FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 58345. December 9, 1981.]
FBA AIRCRAFT, S.A. and ITL, INC., Petitioners, v. The Honorable SEGUNDO ZOSA, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Rizal, Makati Station, Branch XXXVI, DELFIN CAÑELAS and ARTEMIO CRUZ, as Deputy Sheriffs of the Provincial Sheriff of the Province of Rizal, and SUMMIT PHILIPPINES AIRWAYS, INC. (Formerly Sterling Philippines Airways, Inc.), Respondents.
Conde and Associates, for Petitioners.
Atienza, Tabora, Del Rosario and Castillo for Private Respondents.
SYNOPSIS
The Court of First Instance dismissed a complaint filed by private respondent against petitioners, foreign corporations which are not engaged in business in the Philippines, for lack of jurisdiction over the latter’s persons, and ordered that the writ of attachment previously issued against the three aircrafts and engines of petitioners be maintained until its dismissal order shall have become final, private respondent having appealed therefrom. The trial court gave respondent-plaintiff two options to pursue as a result of its dismissal order: "1) go to the proper appellate court for a ruling that is definite and definitive that a foreign corporation can be sued in the Philippines on the basis of an isolated transaction; or 2) the plaintiff may file anew a complaint asking for extra-territorial services of summons under Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court." Petitioners defendants meanwhile filed this petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction and an urgent motion foe release of the attached aircrafts and engines.
The Supreme Court held that it is unnecessary to await for a definite ruling of the appellate court on the suability of petitioners-foreign corporations because if a foreign corporation not engaged in business in the Philippines is not barred from seeking redress from the Philippine courts, the same corporation cannot claim exemption from being sued in the Philippine courts for acts done against a person or persons in the Philippines; and that it is equally unnecessary for respondent-plaintiff to file anew a complaint for extra-territorial services of summons upon petitioners-defendants, because, the latter’s properties having been attached within the Philippines, extra-territorial services of summons clearly may be effected under Rule 14, Section 17 of the Rules of Court.
Respondent court was DIRECTED to grant leave for extra-territorial service of summons and to proceed with dispatch in the bearing and determination of the case on the merits.
The Supreme Court held that it is unnecessary to await for a definite ruling of the appellate court on the suability of petitioners-foreign corporations because if a foreign corporation not engaged in business in the Philippines is not barred from seeking redress from the Philippine courts, the same corporation cannot claim exemption from being sued in the Philippine courts for acts done against a person or persons in the Philippines; and that it is equally unnecessary for respondent-plaintiff to file anew a complaint for extra-territorial services of summons upon petitioners-defendants, because, the latter’s properties having been attached within the Philippines, extra-territorial services of summons clearly may be effected under Rule 14, Section 17 of the Rules of Court.
Respondent court was DIRECTED to grant leave for extra-territorial service of summons and to proceed with dispatch in the bearing and determination of the case on the merits.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; PARTIES TO AN ACTION; SUABILITY OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. — Where a complaint filed against a foreign corporation is dismissed by the trial court for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the foreign corporation, it is unnecessary to go to the proper appellate court for a ruling that is definite and definitive that a foreign corporation can be sued in the Philippines on the basis of an isolated transaction, prescinding from the ruling in Facilities Management Corporation v. Osa (89 SCRA 131) that" (I)ndeed, if a foreign corporation, not engaged in business in the Philippines, is not barred from seeking redress from courts in the Philippines, a fortiori that the same corporation cannot claim exemption from being sued in the Philippine courts for acts done against a person or persons in the Philippines," as underscored by petitioners filing of the petition in the case at bar and seeking redress from this Court. The question of respondent’s appeal from the dismissal order is thus rendered moot.
2. ID.; ID.; SUMMONS; LEAVE FOR EXTRA-TERRITORIAL SERVICE THEREOF MUST BE GRANTED IN CASE AT BAR.— It is unnecessary for respondent-plaintiff to file anew a complaint asking for extra-territorial service of summons upon petitioners-defendants. Petitioners defendants’ properties having been attached within the Philippines, extra-territorial service of summon clearly may be effected under Rule 14, Section 17.
2. ID.; ID.; SUMMONS; LEAVE FOR EXTRA-TERRITORIAL SERVICE THEREOF MUST BE GRANTED IN CASE AT BAR.— It is unnecessary for respondent-plaintiff to file anew a complaint asking for extra-territorial service of summons upon petitioners-defendants. Petitioners defendants’ properties having been attached within the Philippines, extra-territorial service of summon clearly may be effected under Rule 14, Section 17.
