Law. after an ex partehearing was conducted, respondent’s prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment was granted and the corresponding writ was issued.6Thereafter, 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 Dismiss8on November 15, 2006. They asserted that the trial court didnot 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 thesummons 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, 2015-09-30Facts: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.