Case Digest (G.R. No. 142272)
Facts:
The case involves Aboitiz International Forwarders, Inc. (petitioner AIFI) as the petitioner and the Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation (respondent PCIC) as the respondent. The events leading to the case began on October 3, 1992, when PCIC filed a complaint against AIFI and its co-defendants, Accord Container Lines (Philippines), Inc. and Accord Shipping PTE Ltd., for the collection of P269,349.54, which represented the value of cargo that was allegedly misdelivered. The cargo, consisting of glass-making machine parts, was supposed to be delivered from Philadelphia, USA, to Union Glass & Container Corp. in Manila. The cargo was loaded onto the vessel "COOL Fortune" on February 25, 1991, but upon arrival in Manila on April 10, 1991, it was found missing. PCIC, having insured the cargo, paid the consignee and sought recovery from the defendants.
The complaint and summons were served on Lita Apostol, who claimed to be a documentary clerk of AIFI, on October...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 142272)
Facts:
Parties Involved:
- Petitioner: Aboitiz International Forwarders, Inc. (AIFI)
- Respondents: Court of Appeals (CA) and Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation (PCIC)
Background of the Case:
- On October 3, 1992, PCIC filed a complaint against AIFI, Accord Container Lines (Philippines), Inc., and Accord Shipping PTE Ltd. for the collection of P269,349.54, representing the value of undelivered cargo.
- The cargo, consisting of glass-making machine parts, was shipped from Philadelphia, USA, to Manila, Philippines, but was found missing upon arrival.
- PCIC, as the insurer of the cargo, paid the consignee (Union Glass & Container Corp.) and was subrogated to the consignee’s rights to recover from AIFI and its co-defendants.
Service of Summons and Complaint:
- The complaint and summons were served on Lita Apostol, who was identified by the process server as a documentary clerk of AIFI.
- AIFI claimed that Apostol was merely a customer service representative and not authorized to receive legal documents.
Default Judgment:
- AIFI failed to file an answer, and the trial court declared it in default.
- On July 11, 1995, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of PCIC, ordering AIFI and its co-defendants to pay P269,349.54 with legal interest and P10,000 in attorney’s fees.
Petition for Relief from Judgment:
- AIFI filed a petition for relief from judgment, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to improper service of summons and that it had a meritorious defense (extraordinary diligence in handling the cargo).
- The trial court denied the petition, and the CA affirmed the denial.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Service of Summons on Corporate Agents:
- Under Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, service of summons on a private domestic corporation may be made on its president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors.
- An employee whose duties are integrated with the corporation’s business, such as a documentary clerk, may be deemed an agent for purposes of receiving legal documents.
Petition for Relief from Judgment:
- A petition for relief under Rule 38 is only available on grounds of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. It cannot be used to challenge a judgment based on lack of jurisdiction.
- The proper remedy for lack of jurisdiction is a motion for reconsideration, a petition for certiorari, or an appeal, not a petition for relief.
Presumption of Regularity in Official Acts:
- The process server’s certificate of service is presumed valid unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. AIFI’s failure to present Lita Apostol as a witness weakened its claim of improper service.
Burden of Proof for Meritorious Defense:
- AIFI failed to provide factual or legal basis for its defense of extraordinary diligence or to shift liability to its co-defendants. Mere allegations without evidence are insufficient to establish a meritorious defense.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, ruling that AIFI was properly served with summons through its documentary clerk, Lita Apostol, and that its petition for relief from judgment was improper. AIFI’s failure to present a meritorious defense further justified the denial of its petition.