SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761 10/08/2019, 10)28 AM

G.R. No. 181517. July 6, 2015.*

GREEN STAR EXPRESS, INC. and FRUTO SAYSON, JR.,

petitioners, vs. NISSIN-UNIVERSAL ROBINA
CORPORATION, respondent.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Service of Summons;

Jurisdiction; It is a well-established rule that 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 the defendant.·It is a well-
established rule that 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 the defendant. NURC maintains that the RTC
did not acquire jurisdiction over it as the summons was received by
its cost accountant, Francis Tinio. It argues that under Section 11,
Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Court, which provides the rule on
service of summons upon a juridical entity, in cases where the
defendant is a domestic corporation like NURC, summons may be
served only through its officers.
Same; Same; Same; Under the new Rules, service of summons
upon an agent of the corporation is no longer authorized. The rule
now likewise states „general manager‰ instead of „manager‰;
„corporate secretary‰ instead of merely „secretary‰; and „treasurer‰
instead of „cashier.‰·In the past, the Court upheld service of
summons upon a construction project manager, a corporationÊs
assistant manager, ordinary clerk of a corporation, private secretary
of corporate executives, retained counsel, and officials who had
control over the operations of the corporation like the assistant
general manager or the corporationÊs Chief Finance and
Administrative Officer. The Court then considered said persons as
„agent‰ within the contemplation of the old rule. Notably, under the
new Rules, service of summons upon an agent of the corporation is

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c795706defd2b0992003600fb002c009e/p/ASQ112/?username=Guest Page 1 of 9
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761 10/08/2019, 10)28 AM

no longer authorized. The rule now likewise states „general

manager‰ instead of „manager‰; „corporate secretary‰ instead of
merely „secretary‰; and „treasurer‰ instead of „cashier.‰ It has now
become restricted, limited, and exclusive only

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

529

VOL. 761, JULY 6, 2015 529

Green Star Express, Inc. vs. Nissin-Universal Robina
Corporaton

to the persons enumerated in the aforementioned provision,

following the rule in statutory construction that the express
mention of one person excludes all others, or expressio unios est
exclusio alterius. Service must, therefore, be made only on the
persons expressly listed in the rules. If the revision committee
intended to liberalize the rule on service of summons, it could have
easily done so by clear and concise language.
Same; Same; Same; The service of summons is a vital and
indispensable ingredient of due process.·At this juncture, it is
worth emphasizing that notice to enable the other party to be heard
and to present evidence is not a mere technicality or a trivial matter
in any administrative or judicial proceedings. The service of
summons is a vital and indispensable ingredient of due process.
Corporations would be easily deprived of their right to present their
defense in a multimillion peso suit, if the Court would disregard the
mandate of the Rules on the service of summons.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Almoro Law Office for petitioners.
Bolos & Reyes-Beltran Law Offices for respondent.

PERALTA,** J.:

For resolution is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c795706defd2b0992003600fb002c009e/p/ASQ112/?username=Guest Page 2 of 9
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761 10/08/2019, 10)28 AM

the Rules of Court which petitioners Green Star Express,

Inc. and Fruto Sayson, Jr. brought before the Court,
assailing the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated
September 17,

_______________

* * Designated Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2071 dated

June 23, 2015.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam, with Associate Justices
Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Sesinando E.
Villon, concurring; Rollo, pp. 21-29.

530

530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Green Star Express, Inc. vs. Nissin-Universal Robina
Corporaton

2007 and its Resolution2 dated January 22, 2008 in C.A.-

G.R. S.P. No. 86824. The CA nullified the Resolution dated
May 5, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San
Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31, in Civil Case No. SPL-0969, and
dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
The following are the antecedents of the case:
On February 25, 2003, a Mitsubishi L-300 van which
Universal Robina Corporation (URC) owned figured in a
vehicular accident with petitioner Green Star Express,
Inc.Ês (Green Star) passenger bus, resulting in the death of
the vanÊs driver. Thus, the bus driver, petitioner Fruto
Sayson, Jr., was charged with the crime of reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide.
Thereafter, Green Star sent a demand letter to
respondent Nissin-Universal Robina Corporation (NURC)
for the repair of its passenger bus amounting to
P567,070.68. NURC denied any liability therefor and
argued that the criminal case shall determine the ultimate
liabilities of the parties. Thereafter, the criminal case was
dismissed without prejudice, due to insufficiency of
evidence.
Sayson and Green Star then filed a complaint for
damages against NURC before the RTC of San Pedro,

