ATM TRUCKING INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, VS. JUDGE FELIPE V. BUENCAMINO, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PAMPANGA; VICTORIA VDA. DE SANTOS, DR. ERNESTO P. SANTOS, EDUARDO P. SANTOS AND…

This case is about the validity of the summons served on a
corporation and the propriety of granting relief from a judgment by default.

In the evening of May
21, 1980, Doctor Librado Santos was
killed when the car, wherein he was riding as a passenger, bumped the cargo
truck of ATM Trucking Incorporated, which truck had turned turtle and was a
traffic hazard on the expressway at Lubao, Pampanga.

Doctor Santos’ heirs sued for damages ATM Trucking on October 3, 1980 in Civil Case No. G-974 of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga.
Summons was served on Elsa Soza, a clerk whom the sheriff erroneously thought was the
corporate secretary.

For failure to answer the complaint within the reglementary period, ATM Trucking was declared in default. The plaintiffs presented
their evidence ex parte. On
January 10, 1981, the lower
court rendered judgment ordering ATM Trucking to pay damages to the heirs of
Doctor Santos in the total amount of P349,352.25.

On March 13, 1981, ATM Trucking filed a petition for
relief from judgment with an affidavit of merits. It alleged that there was no
valid service of summons and that it had good defenses to the action. The Santos
heirs opposed the petition.

After hearing, the lower court set aside its judgment and gave
ATM Trucking fifteen days from notice within which to file its answer. It found
that the summons was not served on the corporate
secretary. ATM Trucking alleged in its answer that the accident was due to the
negligence of the driver of Doctor Santos’ car.

The Santos heirs filed a motion for the reconsideration of the
order setting aside the judgment. The lower court in its order of October 15,
1982 granted the motion for reconsideration on the ground that no corporate
officer held office at 551 Cabildo Street, Intramuros, Manila, the supposed place of business of ATM Trucking, that the general manager was always out and that
Elsa Soza may be regarded as “agent” of the
corporation.

ATM Trucking assailed
that order of October 15, 1982 by means of a petition for certiorari
which was treated as an appeal under Republic Act No. 5440.

We hold that ATM Trucking was not properly served with summons. Section
13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that if the defendant is a
corporation organized under Philippine laws, “service may be made on the
president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors”. In
the instant case Elsa Soza cannot be regarded as an
“agent” of the corporation, She was a mere clerk. Service on a mere employee of the
corporation or on the housemaid of the corporation’s general manager is not sufficient
(19 C.J.S. 999; 19 Am. Jur. 2nd 853; Filoil Marketing Corporation vs. Marine Development Corporation of the
Philippines, L-29636, September 30, 1982, 117 SCRA 86).

The purpose of the rule is to render it reasonably certain that
the corporation will receive prompt and proper notice in an action against it
or to insure that the summons be served on a representative so integrated with
the corporation that such person will know what to do with the legal papers
served on him or, in other words, to bring home to the corporation notice of the filing of the action (Delta
Motor Sales Corporation vs. Mangosing, L-41667, April
30, 1976, 70 SCRA 598, 603).

ATM Trucking was, therefore, denied due process. Fundamental
fairness demands that it be heard and that it be allowed to present its
evidence.

WHEREFORE, the lower court’s order of October 15, 1982 is
reversed and set aside. Its order of February 25, 1982, granting relief from judgment, is affirmed. It is directed to
receive the evidence of ATM Trucking Incorporated. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, and
Escolin, JJ., concur.

Abad Santos, J., no part.

De Castro, J., on sick leave.