This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| On 16 August 2006, 7107 Publishing filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the RTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over its person. 7107 Publishing argued that if the defendant was a corporation, service of summons could only be made on the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel pursuant to Rule 14, Section 11 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner further argued that this was an exclusive list, citing E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd v. Benito[4] and Delta Motor Sales Corporation v. Mangosing[5] | |||||
|
2008-08-06 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The designation of persons or officers who are authorized to receive summons for a domestic corporation or partnership is limited and more clearly specified in the new rule. The phrase `agent, or any of its directors' has been conspicuously deleted.[8] Moreover, the argument of substantial compliance is no longer compelling. We have ruled that the new rule, as opposed to Section 13, Rule 14 of the 1964 Rules of Court, is restricted, limited and exclusive, following the rule in statutory construction that expressio unios est exclusio alterius. Had the Rules of Court Revision Committee intended to liberalize the rule on service of summons, it could have done so in clear and concise language. Absent a manifest intent to liberalize the rule, strict compliance with Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is required.[9] | |||||