jurisdiction over said
corporation has not been validly acquired inasmuch as summons and copy of the complaint
were allegedly received by a mere clerical secretary of the corporation. The Supreme Court
rejected this contention citing as its basis the Sec. 13 of Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of
Court.
FACTS:
● On October 1, 1985, private respondent Lancaster Commercial and Trading Corporation
(“Lancaster”) filed an action for recovery of a sum of money with prayer for the issuance
of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment against the petitioner G & G Trading Corporation (“G
& G”).
● On November 18, 1985, respondent Judge Salvador J. Baylen of the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City granted the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment on the
properties of G & G.
● On December 12, 1985, G&G’s counsel filed a special appearance and Urgent Motion to
Lift Order of Attachment on the ground that jurisdiction over the corporation hadn’t been
validly acquired inasmuch as summons and copy of the complaint were allegedly
received by a mere clerical secretary of G & G.
● Lancaster filed an Opposition wherein it stated among others that, in the event the
theory of defendant prevails, the defect can be remedied with the issuance of an Alias
Writ of Summons.
● The trial court denied G & G’s motion to lift the order of attachment. With the subsequent
denial of its motion for reconsideration, G & G filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals
to declare as null and void the trial court ruling with a prayer for the issuance of a
restraining order to enjoin further proceedings of the case in the lower court.
● The appellate court dismissed G & G’s petition for lack of merit.
ISSUES/HELD:
● W/N the service of summons on the corporation’s clerical secretary is sufficient
for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over G & & – YES, the law applicable here is
Sec. 13 of Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides that “if the defendant
is a corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines or a partnership duly
registered, service may be made on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent,
or any of its directors.”
In Delta Motor Sales v. Mancosing, the Court laid down the reason for the rule on
service of summons to a defendant corporation: “the purpose of the rule is to render it
reasonably certain that the corporation will receive prompt and proper notice in an action
against it or to insure that the summons be served on a representative so integrated with
the corporation that such person will know what to do with the legal papers served on
him or, in other words, to bring home to the corporation notice of the ?ling of the action."
In the case at bar, the lower court concluded that there was valid service of summons on
petitioner corporation as Melinda C. Molo, who received the summons, was the
secretary of the corporation. The basis of such finding was the lower court's belief that
MS. Molo identified herself as the secretary of the corporation when she wrote after her
signature the word "secretary" in the return made by the process server. The lower court
went further when it said that at the very least, she can be considered as an 'agent' of
the corporation. The Court of Appeals, in affirming the decision of the lower court, cited
the case of Villa-Rey Transit vs. Far East Motor Corporation, which held that the
Assistant General Manager for Operations of VillaRey Transit is embraced within the
terms "manager" or "agent" as used in Section 13, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of
Court.
Here, the Court found that there was substantial compliance with the rule on service of
summons.
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the petition is denied and petitioner corporation is hereby directed to file an
answer to the complaint within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy of this decision and the
trial court is directed to terminate the proceedings in the case with deliberate dispatch. This
decision is immediately executory and no motion for extension of time to file a motion for
reconsideration shall be entertained. No costs.
OPINIONS:
N/A
____________________________________________________________________________
HELPFUL INFORMATION
DOCTRINE:
If the defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines, service of
summons may be made on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent or any of its
directors. The purpose of this rule is to assure service of summons on the corporation had
been thereby attained. The need for speedy justice must prevail over a technicality.
DEFINITION OF TERMS:
N/A
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
N/A
ANNEX: N/A

196 G & G Trading Vs Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

196 G & G Trading Vs Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

196 G & G Trading Vs Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G & G v.

You might also like