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c795706defd2b0992003600fb002c009e/p/ASQ112/?username=Guest Page 3 of 9
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761 10/08/2019, 10)28 AM

Laguna. Francis Tinio, one of NURCÊs employees, was the

one who received the summons. On February 6, 2004,
NURC filed a Motion to Dismiss claiming lack of
jurisdiction due to improper service.
On May 5, 2004, the RTC issued a Resolution denying
NURCÊs motion to dismiss. It ruled that there was
substantial compliance because there was actual receipt of
the summons by NURC. The dispositive portion of said
Resolution thus reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, defendantÊs „Motion to

Dismiss‰ is hereby DENIED.3

_______________

2 Id., at pp. 30-31.

3 Id., at p. 23.

531

VOL. 761, JULY 6, 2015 531

Green Star Express, Inc. vs. Nissin-Universal Robina
Corporaton

Since its Motion for Reconsideration was denied, NURC

elevated the case to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari. On
September 17, 2007, the CA reversed the RTC ruling,
hence:

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Certiorari is

GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions, dated May 5, 2004 and dated
July 26, 2004, of the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna,
Branch 31, in Civil Case No. SPL-0969, are hereby NULLIFIED
and a new one rendered granting PetitionerÊs Motion to Dismiss,
dated February 3, 2004. Private RespondentsÊ Amended Complaint
for Damages filed against Petitioner Nissin-Universal Robina
Corporation is accordingly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.4

Aggrieved, Green Star and Sayson moved for

reconsideration, but the same was denied. Hence, this
petition.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c795706defd2b0992003600fb002c009e/p/ASQ112/?username=Guest Page 4 of 9
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761 10/08/2019, 10)28 AM

The lone issue is whether or not the summons was

properly served on NURC, vesting the trial court with
jurisdiction.
The petition is bereft of merit.
It is a well-established rule that 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 the
defendant.5
NURC maintains that the RTC did not acquire
jurisdiction over it as the summons was received by its cost
accountant, Francis Tinio. It argues that under Section 11,
Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Court, which provides the rule
on service of summons upon a juridical entity, in cases
where the defendant is a domestic corporation like NURC,
summons may be served only through its officers.6 Thus:

_______________

4 Id., at p. 29. (Emphasis in the original)

5 Atiko Trans, Inc. v. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc., 671
Phil. 388, 401; 655 SCRA 625, 634 (2011).
6 Cathay Metal Corporation v. Laguna West Multi-Purpose
Cooperative, Inc., G.R. No. 172204, July 2, 2014, 728 SCRA 482.

532

532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Green Star Express, Inc. vs. Nissin-Universal Robina
Corporaton

Section  11.  Service upon domestic private juridical entity.·

When the defendant is a corporation, partnership or association
organized under the laws of the Philippines with a juridical
personality, service may be made on the president, managing
partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or
in-house counsel.7

This provision replaced the former Section 13, Rule 14 of

the 1964 Rules of Court which read:

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c795706defd2b0992003600fb002c009e/p/ASQ112/?username=Guest Page 5 of 9
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761 10/08/2019, 10)28 AM

Section  13. Service upon private domestic corporation or

partnership.·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.8

In the past, the Court upheld service of summons upon a

construction project manager, a corporationÊs assistant
manager, ordinary clerk of a corporation, private secretary
of corporate executives, retained counsel, and officials who
had control over the operations of the corporation like the
assistant general manager or the corporationÊs Chief
Finance and Administrative Officer. The Court then
considered said persons as „agent‰ within the
contemplation of the old rule. Notably, under the new
Rules, service of summons upon an agent of the corporation
is no longer authorized.9 The rule now likewise states
„general manager‰ instead of „manager‰; „corporate
secretary‰ instead of merely „secretary‰; and „treasurer‰
instead of „cashier.‰10 It has now become restricted,
limited, and exclusive only to the persons enumerated in
the afore-

_______________

7 Emphasis ours.
8 Emphasis ours.
9 E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. v. Benito, 370 Phil. 921, 928; 312
SCRA 65, 72 (1999).
10 Mason v. Court of Appeals, 459 Phil. 689, 697; 413 SCRA 303, 310
(2003).

