G.R. No.
81123 February 28, 1989
CRISOSTOMO REBOLLIDO, FERNANDO VALENCIA and EDWIN REBOLLIDO vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PEPSICO, INC.
FACTS:
The petitioners filed a case for damages against Pepsi Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines, Inc. and Alberto Alva.
The case arose out of a vehicular accident involving a Mazda Minibus used as a schoolbus owned and driven by petitioners Crisostomo
Rebollido and Fernando Valencia, respectively and a truck trailer with Plate Number NRH-522 owned at that time by Pepsi Cola and driven
by Alberto Alva. (p. 37, Rollo)
The sheriff of the lower court served the summons addressed to the defendants. It was received by one Nanette Sison who represented
herself to be the authorized person receiving court processes as she was the secretary of the legal department of Pepsi Cola.
Pepsi Cola failed to file an answer and was later declared in default. The lower court heard the case ex-parte and adjudged the defendants
jointly and severally liable for damages.
When the default judgment became final and executory, the petitioners filed a motion for execution, a copy of which was received no longer
by the defendant Pepsi Cola but by private respondent PEPSICO, Inc. At that time, the private respondent was already occupying the place of
business of Pepsi Cola.. Private respondent, a foreign corporation held offices here for the purpose, among others, of settling Pepsi Cola's
debts, liabilities and obligations which it assumed in a written undertaking, preparatory to the expected dissolution of Pepsi Cola.
Realizing that the judgment of the lower court would eventually be executed against it, respondent PEPSICO, Inc., opposed the motion for
execution and moved to vacate the judgment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The private respondent questioned the validity of the
service of summons to a mere clerk. It invoked Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court on the manner of service upon a private domestic
corporation and Section 14 of the same rule on service upon a private foreign corporation.
The lower court denied the motion of the private respondent.
Upon motion, the Court of Appeals granted the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction ruling that there was no valid service of
summons.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was valid service of summons through Nanette Sison, allegedly the secretary of the legal department of Pepsi Cola.
RULING:
At the time of the issuance and receipt of the summons, Pepsi Cola was already dissolved. The Court is of the opinion that service is allowed
in such a situation. In the American case of Crawford v. Refiners Cooperative Association, Incorporation it was held that a "defendant
corporation is subject to suit and service of process even though dissolved."
The Rules of Court on service of summons upon a private domestic corporation is applicable to a corporation which is no longer a going
concern.
Section 13, Rule 14 mandates:
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.
The case of Castle's Administrator v. Acrogen Coal Co. (supra), is illustrative of the manner by which service can nevertheless be made despite
the death of the entity:
[W]hen an action that might have been instituted against a foreign or domestic corporation while it was a going concern is
instituted after its dissolution, process in the action may be served upon the same person upon whom the process could
be served before the dissolution.
This Court has ruled that service on a mere employee or clerk of a corporation is not sufficient. The persons who should receive the
summons should be those named in the statute; otherwise, those who have charge or control of the operations of the company or who may
be relied upon to deliver the papers served upon them.
The fact that the summons was received through Miss Sison is not disputed by the parties. For which corporation was she actions. After the
dissolution and during the pendency of the case, private respondent PEPSICO held office at the same address of Pepsi Cola where Miss Sison
was working.
Whomsoever Miss Sison was acting for in receiving the summons there is no question that the notice of the action was promptly delivered
either to Pepsi Cola or PEPSICO with whom she is admittedly connected. We rule that there was substantial compliance with Section 13, Rule
14 because the purpose of notice was satisfied..
In view of the above, the valid service of summons upon Pepsi Cola operated as a sufficient service of summons upon the private respondent.
