330 SCRA 26 (1999)
G.R. Nos. 121662-64. July 6, 1999.
Facts:
Ruling that the judgment
sought to be reviewed has become final and executory, the Court of Appeals
ordered the Regional Trial Court to take appropriate action on the urgent ex
parte motion for issuance of a writ of execution filed by private
respondent. Pursuant thereto, the Regional Trial Court of Manila issued a writ
of possession thus placing private respondent in possession of petitioner's
barge Lawin. Hence, this petition.
The case filed by
private respondent with the trial court involved multiple defendants. Several
defendants entered into a compromise agreement with private respondent. A
compromise agreement is immediately final and executory. As to these defendants
therefore, the trial court Decision had become final. Nevertheless, said
decision cannot be said to have attained finality as to petitioner, which was
not a party to the compromise. Moreover, petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration two days before the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal.
Execution shall issue as matter of right upon the expiration of the period to
appeal if no appeal has been duly perfected.
Issue:
Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner in this case.
Held:
NO. The sheriff's return showed that the president of petitioner corporation
was served summons through his secretary. A summons addressed to a corporation
and served on the secretary of the President binds that corporation. The
secretary however, should be an employee of the corporation sought to be
summoned. In the case at bar, the secretary was not an employee of petitioner
but of Vlasons Shipping, Inc.
Acting under the impression that petitioner had
been placed under its jurisdiction, the trial court dispensed with the service
on petitioner of new summons for the subsequent amendments of the petition. But
the first service of summons on petitioner was invalid. Thus, the trial court
never acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner. Not having been validly served
summons, it would be legally impossible to declare petitioner to be in default.
A default judgment cannot affect the rights of a party who was never declared
in default.
No comments:
Post a Comment