R E S O L U T I O N
TEEHANKEE, J.:
After consideration of the allegations, issues and arguments of the petition for mandamus with preliminary mandatory injunction and the urgent motion for release of the attached three aircraft and engines, respondents’ comments thereon, and respondent court’s subject Order of September 23, 1980 dismissing private respondent Summit Philippines Airways, Inc.’s complaint below "for lack of jurisdiction over the persons of the defendant and the writ of attachment (is) dissolved" (Annex B, petition) and Order of November 10, 1980 (Annex C, petition) maintaining the attachment until its dismissal order is final (respondent having filed an appeal therefrom by record on appeal), the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petition for lack of clear showing by petitioners that they are entitled to the release of the attached aircraft.chanrobles.com : virtual law library
Respondent court ruled in its aforesaid November 10, 1980 Order denying respondent-plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order of September 23, 1980 but maintaining the attachment until the dismissal of the complaint shall have become final (since petitioners-defendants are foreign corporations adjudged for the nonce to be "not doing business in the Philippines [and] plaintiff [respondent] would be completely helpless if these planes are pirated out of the Philippines") that respondent-plaintiff, as a result of its dismissal order, "has two options to pursue: (1) go to the proper appellate court for a ruling that is definite and definitive that a foreign corporation can be sued in the Philippines on the basis of an isolated transaction; or (2) the plaintiff may file anew a complaint asking for extra-territorial services of summons under Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court." (Record, p. 53)
In the interest of an expeditious disposition of cases and to avoid needless delays in their determination on the merits, the Court holds that it is unnecessary with reference to the first option to secure and await a definite ruling from the appellate court on the suability of petitioners-foreign corporations, prescinding from the ruling in Facilities Management Corporation v. Osa (89 SCRA 131) that" (I)ndeed, if a foreign corporation, not engaged in business in the Philippines, is not barred from seeking redress from courts in the Philippines, a fortiori, that same corporation cannot claim exemption from being sued in Philippine courts for acts done against a person or persons in the Philippines," as underscored by petitioners’ filing of the petition at bar and seeking redress from this Court. The question of respondent’s appeal from the dismissal order is thus rendered moot.chanrobles.com : virtual law library
As to respondent court’s second option, the Court rules that it is equally unnecessary for respondent-plaintiff to file anew a complaint asking for extra-territorial service of summons upon petitioners-defendants. Petitioners-defendants’ properties having been attached within the Philippines, extra-territorial service of summons clearly may be effected under Rule 14, Section 17 and respondent court is DIRECTED to grant such leave for extra-territorial service of summons in the case below (without going through the ritual of "filing a new complaint"), as prayed for by respondent-plaintiff in the proceedings below and thereafter to proceed with due dispatch in the hearing and determination of the case on the merits.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero, Melencio-Herrera and Plana, JJ., concur.
Respondent court ruled in its aforesaid November 10, 1980 Order denying respondent-plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order of September 23, 1980 but maintaining the attachment until the dismissal of the complaint shall have become final (since petitioners-defendants are foreign corporations adjudged for the nonce to be "not doing business in the Philippines [and] plaintiff [respondent] would be completely helpless if these planes are pirated out of the Philippines") that respondent-plaintiff, as a result of its dismissal order, "has two options to pursue: (1) go to the proper appellate court for a ruling that is definite and definitive that a foreign corporation can be sued in the Philippines on the basis of an isolated transaction; or (2) the plaintiff may file anew a complaint asking for extra-territorial services of summons under Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court." (Record, p. 53)
In the interest of an expeditious disposition of cases and to avoid needless delays in their determination on the merits, the Court holds that it is unnecessary with reference to the first option to secure and await a definite ruling from the appellate court on the suability of petitioners-foreign corporations, prescinding from the ruling in Facilities Management Corporation v. Osa (89 SCRA 131) that" (I)ndeed, if a foreign corporation, not engaged in business in the Philippines, is not barred from seeking redress from courts in the Philippines, a fortiori, that same corporation cannot claim exemption from being sued in Philippine courts for acts done against a person or persons in the Philippines," as underscored by petitioners’ filing of the petition at bar and seeking redress from this Court. The question of respondent’s appeal from the dismissal order is thus rendered moot.chanrobles.com : virtual law library
As to respondent court’s second option, the Court rules that it is equally unnecessary for respondent-plaintiff to file anew a complaint asking for extra-territorial service of summons upon petitioners-defendants. Petitioners-defendants’ properties having been attached within the Philippines, extra-territorial service of summons clearly may be effected under Rule 14, Section 17 and respondent court is DIRECTED to grant such leave for extra-territorial service of summons in the case below (without going through the ritual of "filing a new complaint"), as prayed for by respondent-plaintiff in the proceedings below and thereafter to proceed with due dispatch in the hearing and determination of the case on the merits.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero, Melencio-Herrera and Plana, JJ., concur.
