Facts:

Bachrach Garage and Taxicab Co., the plaintiff and appellant, initiated a legal action against Hotchkiss & Co., the defendant and appellee, on February 5, 1913, in the Court of First Instance in Manila. The plaintiff is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the Philippine Islands, while the defendant is a corporation established in France and engages in the manufacturing and selling of automobiles. The litigation stems from the plaintiff's claim to recover the amount of P 6,500, which was linked to the rescission of a contract. The plaintiff's case progressed despite the inability to serve the defendant personally. Consequently, the plaintiff sought to conduct service by publication. After efforts to obtain this substituted service, the matter proceeded to trial, where the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff for damages of P 1,500, including interest and costs. Subsequently, the plaintiff appealed the judgment, raising concerns regarding the adequacy of serv

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The plaintiff, Bachrach Garage and Taxicab Co., is a corporation duly organized and registered under the laws of the Philippine Islands with its principal office in Manila.
• The defendant, Hotchkiss & Co., is a corporation organized under French law with its principal office in Saint Denis, Paris, France, and engaged in manufacturing and selling automobiles.

Initiation of the Action

• On February 5, 1913, the plaintiff commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the recovery of P6,500.
• The complaint alleged damages amounting to P1,500 due to the rescission of a contract.

Service of Summons

• The record indicates that personal service on the defendant could not be obtained.
• As a result, the plaintiff sought substituted service by publication, which is regulated under statutory provisions.

Trial Proceedings and Judgment

• The cause was set for trial after unsuccessful attempts at personal service.
• The defendant failed to appear at trial.
• The trial judge, Honorable A. S. Crossfield, found that the evidence supported that the plaintiff had sustained P1,500 in damages due to the contract rescission.
• A judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for that amount, with interest at 6% from February 5, 1913, and with costs.

Appellate Issue and Record Examination

• The plaintiff appealed the judgment based on the trial court’s decision.
• Attorneys Lawrence, Ross & Block suggested that the record did not demonstrate that the plaintiff had secured substituted service upon the defendant as required by law.
• The appellate court scrutinized the record and found discrepancies in the substituted service proof, notably that the affidavit was executed by an "adv. manager" of The Manila Daily Bulletin rather than by the printer, foreman, or principal clerk as mandated.

Statutory Framework Governing Substituted Service

• The decision cites Section 398 and Section 399 of Act No. 190, which authorize and regulate service by publication, including specific requirements such as:

- Publication in newspapers most likely to notify the defendant. - Repeated publication for at least three consecutive weeks, with the last notice given a minimum of two months before the defendant’s required appearance.

Issue:

Compliance with Statutory Requirements for Substituted Service

• Whether the affidavit submitted as proof of service complied with the statutory provisions, particularly the requirement that it be executed by an authorized person (printer, foreman, or principal clerk).
• The adequacy of the evidence under Section 400 of Act No. 190 for establishing valid substituted service by publication.

Jurisdiction and Validity of the Judgment

• Whether the court acquired jurisdiction over the defendant despite the failure to effect proper substituted service.
• Whether delivering a judgment against a defendant who was not properly served violates due process and renders the proceeding null and void.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)