Where service of summons upon the defendant principal is coursed thru its co-defendant agent, and the latter happens to be a domestic corporation, the rules on service of summons upon a domestic private juridical entity must be strictly complied with. Otherwise, the court cannot be said to have acquired jurisdiction over the person of both defendants. And insofar as the principal is concerned, such jurisdictional flaw cannot be cured by the agents subsequent voluntary appearance.

Facts:

Prudential filed a case for sum of money against Cheng Lie Navigation and Atiko Trans, Inc. Cheng Lie is a foreign shipping company doing business in the Philippines thru its duly authorized shipagent Atiko Trans Inc. which is a domestic corporation duly established and created under the laws of the Philippines. The summons upon Cheng Lie and Atiko was received by Atiko's cashier, Cristina Figueroa. Both corporations did not file an Answer. After the MeTC rendered its judgment by default, Atiko filed a Notice of Appeal and later a Memorandum of Appeal arguing that the MeTC did not acquire jurisdiction over its person as the summons was received by its cashier, Cristina Figueroa. Cheng Lie also filed its own Memorandum of Appeal maintaining that the MeTC never acquired jurisdiction over its person. The RTC affirmed the decision of the MeTC.


Issue:

Did the MeTC acquire jurisdiction over Cheng Lie and Atiko?


Held:

The MeTC acquired jurisdiction over Atiko but not over Cheng Lie.

Jurisdiction over Atiko

True, when the defendant is a domestic corporation, service of summons may be made only upon the persons enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. However, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant can be acquired not only by proper service of summons but also by defendants voluntary appearance without expressly objecting to the courts jurisdiction. 

When Atiko filed its Notice of Appeal, Memorandum of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration of the April 8, 2003 Decision of the RTC, and Petition for Review, it never questioned the jurisdiction of the MeTC over its person. The filing of these pleadings seeking affirmative relief amounted to voluntary appearance and, hence, rendered the alleged lack of jurisdiction moot. In Palma v. Galvez, this Court reiterated the oft-repeated rule that the filing of motions seeking affirmative relief, such as, to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, are considered voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.

Moreover, petitioners contention is a mere afterthought. It was only in their Memorandum filed with this Court where they claimed, for the first time, that Atiko was not properly served with summons. In La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals, it was held that the issue of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant must be seasonably raised. Failing to do so, a party who invoked the jurisdiction of a court to secure an affirmative relief cannot be allowed to disavow such jurisdiction after unsuccessfully trying to obtain such relief.

Jurisdiction over Cheng Lie

Before it was amended by A.M. No. 11-3-6-SC, Section 12 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court reads:

SEC. 12. Service upon foreign private juridical entity. When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.

No summons was served upon Cheng Lie in any manner prescribed above. It should be recalled that Atiko was not properly served with summons as the person who received it on behalf of Atiko, cashier Cristina Figueroa, is not one of the corporate officers enumerated in Section 11 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. The MeTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of Atiko not thru valid service of summons but by the latters voluntary appearance. Thus, there being no proper service of summons upon Atiko to speak of, it follows that the MeTC never acquired jurisdiction over the person of Cheng Lie. To rule otherwise would create an absurd situation where service of summons is valid upon the purported principal but not on the latter's co-defendant cum putative agent despite the fact that service was coursed thru said agent. Indeed, in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of a defendant foreign private juridical entity under Section 12, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, there must be prior valid service of summons upon the agent of such defendant. (Atiko Trans, Inc. and Cheng Lie Navigation Co., Ltd vs. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc., G.R. No. 167545, August 17, 2011)