Cases Rev Med

Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd v Dakila Trading Corporation
GR No. 172242; Aug 14, 2007;

FACTS
 Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd (Petitioner) is a corporation from Singapore NOT considered
as a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines.
 Dakila Trading Corporation (Respondent) is a Philippine corporation engaged in the business
of selling and leasing out laboratory instrumentation, process control instrumentation and trading
of laboratory chemicals and supplies.
 Respondent entered into a Distribution Agreement with Perkin-Elmer Instruments Asia Pte Ltd
(PEIA), a Singapore corporation manufacturing, producing, selling or distributing
laboratory/analytical instruments with the ff. terms: o PEIA appointed Respondent as sole
distributor in the PH, with right to purchase and sell PEIA products and subject to a commission
for sales. o Respondent was to order products of PEIA either from PEIA itself or from Perkin-
Elmer Instruments (Philippines) Corporation (PEIP), an affiliate of PEIP involved in wholesale
of scientific, biotechnical, and analytical instruments and appliances. PEIA allegedly owned 99%
shares of PEIP
 PEIA unilaterally terminated the Distribution Agreement. Respondent filed before RTC of
Mandaluyong a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money and Damages with Prayer for
Issuance of Writ of Attachment against PEIA and PEIP
 Respondent filed Ex Parte Motions for Issuance of Summons and for Leave of Court to
Deputize Respondent’s General Manager Richard Tee to serve summons outside of the PH. This
was granted by RTC. Alias Summons was issued to PEIA. Summons was served on Perkin
Elmer Asia, sole proprietorship owned by Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd (Petitioner), allegedly
separate and distinct from PEIA
 PEIP moved to dismiss on ground that complaint states no cause of action
 Perkin Elmer Asia wrote RTC and respondent about wrongful service of summons upon them.
 Respondent filed Ex Parte Motion to Admit Amended Complaint claiming PEIA had become a
sole proprietorship owned by Petitioner and changed its name to Perkin Elmer Asia. Amended
Complaint was to change the name of PEIA to that of Petitioner. RTC admitted amended
complaint.
 Respondent filed Motion for Issuance of Summons and for Leave of Court to Deputize
Respondent’s General Manager Richard Tee to Serve Summons outside of the PH. General
Manager went to SG and served summons on Petitioner
 RTC denied Motion to Dismiss of PEIP
 Petitioner filed with RTC Special Appearance and Motion to Dismiss on the ff. grounds: 1.
RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner 2. Respondent failed to state
cause of action against petitioner because it is not the real party in interest 3. Assuming arguendo
that case was correctly filed, Distribution Agreement which was the basis of claim grants PEIA
right to terminate at any time 4. Venue improperly laid
 RTC denied Motion to Dismiss of Petitioner o Respondent alleges Petitioner owns shares of
stocks in PEIP and reveals that there is also an allegation of personal property in the PH. Shares
of stock represent personal property. o Even though Amended Complaint is primarily for
damages, it relates to property of Petitioner to which it claims interest or an actual or contingent
lien making it fall under Extraterritorial service under Rule 14.15. Service of Summons was
VALID.
 MTD was for failure to state Cause of Action. MTD hypothetically admits the truth of the facts
alleged in the complaint.
When MTD is under this ground, it can only be determined from the facts alleged in the
complaint and cannot consider matters aliunde. Issue must be passed upon on basis of allegations
otherwise, procedural error or denial of due process would result. All essential elements of
Cause of Action are present o Stipulation as to venue of prospective action does not preclude the
filing of the suit in the residence of Respondent under Rule 4.2 o Full blown trial is necessary
Petitioner filed Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with TRO and or Preliminary Injunction
with CA. CA affirmed RTC
1. W/N service of summons was proper and RTC acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
Petitioner
Held : NO, there was no valid summons served upon petitioner and RTC erroneously exercised
jurisdiction over its person Petitioner:
Case involves action for collection of sum of money and damages arising from the alleged
breach of the Distribution Agreement (in personam)
Personal service is proper and not extraterritorial service of summons which is only proper in in
rem and quasi in rem cases
 Allegations in the Amended Complain that petitioner has personal properties in the PH does
not make this case one that relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines
to warrant extraterritorial service. o For this to be considered as one that relates to, or the subject
of which is property within the Philippines, the main subject matter of the action must be
property within the PH itself.
 Prayer in the Amended Complaint for issuance of writ of attachment over personal property of
