Hyopsung Maritime Co., Ltd. vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals
Hyopsung Maritime Co., Ltd. vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals
Co. Ltd., evidenced by the admission of the law firm itself through Atty. Jaime Vibar.
Thus, as the Court of Appeals found, the petitioner never appeared voluntarily before
the trial court and the answer was mistakenly filed for and on behalf of the petitioner
and the other defendants; and the said law firm had never been engaged to represent,
in whatever manner, the petitioner in the said case.
The Court also held that, the civil case being a personal action, personal or
substituted service of summons on the petitioner is necessary to confer jurisdiction on
the court; however, considering that the respondent Court of Appeals accepted the
explanation of the president of the petitioner company that it is not doing business in
the Philippines, and no proof to the contrary having been adduced below by the
private respondent, ergo, the petitioner is not amenable to process and the jurisdiction
of the local courts.
Moreover, the present suit is for the recovery of damages based on a breach of contract
which appears to have been entirely entered into, executed, and consummated in
Korea. The above vessel with its cargo never even docked at Manila or at any other port
of entry in the Philippines; the petitioner did not appoint any ship agent in the
Philippines. Hence, the petitioner is beyond the reach of our courts.