JUAN POIZAT, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. GEORGE MORGAN AND THE NEGROS PHILIPPINE LUMBER CO., DEFENDANTS. THE NEGROS PHILIPPINE LUMBER CO., APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila
denying a motion to set aside a judgment against the appellant, based upon the
ground that there was no service of summons on it.

The appellant is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippine
Islands. In pursuance of the provisions of section 68 of Act No. 1459, known as
the Corporation Law, the appellant company, prior to the beginning of the action
which culminated in the judgment complained of, had filed in the division of
archives a written statement under oath containing, among other things, the name
of an agent residing in the Philippine Islands authorized by the corporation to
accept service of summons and processes in all local proceedings against the
corporation and of all notices affecting it. The summons in the action in which
the judgment was entered was admittedly no served on the agent so named by the
corporation but upon a person who was, the appellant claims, simply an employee
thereof.

There is much discussion by counsel as to whether or not the person upon whom
the summons was actually served was, under section 396 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, the “managing agent” or said corporation. We do not believe it
necessary to enter upon a consideration of that matter. We are of the opinion
that, where a foreign corporation has designated a person to receive service of
summons in judicial proceedings and other notices affecting the corporation,
that designation is exclusive and that service of summons is without force or
effect unless made upon him. Where such a person has been designated, section
396 of the Code of Civil Procedure above referred to is not applicable, and the
only person upon whom summons can be served is the person so designated. Where,
however, the foreign corporation has neglected or refused to designate such a
person, then the provisions of section 396 of the Code of Civil Procedure and
section 72 of Act No. 1459 are applicable and control the service.

It being undisputed that the foreign corporation had, prior to the beginning
of the action, designated the person upon whom summons should be served, and it
being also undisputed that the summons in the action in which the judgment
complained of was entered was not served upon that person, it necessarily
follows that the summons was not served in accordance with the law and that the
court, therefore, obtained no jurisdiction over the person of the appellant. It
not appearing from the record that jurisdiction was obtained by the voluntary
general appearance of the appellant in the action, the court in entering the
judgment lacked jurisdiction over the person of the appellant and its judgment
was accordingly subject to attack upon that ground.

Where judgment is defective by reason of the failure of service of summons
upon the defendant, it may be attacked by motion made to set it aside. The
motion in this case was properly made and should have been sustained.

The judgment [order] appealed from is reversed and the judgment in
controversy is set aside and declared of no force and effect. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, Carson, Trent, and Araullo,
JJ., concur.