FACTS:

The petitioner, E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd., entered into a Deed of Sale with Development Agreement with the private respondent, involving the development of a land into a housing subdivision. They agreed that any disputes would be heard in the proper courts of Makati. The private respondent filed a Complaint for Breach of Contract and Damages, which was served on the petitioner's branch manager in Cagayan de Oro City. The defendant filed a Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the summons was improperly served and the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The plaintiff filed a Motion to Declare Defendant in Default when the defendant failed to file an Answer. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss and the plaintiff's motion to declare default, ruling that there was substantial compliance with the rule on service of summons. The defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. The petitioner then filed a petition with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying their motions to dismiss and reconsideration. The issue to be resolved was whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner through service of summons on its Branch Manager.

ISSUES:

1. • Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner upon service of summons on its Branch Manager.

RULING:

1. • The trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner upon service of summons on its Branch Manager.

PRINCIPLES:

• Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that service of summons on a corporation can be made on the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel.