To whom summons shall be served in case of a foreign private juridical entity?

A. Foreign private juridical entity which has transacted business in the Philippines

When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be made on:
  1. its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, 
  2. if there be no such agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect, or 
  3. on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines. (New Rules on Service of Summons on Foreign Juridical Entities, AM No. 11-3-6-SC, March 5, 2011 amending Section 12, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court) 

 B. Foreign private juridical entity which is not registered in the Philippines or has no resident agent

If the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the Philippines or has no resident agent, service may, with leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines through any of the following means:
  1. By personal service coursed through the appropriate court in the foreign country with the assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs;
  2. By publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in the country where the defendant may be found and by serving a copy of the summons and the court order by-registered mail at the last known address of the defendant;
  3. By facsimile or any recognized electronic means that could generate proof of service; or
  4. By such other means as the court may in its discretion direct. (New Rules on Service of Summons on Foreign Juridical Entities, AM No. 11-3-6-SC, March 5, 2011 amending Section 12, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court) 

Case Doctrines:

● When a foreign corporation has designated a person to receive service of summons pursuant to the Corporation Code, that designation is exclusive and service of summons on any other person is inefficacious. (H.B. Zachry Company International vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106989, May 10, 1994)

 ● 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. (Atiko Trans, Inc. and Cheng Lie Navigation Co., Ltd vs. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc., G.R. No. 167545, August 17, 2011)