Scribd
Upload
145 views2 pages

188 - Facilities Management vs. Dela Osa

This case involved a petition filed by respondent Dela Osa seeking reinstatement and back wages from petitioner FMC. FMC claimed the court lacked jurisdiction since it was domiciled in Wake Island, California. However, FMC had appointed an agent in the Philippines as required by law. The Supreme Court held that by appointing an agent and doing business in the Philippines, FMC was subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine courts when served summons through its agent. The court found FMC was doing business in the Philippines and therefore the service of summons on its agent here provided proper jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

mimiyuki_
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
145 views2 pages

188 - Facilities Management vs. Dela Osa

This case involved a petition filed by respondent Dela Osa seeking reinstatement and back wages from petitioner FMC. FMC claimed the court lacked jurisdiction since it was domiciled in Wake Island, California. However, FMC had appointed an agent in the Philippines as required by law. The Supreme Court held that by appointing an agent and doing business in the Philippines, FMC was subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine courts when served summons through its agent. The court found FMC was doing business in the Philippines and therefore the service of summons on its agent here provided proper jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

mimiyuki_
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Facilities Management Corporation (FMC) vs.

Leonardo Dela Osa


G.R. No. L-38649, March 26, 1979
Makasiar, J.

Facts:
In a petition filed on July 1, 1967, respondent Dela Osa sought his reinstatement with
full back wages, as well as the recovery of his overtime compensation, swing shift and
graveyard shift differentials from FMC.

In reply thereto, herein petitioners filed on August 7, 1967 their letter-answer without
substantially denying the material allegations of the basic petition but interposed special
defenses: (i) that since FMC and J.S. Dreyer are domiciled in Wake Island, California,
USA, the same is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippine Government; and (ii)
that Jaime V. Catuira, though an employee of FMC presently stationed in Manila, is
without power and authority to represent the said corporation. Subsequently, petitioners
filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction
over the instant case. The said motion was denied by the SC.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner corporation has been doing business in the Philippines so that
the service of summons upon its agent in the Philippines vested the Court with
jurisdiction.

Held:
Yes. Petitioner corporation has been doing business in the Philippines and thus the
service of summons upon its agent in the Philippines vested the Court with jurisdiction.

Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides, in part, that “[i]f the defendant is a
foreign corporation, or a non-resident joint stock company or association, doing
business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in
accordance with law for that purpose xxx.”

Perusal of the facts of record shows that petitioner, in compliance with Act No. 2486, as
implemented by Department of Labor Order No. IV dated May 20, 1968, had to appoint
J.V. Catuira as an agent of FMC with authority to execute employment contracts and
receive, in behalf of that corporation, legal services from and be bound by processes of
the Philippine Courts of Justive, for as long as he remains an employee of FMS. In fact,
when the summons for the petitioner was served on J.V. Catuira, he was still in the
employ of FMC.

Corollary thereto, the Court held in Eastboard Navigation, Ltd.,et al. vs. Juan Ysmael &
Co., Inc. that “[w]hile plaintiff is a foreign corporation without license to transact
business in the Philippines, it does not follow that it has no capacity to bring the present
action. Such license is not necessary because it is not engaged in business in the
Philippines. In fact, the transaction herein involved is the first business undertaken by
plaintiff in the Philippines, although on a previous occasion plaintiff's vessel was
chartered by the National Rice and Corn Corporation to carry rice cargo from abroad to
the Philippines. These two isolated transactions do not constitute engaging in business

Page 1 of 2
in the Philippines within the purview of Sections 68 and 69 of the Corporation Law so as
to bar plaintiff from seeking redress in our courts.”

Clearly, if a foreign corporation, not engaged in business in the Philippines, is not barred
from seeking redress from courts in the Philippines, a fortiori, that same corporation
cannot claim exemption from being sued in Philippine courts for acts done against a
person or persons in the Philippines.

Page 2 of 2

You might also like