533

VOL. 761, JULY 6, 2015 533

Green Star Express, Inc. vs. Nissin-Universal Robina
Corporaton

mentioned provision, following the rule in statutory

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c795706defd2b0992003600fb002c009e/p/ASQ112/?username=Guest Page 6 of 9
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761 10/08/2019, 10)28 AM

construction that the express mention of one person

excludes all others, or expressio unios est exclusio alterius.
Service must, therefore, be made only on the persons
expressly listed in the rules.11 If the revision committee
intended to liberalize the rule on service of summons, it
could have easily done so by clear and concise language.12
Here, Tinio, a member of NURCÊs accounting staff,
received the summons on January 22, 2004. Green Star
claims that it was received upon instruction of Junadette
Avedillo, the general manager of the corporation. Such fact,
however, does not appear in the Sheriff Ês Return.13 The
Return did not even state whether Avedillo was present at
the time the summons was received by Tinio, the supposed
assistant manager. Green Star further avers that the
sheriff tendered the summons, but Avedillo simply refused
to sign and receive the same. She then allegedly instructed
Tinio to just receive it in her behalf. However, Green Star
never presented said sheriff as witness during the hearing
of NURCÊs motion to dismiss to attest to said claim. And
while the sheriff executed an affidavit which appears to
support such allegation, the same was likewise not
presented as evidence. It was only when the case was
already before the CA that said affidavit first surfaced.
Since the service of summons was made on a cost
accountant, which is not one of the designated persons
under Section 11 of Rule 14, the trial court did not validly
acquire jurisdiction over NURC,14 although the corporation
may have actually received the summons.15 To rule
otherwise will be an outright circumven-

_______________

11 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Quilala, 579 Phil. 700, 705; 557 SCRA 433,
436 (2008).
12 Supra note 9 at p. 927; p. 71.
13 Rollo, p. 44.
14 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Quilala, supra at p. 704; p. 437.
15 Supra note 10 at pp. 697, 699; p. 308.

534

534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c795706defd2b0992003600fb002c009e/p/ASQ112/?username=Guest Page 7 of 9
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761 10/08/2019, 10)28 AM

Green Star Express, Inc. vs. Nissin-Universal Robina

Corporaton

tion of the rules, aggravating further the delay in the

administration of justice.16
At this juncture, it is worth emphasizing that notice to
enable the other party to be heard and to present evidence
is not a mere technicality or a trivial matter in any
administrative or judicial proceedings. The service of
summons is a vital and indispensable ingredient of due
process. Corporations would be easily deprived of their
right to present their defense in a multimillion peso suit, if
the Court would disregard the mandate of the Rules on the
service of summons.17
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of
AppealsÊ Decision dated September 17, 2007 and Resolution
dated January 22, 2008 in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 86824 are
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Leonardo-De Castro,*** Perez,**** Perlas-Bernabe*****

and Leonen,****** JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

_______________

16 Supra note 9 at p. 931; p. 75.

17 Supra note 10 at p. 699; pp. 311-312.
* ** Designated acting member, in lieu of Associate Justice Martin S.
Villarama, Jr., per Raffle dated September 24, 2014.
* *** Designated acting member, in lieu of Associate Justice Bien​-
venido L. Reyes, per Special Order No. 2084 dated June 29, 2015.
* **** Designated acting member, in lieu of Associate Justice Pres​-
bitero J. Velasco, Jr., per Special Order No. 2072 dated June 23, 2015.
* ***** Designated acting member, in lieu of Associate Justice Francis
H. Jardeleza, per Special Order No. 2095-A dated July 1, 2015.

535

VOL. 761, JULY 6, 2015 535

Green Star Express, Inc. vs. Nissin-Universal Robina

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c795706defd2b0992003600fb002c009e/p/ASQ112/?username=Guest Page 8 of 9
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761 10/08/2019, 10)28 AM

Corporaton

Notes.·Service of summons of a bankÊs Branch

Manager did not bind the corporation for the branch
manager is not included in the enumeration of the statute
of the persons upon whom service of summons can be
validly made in behalf of the corporation, but whatever
defect that attended the service of the original summons
was cured by the issuance and the proper service of new
summons. (Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Santiago, 519
SCRA 389 [2007])
Lack of jurisdiction being a valid ground for annulment
of judgments, circumstances that negate the courtÊs
acquisition of jurisdiction · including defective service of
summons · are causes for an action for annulment of
judgments. (De Pedro vs. Romasan Development
Corporation, 743 SCRA 52 [2014])
··o0o··

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c795706defd2b0992003600fb002c009e/p/ASQ112/?username=Guest Page 9 of 9