PEIP (99% owned by Petitioner as the supposed successor of PEIA) did not convert it to quasi in
rem.
 Service of Summons is NOT valid, RTC has no jurisdiction SC:
 For the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs
upon the filing of the complaint. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the defendants either through
service of summons as required by law or through voluntary appearance and submission to
authority of the courts. Proper service of summons depends on the nature of the civil case:
whether in personam, in rem or quasi in rem
 When the defendant or respondent does not reside and is not found in the Philippines
and the action involves in personam, Philippine courts cannot try the case against them because
of impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court
 Rule 14.15 requires not mere allegation of existence of personal property belonging to
non-resident defendant but that the personal property located in the PH must have been actually
attached. Respondent’s allegation that petitioner had personal property in the PH in the form of
shares of stock in PEIP does not convert the case from in personam to in rem. o Venturanza v
CA: when attachment was void from the beginning, the action in personam was never converted
to in rem o Respondent’s prayer in its amended complaint for issuance of writ of attachment over
shares of stock in PEIP was DENIED, shares of stock in PEIP had NOT been atttached
 Extraterritorial service of summons is not valid because the case involves collection of
sum of money and damages, action in personam which is neither related nor connected to any
property of petitioner to which it claims lien or interest.
Petitioner did not voluntarily appear or submit to the court’s authority as it was consistent in all
its pleadings assailing service of summons and jurisdiction of the RTC, thus it is not in estoppel
when it filed an Answer with compulsory counterclaim. It had no other choice but to file an
answer otherwise RTC would have declared petitioner to waive its right to file responsive
pleadings. Compulsory counterclaim cannot be considered as voluntary appearance. Petitioner
only sought damages and atty’s fees as a consequence of the unfounded suit filed by respondent.
Compulsory counterclaim is consistent with position on RTC’s lack of jurisdiction While RTC
has no jurisdiction over respondent’s complaint, it has jurisdiction over the counterclaim as it can
be treated as a separate action. Although other grounds for Motion to Dismiss was raised by
petitioner, it is not voluntary appearance. o De Midgely held that MTD with grounds other than
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant with prayer for “other reliefs” is voluntary
appearance o De Midgely is superseded by La Naval Drug Corporation v CA: estoppel by
jurisdiction must be unequivocal and intentional. o Allegation of grounds other than lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant with prayer for “other reliefs” is NOT considered as
unequivocal and intentional estoppel. Rule 14.20 Voluntary appearance - last sentence
2. W/N cause of action exists against Petitioner in Respondent’s Amended Complaint - YES Petitioner: 
CA should have granted their petition for certiorari on ground of GAD of RTC in refusing to dismiss
Amended Complaint for failure to state cause of action  Never used name of PEIA as its corporate name
and did not change its name from that of PEIA  PEIA is entirely different corporate entity  Assuming
arguendo that petitioner is real party in interest or that they are one and the same entity, still failed to state
cause of action because the Distribution Agreement expressly grants PEIA right to terminate contract at
any time SC:  RTC was correct: When a motion to dismiss is grounded on failure to state a cause of
action, ruling there should be based solely on the facts alleged in the complaint, assuming them to be true
otherwise procedural error and denial of plaintiff’s right to due process would result.  There are
exceptions to the rule but none of the exceptions apply in this case.  Defense of petitioner that it was not
a real party in interest is evidentiary and must be proven in trial
3. W/N venue is proper for Respondent’s civil case against petitioner - YES Petitioner:  Both
Respondent and PEIA mutually agreed in the Distribution Agreement to the exclusive jurisdiction of
courts of Singapore or Philippines as elected by PEIA. Absent any waiver from PEIA, Complaint filed by
Respondent before RTC in the Philippines should be dismissed for improper venue SC:  Despite venue
stipulation in the Distribution Agreement, RTC of the PH cannot be considered as improper venue as the
stipulation of venue was alternative  Civil Case is dismissible for RTC never acquired jurisdiction over
the person of the petitioner

Cases Rev Med

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cases Rev Med

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

Cases Rev Med

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd v Dakila Trading Corporation

GR No. 172242; Aug 14, 2007;

You might also like