Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 367 views

    G.R. No. 172242

    Uploaded by

    Eap Bustillo
    This case involves a dispute between Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd., a Singapore corporation, and Dakila Trading Corporation, a Philippine corporation, regarding a distribution agreement. The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that (1) there was no proper service of summons on the Singapore corporation because the case was an in personam action requiring territorial service, and (2) the distribution agreement stipulated that any disputes would be resolved in either Singapore or the Philippines, making the Philippines a proper venue. The Court reversed the lower court decisions and dismissed the complaint against the Singapore corporation.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. 172242

    Uploaded by

    Eap Bustillo
    367 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute between Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd., a Singapore corporation, and Dakila Trading Corporation, a Philippine corporation, regarding a distribution agreement. The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that (1) there was no proper service of summons on the Singapore corporation because the case was an in personam action requiring territorial service, and (2) the distribution agreement stipulated that any disputes would be resolved in either Singapore or the Philippines, making the Philippines a proper venue. The Court reversed the lower court decisions and dismissed the complaint against the Singapore corporation.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute between Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd., a Singapore corporation, and Dakila Trading Corporation, a Philippine corporation, regarding a distribution agreement. The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that (1) there was no proper service of summons on the Singapore corporation because the case was an in personam action requiring territorial service, and (2) the distribution agreement stipulated that any disputes would be resolved in either Singapore or the Philippines, making the Philippines a proper venue. The Court reversed the lower court decisions and dismissed the complaint against the Singapore corporation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    367 views2 pages

    G.R. No. 172242

    Uploaded by

    Eap Bustillo
    This case involves a dispute between Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd., a Singapore corporation, and Dakila Trading Corporation, a Philippine corporation, regarding a distribution agreement. The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that (1) there was no proper service of summons on the Singapore corporation because the case was an in personam action requiring territorial service, and (2) the distribution agreement stipulated that any disputes would be resolved in either Singapore or the Philippines, making the Philippines a proper venue. The Court reversed the lower court decisions and dismissed the complaint against the Singapore corporation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PERKIN ELMER SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

    , Versus
    DAKILA TRADING CORPORATION. G.R. No. 172242
    August 14, 2007
    PONENTE:CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

    FACTS:

    Petitioner is a corporation under Singapore. Respondent is a


    corporation organized and existing under Philippine laws, for
    selling & leasing laboratory instruments. Respondent entered into
    an agreement with the PerkinElmer Instruments Asia PTE LTD
    appointed respondent as sole distributor of its product under a
    Distribution Agreement. However the PEIA unilaterally terminated
    the distribution agreement. The respondent filed a complaint for
    collection of sum of money and damages. The Regional Trial Court
    denied the respondents prayer. Petitioner appealed, but the Court
    Of Appeals affirms the Regional Trial Court’s decision.

    ISSUES:

    1. Whether or not there is a proper service of summons and


    acquisition of jurisdiction.

    2. Whether or not it is a proper venue for respondents civil case.

    HELD:

    1. The proper service of summons differs depending on the


    nature of the civil case instituted by the plaintiff or petitioner:
    whether it is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. When the case
    instituted is an action in rem or quasi in rem, Philippine courts
    already have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because, in
    actions in rem and quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the
    defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court,
    provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. Thus, in
    such instance, extraterritorial service of summons can be made
    upon the defendant.

    The said extraterritorial service of summons is not for the


    purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but for complying with
    the requirements of fair play or due process, so that the defendant
    will be informed of the pendency of the action against him and the
    possibility that property in the Philippines belonging to him or in
    which he has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor
    of the plaintiff, and he can thereby take steps to protect his interest
    if he is so minded. There was no proper service of summons,
    because the territorial service of summons was not proper for
    action in personam and the attachment of the property does not
    constitutes or even convert it into quasi in rem.

    2. It is proper venue for civil case base on Distribution


    Agreement it was stipulated that if dispute arises it will be resolved
    either in Singapore or in the Philippines.

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is


    hereby GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 4
    April 2006, in CA-G.R. SP No. 78981, affirming the Orders, dated 4
    November 2002 and 20 June 2003, of the Regional Trial Court of
    Mandaluyong City, Branch 212, in Civil Case No. MC99-605, is
    hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Respondents Amended
    Complaint in Civil Case No. MC99-605 as against the petitioner is
    hereby ordered DISMISSED, and all the proceedings against
    petitioner in the court a quo by virtue thereof are hereby
    DECLARED NULL AND VOID. The Regional Trial Court of
    Mandaluyong City, Branch 212, is DIRECTED to proceed without
    further delay with the resolution of respondents Complaint in Civil
    Case No. MC99-605 as to defendant PEIP, as well as petitioners
    counterclaim. No costs.

    You might also like