NM Rothschild & Sons (Australia) Limited Vs Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company G.R. No. 175799

NM ROTHSCHILD & SONS (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED vs LEPANTO Breaking down Section 15, Rule 14, it is apparent that there
15, Rule 14, it is apparent that there are only four instances
CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY wherein a defendant who is a non-resident and is not found in the country may be
G.R. No. 175799 served with summons by extraterritorial service, to wit: (1) when the action affects
November 28, 2011 the personal status of the plaintiffs; (2) when the action relates to, or the subject of
FACTS: which is property, within the Philippines, in which the defendant claims a lien or an
On August 30, 2005, Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company filed with the Regional interest, actual or contingent; (3) when the relief demanded in such action consists,
Trial Court of Makati City a Complaint against NM Rothschild & Sons (Australia) wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest in property located in
Limited praying for a judgment declaring the loan and hedging contracts between the the Philippines; and (4) when the defendant non-resident's property has been
parties void for being contrary to Article 2018 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and attached within the Philippines. In these instances, service of summons may be
for damages. effected by (a) personal service out of the country, with leave of court; (b)
Upon respondent’s motion, the trial court authorized respondent’s counsel to publication, also with leave of court; or (c) any other manner the court may deem
personally bring the summons and Complaint to the Philippine Consulate General in sufficient.
Sydney, Australia for the latter office to effect service of summons on petitioner. Undoubtedly, extraterritorial service of summons applies only where the action is in
On October 20, 2005, petitioner filed a Special Appearance With Motion to Dismiss rem or quasi in rem, but not if an action is in personam. . On the other hand, when
praying for the dismissal of the Complaint on the grounds that the court has not the defendant or respondent does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and
acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner due to the defective and improper the action involved is in personam, Philippine courts cannot try any case against him
service of summons; the Complaint failed to state a cause of action; respondent does because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he
not have any against petitioner; and other grounds. voluntarily appears in court
On December 9, 2005, the trial court issued an Order denying the Motion to Dismiss It is likewise settled that an action in personam is lodged against a person based on
providing that there was a proper service of summons through the Department of personal liability; an action in rem is directed against the thing itself instead of the
Foreign Affairs on account of the fact that the defendant has neither applied for a person; while an action quasi in rem names a person as defendant, but its object is to
license to do business in the Philippines, nor filed with the Securities and Exchange subject that person’s interest in a property to a corresponding lien or obligation.
Commission a Written Power of Attorney designating some person on whom The Complaint in the case at bar is an action to declare the loan and Hedging
summons and other legal processes maybe served. The trial court also held that the Contracts between the parties void with a prayer for damages. It is a suit in which
Complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action. The other allegations in the Motion to the plaintiff seeks to be freed from its obligations to the defendant under a contract
Dismiss were brushed aside as matters of defense which can best be ventilated and to hold said defendant pecuniarily liable to the plaintiff for entering into such
during the trial. contract. It is therefore an action in personam, unless and until the plaintiff attaches
On April 3, 2006, petitioner sought redress via a Petition for Certiorari with the Court a property within the Philippines belonging to the defendant, in which case the action
of Appeals, alleging that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in will be converted to onequasi in rem.
denying its Motion to Dismiss. Since the action involved in the case at bar is in personam and since the defendant,
On September 8, 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision petitioner Rothschild/Investec, does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, the
dismissing the Petition for Certiorari. Philippine courts cannot try any case against it because of the impossibility of
Hence, petitioner filed the present petition assailing the Decision and Resolution of acquiring jurisdiction over its person unless it voluntarily appears in court
the Court of Appeals. In this regard, respondent vigorously argues that petitioner should be held to have
ISSUE: voluntarily appeared before the trial court when it prayed for, and was actually
Whether or not the RTC is considered to have committed grave abuse of discretion afforded, specific reliefs from the trial court.
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the denial of the Motion to Dismiss on The Court therefore rule that petitioner, by seeking affirmative reliefs from the trial
account of its failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. court, is deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of said court. A
HELD: party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his
Petitioner alleges that the RTC has not acquired jurisdiction over its person on opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question
account of the improper service of summons. Summons was served on petitioner that same jurisdiction
through the DFA, with respondent’s counsel personally bringing the summons and Consequently, the trial court cannot be considered to have committed grave abuse of
Complaint to the Philippine Consulate General in Sydney, Australia. discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the denial of the Motion to
Respondent argues that extraterritorial service of summons upon foreign private Dismiss on account of failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
juridical entities is not proscribed under the Rules of Court. Petition is DENIED
Section 15, Rule 14, however, is the specific provision dealing precisely with the
service of summons on a defendant which does not reside and is not found in the
Philippines.

NM Rothschild & Sons (Australia) Limited Vs Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company G.R. No. 175799

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NM Rothschild & Sons (Australia) Limited Vs Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company G.R. No. 175799

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NM ROTHSCHILD & SONS (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED vs LEPANTO Breaking down Section 15, Rule 14, it is apparent that there

You might also like