RULE 14, SEC. 15 PERKIN ELMER SINGAPORE PTE LTD vs.

DAKILA TRADING CORPORATION, 2007 FACTS: PERKIN ELMER SINGAPORE PTE LTD is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Singapore. It is not considered as a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines. Herein Dakila Trading Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under Philippine laws, and engaged in the business of selling and leasing out laboratory instrumentation and process control instrumentation, and trading of laboratory chemicals and supplies. Dakila Trading entered into a DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT with Perkin Elmer Instruments Asia Pte. Ltd. (PEIA). This agreement however, was unilaterally terminated by PERKIN ELMER SINGAPORE PTE LTD. This prompted Dakila Trading to file before the RTC of Mandaluyong City a Complaint for Collections of Sum of Money and Damages. Dakila Trading then filed Ex-Parte Motions for Issuance of Summon and for leave of Court to Deputize its general manager to Serve Summons Outside the Philippines which the RTC granted. ISSUE: WON there was a valid extraterritorial service of summons upon PERKIN ELMER SINGAPORE PTE LTD. HELD: NO. In the case at bar, the SC sustains the contention of the petitioner that there can never be a valid extraterritorial service of summons upon it, because the case before the court a quo involving collection of a sum of money and damages is, indeed, an action in personam, as it deals with the personal liability of the petitioner to the respondent by reason of the alleged unilateral termination by the former of the Distribution Agreement. Extraterritorial service of summons applies only where the action is in rem or quasi in rem, but not if an action is in personam. When the case instituted is an action in rem or quasi in rem, Philippine courts already have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because, in actions in rem and quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. Thus, in such instance, extraterritorial service of summons can be made upon the defendant. The said extraterritorial service of summons is not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but for complying with the requirements of fair play or due process, so that the defendant will be informed of the pendency of the action against him and the possibility that property in the Philippines belonging to him or in which he has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and he can thereby take steps to protect his interest if he is so minded. On the other hand, when the defendant or respondent does not

reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action involved is in personam, Philippine courts cannot try any case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court. Thus, being an action in personam, personal service of summons within the Philippines is necessary in order for the RTC to validly acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner, and this is not possible in the present case because the petitioner is a non-resident and is not found within the Philippines. The action for collection of a sum of money and damages was purely based on the personal liability of the petitioner towards the respondent. Mere allegations of personal property within the Philippines does not necessarily make the action as one that relates to or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines as to warrant the extraterritorial service of summons. For the action to be considered one that relates to, or the subject of which, is the property within the Philippines, the main subject matter of the action must be the property itself of PERKIN ELMER SINGAPORE PTE LTD in the Philippines. What is required under Rule 14, Sec. 15 is not a mere allegation of the existence of personal property belonging to the non-resident defendant within the Philippines but, more precisely, that the nonresident defendants personal property located within the Philippines must have been actually attached. As a result, the extraterritorial service of summons was not validly effected by the RTC against PERKIN ELMER SINGAPORE PTE LTD., and the RTC thus failed to acquire jurisdiction over the person of PERKIN ELMER SINGAPORE PTE LTD. The RTC is therefore bereft of any authority to act upon the Complaint filed before it by the respondent insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

The extraterritorial service of summons upon the petitioner produces no effect because it can only be done if the action is in rem or quasi in rem. The case for collection of sum of money and damages filed by the respondent against the petitioner being an action in personam, then personal service of summons upon the petitioner within the Philippines is essential for the RTC to validly acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. Having failed to do so, the RTC can never subject petitioner to its jurisdiction. The mere allegation made by the respondent that the petitioner had shares of stock within the Philippines was not enough to convert the action from one in personam to one that was quasi in rem, for petitioners purported personal property was never attached; thus, the extraterritorial service of summons upon the petitioner remains invalid. In light of the foregoing findings, this Court concludes that the RTC has no power to hear and decide the case against the petitioner, because the extraterritorial service of summons was not validly effected upon the petitioner and the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over its person.

RULE 14, SEC. 20 RAPID CITY vs. VILLA, 2010 FACTS: Rapid City Realty and Development Corporation filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of subdivision plans, mandamus and damages against several defendants including Spouses Villa. The complaint, was docketed at the RTC of Antipolo City. After one failed attempt at personal service of summons, the court process server, resorted to substituted service by serving summons upon respondents househelp who did not acknowledge receipt thereof and refused to divulge their names. Despite substituted service, Spouses Villa failed to file their Answer, prompting petitioner to file a "Motion to Declare Defendants[-herein respondents] in Default" which the trial court granted. More than 8 months later, the Spouses Villa filed a Motion to Lift Order of Default which the court granted, and gave them 5 days to file their Answer. Nevertheless, they did not file an Answer, drawing Rapid City to again file a Motion to declare them in default, which the trial court again granted. The Spouses Villa filed an Omnibus Motion for reconsideration of the second order declaring them in default and to vacate proceedings, this time claiming that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons due to invalid service of summons. ISSUE: WON the Spouses Villa may be deemed to have entered a voluntary appearance in court. HELD: YES. The petition is impressed with merit. It is settled that if there is no valid service of summons, the court can still acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by virtue of the latters voluntary appearance. The Spouses Villa did not, in their Motion to Lift Order of Default, allege that their filing thereof was a special appearance for the purpose only to question the jurisdiction over their persons. Clearly, they had acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the court.

RATIO: Preliminarily, jurisdiction over the defendant in a civil case is acquired either by the coercive power of legal processes exerted over his person, or his voluntary appearance in court. As a general proposition, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. It is by reason of this rule that we have had occasion to declare that the filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, is considered voluntary submission to the courts jurisdiction. This, however, is tempered by the concept of conditional appearance, such that a party who makes a special appearance to challenge, among others, the courts jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority. Prescinding from the foregoing, it is thus clear that: (1) Special appearance operates as an exception to the general rule on voluntary appearance; (2) Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant must be explicitly made, i.e., set forth in an unequivocal manner; and (3) Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court, especially in instances where a pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and submitted to the court for resolution.