After an ex parte hearing was conducted respondents

Law. after an ex parte hearing was conducted, respondent’s prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment was granted and the corresponding
writ was issued. 6 Thereafter, Sheriff Leodel N. Roxas served upon petitioners a copy of the summons, complaint, application for attachment,
respondent’s affidavit and bond, and the order and writ of attachment.
Petitioners filed through counsel a Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss 8 on November 15, 2006. They asserted that the trial court did
not acquire jurisdiction over the corporation since the summons was improperly served upon Claudia Abante (Abante), who is a mere

liaison officer and not one of the corporate officers specifically enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules. the RTC denied petitioners’
motion to dismiss and ruled that there was valid service of summons. CA affirmed RTC decision.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION BY SERVICE
OF SUMMONS UPON ITS MERE EMPLOYEE.
RULING: YES.Service of summons on Domestic Corporation, partnership or other juridical entity is governed by Section 11, Rule 14 of
the Rules , which states:
SECTION 11. Service upon domestic private juridical entity . – When the defendant is a corporation, partnership or association organized
under the laws of the Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be made on the president, managing partner, general manager,
corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel.
In this case, Abante proceeded to receive the summons and accompanying documents only after receiving instructions to do so from
Melinda Ang, an individual petitioner herein and the petitioner corporation’s corporate secretary. It is clear, therefore, that Abante, in so
receiving the summons, did so in representation of Ang who, as corporate secretary, is one of the officers competent under the Rules of
Court to receive summons on behalf of a private juridical person. Thus, while it may be true that there was no direct, physical handing of the
summons to Ang, the latter could at least be charged with having constructively received the same, which in Our view, amounts to a valid
service of summons.
SUNRISE GARDEN CORPORATION v. CA, GR No. 158836, 2015-09-30
Facts:
In 1999, the Sangguniang Barangay of Cupang requested the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Antipolo City to construct a city road to connect
Barangay Cupang and Marcos Highway.
Sunrise Garden Corporation was an affected landowner. Its property was located in Barangay Cupang, which Sunrise Garden Corporation
planned to develop into a memorial park.
The city road project, thus, became a joint project of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Antipolo, Barangay Cupang, Barangay Mayamot, and
Sunrise Garden Corporation.
Hardrock Aggregates, Inc., prevented Sunrise Garden Corporation's... contractor from using an access road to move the construction
equipment.