Atiko Trans V Prudential Guarantee Case Digest

Atiko Trans v. Prudential Guarantee, G.R. No.
167545, August 17, 2011
FACTS:
On December 11, 1998, 40 coils of electrolytic tinplates were loaded on board M/S
Katjana in Kaohsiung, Taiwan for shipment to Manila. The shipment was covered by Bill of
Lading No. KNMNI-15126[7] issued by petitioner Cheng Lie Navigation Co., Ltd. (Cheng Lie)
with Oriental Tin Can & Metal Sheet Manufacturing Co., Inc. (Oriental) as the notify party. The
cargoes were insured against all risks per Marine Insurance Policy No. 20RN-18749/99 issued by
respondent Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. (Prudential).
On December 14, 1998, M/S Katjana arrived in the port of Manila. Upon discharge of the
cargoes, it was found that one of the tinplates was damaged, crumpled and dented on the edges.
The sea van in which it was kept during the voyage was also damaged, presumably while still on
board the vessel and during the course of the voyage.
Oriental then filed its claim against the policy. Satisfied that Orientals claim was
compensable, Prudential paid Oriental P205,220.97 representing the amount of losses it suffered
due to the damaged cargo.
Proceedings before the Metropolitan Trial Court
On March 20, 2000, Prudential filed a Motion to Declare Defendant in Default, alleging
among others that on March 1, 2000 a copy of the summons was served upon petitioners thru
cashier Cristina Figueroa and that despite receipt thereof petitioners failed to file any responsive
pleading. Acting on the motion, the MeTC issued an Order declaring Cheng Lie and Atiko in
default and allowing Prudential to present its evidence ex-parte. On August 6, 2002, the MeTC
rendered its judgment by default. Atiko then filed a Notice of Appeal
Proceedings before the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals
In its Memorandum of Appeal, Atiko argued that Prudential failed to prove the material
allegations of the complaint. Atiko asserted that Prudential failed to prove by preponderance of
evidence that it is a domestic corporation with legal personality to file an action; that Cheng Lie
is a private foreign juridical entity operating its shipping business in the Philippines thru Atiko as
its shipagent; that Cheng Lie is a common carrier, which owns and operates M/S Katjana; that
Prudential was subrogated to the rights of Oriental; and, that Atiko can be held solidarily liable
with Cheng Lie.
ISSUE:
Whether the decision of Makati (MeTC) which was affirmed by Makati RTC and the CA
is null and void for failure to acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners-defendants
considering that the summons were not properly served on them as required by Rule 14 of the
Rules of Court.
RULING:
Yes. When the defendant is a domestic corporation, service of summons may be made
only upon the persons enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. However,
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant can be acquired not only by proper service of
summons but also by defendants voluntary appearance without expressly objecting to the court’s
jurisdiction, as embodied in Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
In the case at bench, when Atiko filed its Notice of Appeal, Memorandum of Appeal,
Motion for Reconsideration of the April 8, 2003 Decision of the RTC, and Petition for Review, it
never questioned the jurisdiction of the MeTC over its person. The filing of these pleadings
seeking affirmative relief amounted to voluntary appearance and, hence, rendered the alleged
lack of jurisdiction moot. In Palma v. Galvez, this Court reiterated the oft-repeated rule that the
filing of motions seeking affirmative relief, such as, 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, are considered voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
Moreover, petitioners contention is a mere afterthought. It was only in their
Memorandum filed with this Court where they claimed, for the first time, that Atiko was not
properly served with summons.
Petitioners likewise challenge the validity of the service of summons upon Cheng Lie,
thru Atiko. They claim that when the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has
transacted business in the Philippines, service of summons may be made, among others, upon its
resident agent. In this case, however, there is no proof that Atiko is the local agent of Cheng Lie.
In fine, since the MeTC never acquired jurisdiction over the person of Cheng Lie, its
decision insofar as Cheng Lie is concerned is void.

Atiko Trans V Prudential Guarantee Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atiko Trans V Prudential Guarantee Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atiko Trans V Prudential Guarantee Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atiko Trans v. Prudential Guarantee, G.R. No.

167545, August 17, 2011

You might also like