7/23/2019 Golden Country Farms Inc. vs Sanvar Development

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/golden-country-farms-inc-vs-sanvar-development 1/1

[G.R. No. 58027. September 28, 1992.]

THE GOLDEN COUNTR !"R#S, $NC., Petitioner , %. S"N&"R DE&ELO'#ENT COR'

FACTS:

On February 28, 1980, respondent Sanvar Development Corporation Sanvar, !or s"ort# sued petitioner $CF%

and its &resident, Armando T' (omualde), !or a sum o! money representin* t"e unpaid balan+e o!

+onstru+tion materials pur+"ased by petitioner !rom Respondent '

&er return o! t"e s"eri!!, summons and +opy o! t"e +omplaint ere served on -ar+" ., 1980 upon petitioner

at its prin+ipal o!!i+e t"rou*" a +ertain -iss %'/' a*rimas, +lertypist o! petitioner' On -ar+" 20, 1980,

petitioner !iled a motion to dismiss on t"e *round t"at summons as not properly served in a++ordan+e it"

Se+tion 13, (ule 14 o! t"e (evised (ules o! Court' &etitioner5s motion to dismiss as denied by t"e loer

+ourt on -ay 2, 1980 and +opy o! t"e denial order as re+eived by petitioner on -ay 1., 1980'

%SS6/:

7"et"er or not summons dire+ted to petitioner +orporation "i+" as served t"rou*" -iss a*rimas, +ler

typist o! t"e petitioner, is su!!i+ient servi+e !or t"e trial +ourt to a+uire urisdi+tion over said +orporation'

/D:

Servi+e o! pro+ess on a +orporation is +ontrolled by Se+' 13, (ule 14 o! t"e (evised (ules o! Court, t"us ;

<S/CT%O= 13' Servi+e upon private domesti+ +orporation or partners"ip' ; %! t"e de!endant is a +orporation

or*ani)ed under t"e las o! t"e &"ilippines or a partners"ip duly re*istered, servi+e may be made on t"e

president, mana*er, se+retary, +as"ier, a*ent, or any o! its dire+tors'< +ralavirtua1

S/(>%C/ 6&O= &(%>AT/ CO(&O(AT%O=? (6/ 7/= /FF/CT/D T(O6$ A C/(@T&%ST' ; %n $ B $Tradin* Corp' v' Court o! Appeals, 1.8 SC(A 4, 49#, e "ad o++asion to rule: <Alt"ou*" it maybe true

t"at t"e servi+e o! summons as made on a person not aut"ori)ed to re+eive t"e same in be"al! o! t"e

petitioner, nevert"eless sin+e it appears t"at t"e summons and +omplaint ere in !a+t re+eived by t"e

+orporation t"rou*" its said +ler, t"e Court !inds t"at t"ere as substantial +omplian+e it" t"e rule on

servi+e o! summons' %ndeed t"e purpose o! said rule as above stated to assure servi+e o! summons on t"e

+orporation "ad t"ereby been attained' T"e need !or speedy usti+e must prevail over a te+"ni+ality'< T"ere

as, substantial +omplian+e it" t"e rules on servi+e o! summons sin+e it appears t"at t"e summons and

+omplaint ere a+tually re+eived by t"e petitioner +orporation t"rou*" its +ler, t"ereby satis!yin* t"e

purpose o! noti+e (ebollido v' Court o! Appeals, 10 SC(A 800, 811#'