G.R. No. 181517 - Green Star Express, Inc. vs. Nissin-Universal Robina Corp.

A vehicular accident occurred on February 25, 2003, involving a Mitsubishi L-300 van owned by Universal Robina Corporation (URC) and a passenger bus owned by Green Star Express, Inc.
The accident resulted in the death of the van’s driver, and the bus driver, Fruto Sayson, Jr. (a petitioner), was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
Green Star sent a demand letter to Nissin-Universal Robina Corporation (NURC) for repairs on its passenger bus amounting to P567,070.68, but NURC denied any liability, contending that the criminal case would determine all emerging liabilities.
The criminal case was eventually dismissed without prejudice due to insufficiency of evidence.

Subsequently, Green Star and Sayson filed a complaint for damages against NURC before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31, in Civil Case No. SPL-0969.
On February 6, 2004, NURC filed a Motion to Dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction owing to alleged improper service of summons.
On May 5, 2004, the RTC issued a Resolution denying NURC’s motion, ruling that there was substantial compliance with the service requirement since there was actual receipt of the summons by NURC.
Dissatisfied with the RTC ruling, NURC elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Petition for Certiorari.
On September 17, 2007, the CA reversed the RTC decision by nullifying the RTC’s Resolution and issued a new one granting NURC’s Motion to Dismiss, highlighting a lack of jurisdiction.
Following the CA decision and the subsequent denial of its motion for reconsideration, Green Star and Sayson filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

The summons in question was served on Francis Tinio, a cost accountant employed by NURC, on January 22, 2004.
Green Star contended that the summons was received on the instruction of Junadette Avedillo, NURC’s general manager; however, this alleged fact was not affirmed by the Sheriffs Return or supported by conclusive evidence.
NURC stressed that, under Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Court, a domestic private juridical entity must be served through its designated officers—specifically a president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel—and that service on a cost accountant is not authorized.

Section 11 of Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Court specifies that service upon a domestic private juridical entity must be made on designated officers only, replacing the older and more liberal provision in the 1964 Rules of Court.
The new rule explicitly enumerates the persons who may validly receive service, thus adopting the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning that what is expressly mentioned excludes what is not.

Whether the summons served on Francis Tinio, a cost accountant, satisfies the requirement of service as mandated by Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Court.
Whether the improper service of summons on a non-designated agent deprived the RTC of jurisdiction over NURC, thereby justifying the dismissal of the complaint for damages.
Whether the petition for review under Rule 45 has merit given the strict construction and the rigid compliance requirement in the rules on service of summons.