Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50099:gr-149625-2007&amp;catid=1496&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:41:39+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 149625 - Weena Express Inc. v. Godofredo R. Rapacon, et al.
WEENA EXPRESS, INC., Petitioner, v. GODOFREDO R. RAPACON and RENE GUCON, Respondents.
Assailed in the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the November 23, 2000 Decision1 and July 26, 2001 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 57163.
The antecedent facts are not disputed.
The vehicular accident resulted in the death of a bystander, injuries to some bus passengers and damage to the cargo truck.
When petitioner failed to file its answer to the complaint within the reglementary period, respondents filed with the RTC a motion to declare petitioner in default, which the RTC granted in an Order dated September 6, 1995.9 Hence, respondents presented their evidence ex-parte.
3. To pay plaintiffs Rapacon and Gucon P50,000.00 exemplary damages; P10,000.00 litigation expenses; P30,000.00 attorney's fees and P1,000.00 court appearances fees, to be computed based on the record; and the costs of this suit.
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that it is declared VOID insofar as defendant Sofonias Datulayta is concerned, and that the compensation for loss of income awarded to plaintiffs-appellees is DELETED.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the CA denied the motion in the assailed Resolution dated July 26, 2001.
Defendant-appellant corporation contends that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over it due to improper service of summons. Specifically, it insists that the summons and copy of the complaint were served on it through a mere claim employee.
Sec. 13. Service upon private domestic corporation or partnership. If the defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines or a partnership duly registered, service may be made on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent or any of its directors.
Thus, Devera is properly considered by the RTC and the CA as an agent of petitioner within the meaning of Rule 14. Petitioner does not dispute the Sheriff's Return27 that he served the summons on Devera, the claim employee of petitioner. Neither did petitioner refute in its present petition the finding of the CA that Devera's primary duty is to follow up cases filed by and against petitioner.28 Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that he possesses sufficient discernment of the importance of the summons and of his responsibility to transmit them to petitioner.
Against such array of evidence, petitioner's denial that Devera is its agent does not inspire belief. The CA committed no reversible error in holding that a summons was properly served on petitioner thru its agent Devera, and that such service of summons effectively placed petitioner under the jurisdiction of the trial court.
* As replacement of Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes (see Note 1) per Administrative Circular No. 75-2007 dated August 14, 2007.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes (now a member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariano M. Umali and Rebecca de Guia-Salvador; rollo, p.10.
3 RTC Decision, id. at 38.
7 CA Decision, id. at 12.
10 RTC Decision, id. at 40.
14 CA Decision, id. at 15-16.
16 Petition, id. at 31.
17 This should read as "Revised Rules of Court" or "1964 Rules of Court."
18 CA Decision, id. at 16-18.
19 Petition, id. at 32-33.
20 Tyson's Super Concrete, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140081, June 23, 2005, 461 SCRA 69, 85.
21 Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure amended the enumeration to "general manager" instead of only "manager;" "corporate secretary" instead of "secretary;" and "treasurer" instead of "cashier;" and the phrase "agent, or any of its directors" has been deleted. See Sps. Mason v. Court of Appeals, 459 Phil. 689, 697 (2003).
22 G.R. No. L-31339, January 31, 1978, 81 SCRA 298, 303.
23 Talsan Enterprises, Inc. v. Baliwag Transit, Inc., 369 Phil. 409, 418 (1999).
24 Vlason Enterprises Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 369 Phil. 269, 301 (1999).
25 CA Decision, rollo, p.13.
26 Macapagal v. Court of Appeals and Silverio, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, 338 Phil. 206, 216 (1997).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.