G.R. No. 182153 - Tung Ho Steel Enterprises Corp. vs. Ting Guan Trading Corp.

Tung Ho Steel Enterprises Corp. was a foreign corporation organized under the laws of Taiwan, Republic of China.
Ting Guan Trading Corp. was a domestic corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines.
On January 9, 2002, Ting Guan obligated itself under a contract of sale to deliver heavy metal scrap iron and steel to Tung Ho.

Tung Ho filed a request for arbitration before the ICC International Court of Arbitration in Singapore after Ting Guan failed to deliver the full quantity.
The ICC rendered an award on June 18, 2004 ordering Ting Guan to pay: (a) actual damages of US$ 659,646.15 with interest at 6% per annum from December 4, 2002 until final payment; (b) cost of arbitration of US$ 47,000.00; and (c) legal costs and expenses of NT$ 761,448.00 and US$ 34,552.83.

On October 24, 2004, Tung Ho filed an action for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award before the RTC of Makati, Branch 145.
Ting Guan moved to dismiss for lack of capacity to sue and prematurity, and later filed a supplemental motion to dismiss for improper venue, asserting the proper venue was Cebu where its principal place of business was located.
Ting Guan later asserted lack of personal jurisdiction because personal service was effected on Ms. Fe Tejero who, it contended, was not its corporate secretary and thus not a person authorized under Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court to receive summons; it also contended enforcement would violate public policy because Taiwan was not a signatory to the New York Convention.

The RTC denied Ting Guan’s motion to dismiss in an order dated May 11, 2005.
Ting Guan moved for reconsideration adding lack of personal jurisdiction as a ground; the RTC denied reconsideration in an order dated November 21, 2005, ruling that Ting Guan had voluntarily submitted to jurisdiction by raising other defenses.

Ting Guan filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) with application for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction.
Tung Ho argued a Rule 65 petition was improper to assail denial of a motion to dismiss except when the ground was lack of jurisdiction; it further argued Ting Guan was barred from raising grounds after the reglementary period and that the return of service recited Tejero as corporate secretary.
On July 5, 2006, the CA dismissed the RTC complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the person of Ting Guan, holding that Tung Ho failed to establish Tejero was the corporate secretary, that certiorari was proper to assail denial of a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, and that any grounds for dismissal may be raised in a motion to dismiss if raised before filing an answer; the CA ruled venue in Makati was proper.
Both parties filed partial motions for reconsideration; the CA denied Ting Guan’s motion for partial reconsideration on December 5, 2006.

Ting Guan filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court docketed as G.R. No. 176110, asserting additional grounds for dismissal: prematurity, nullity of the foreign award, improper venue, and enforcement against public policy.
Tung Ho filed a Comment in G.R. No. 176110, addressing jurisdiction lightly and urging denial of Ting Guan’s petition; Tung Ho did not affirmatively seek reversal of the CA decision in that case.
On June 18, 2007, the Supreme Court denied Ting Guan’s petition for lack of merit and denied its motion for reconsideration on November 12, 2007; entry of judgment was made January 8, 2008....(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the present petition (G.R. No. 182153) was barred by *res judicata* because of the Supreme Court's disposition in G.R. No. 176110 and attendant entries of judgment.

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of Ting Guan.
Whether Ms. Fe Tejero was the proper person to receive the summons under Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Co...(Subscriber-Only)