Kawasaki Port Services v. Judge Amores Digest
Short Description
Extraterritoria Service of Summons on Non-Resident. An action purely for injunction is a personal action as well as an a...
Description
Kawasaki Port Services et. al. v. Judge Amores (1991) Doctrine: An action purely for injunction is a personal action as well as an action in personam. As a personal action, personal or substituted service of summons upon the defendant, not extra territorial service, is necessary to confer jurisdiction upon the Court over the defendant Facts: C.F Sharp Kabushiki (Kabushiki) incurred several obligations from several creditors, including petitioners herein
C.F. Sharp & Co (CF Sharp) anticipated that the creditors of Kabushiki will run after it
Hence, C.F. Sharp prayed for injunctive relief against the petitioners' demand for the payment of C.F. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha's liabilities
C.F. Sharp alleged that it is separate and distinct from Kabushiki. That the former is organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines while the latter is under the laws of Japan. o That it had no participation whatsoever or liability in connection with the transactions between the latter and the defendants.
CF Sharp also prayed for declaratory relief that it is separate and independent corporation, it is not liable for the obligations and liabilities of Kabushiki. (Note: not available according to the court as no action in court has yet been filed by the creditors)
As the creditor-defendants are non-residents, without business addresses in the Philippines but in Japan, CF Sharp asked the court to effect extraterritorial service of summons.
Judge Amores authorized the extraterritorial service of summons on creditors Naturally, the creditors opposed and filed "Special Appearance to Question Jurisdiction of This Honorable Court Over Persons of Defendants" o
Alleged that lower court does not and cannot acquire jurisdiction over the persons of defendants on the grounds that private respondent's action does not refer to its personal status
o
The action does not have for subject matter property contemplated in Section 17 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, that the action does not pray that defendants be excluded from any interest or property in the Philippines;
o
And that no property of the defendants has been attached
o
Action is in personam; and that the action does not fall within any of the four cases mentioned in Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
Defense: affects status of CF Sharp and liability for Kabushiki’s indebtedness
ISSUE: WON an extraterritorial service of summons is allowed in this case and therefore the Court obtained jurisdiction? NO HELD: Extraterritorial service of summons is proper only in four (4) instances: (1) when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiffs: (2) when the action relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent; (3) when the relief demanded in such action consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest in property located in the Philippines; and (4) when the defendant non-resident's property has been attached within the Philippines Injunction was asked to enjoin petitioners from demanding from private respondent the payment of the obligations of Kabushiki. It was not prayed that petitioners be excluded from any property located in the Philippines, nor was it alleged, much less shown, that the properties of the defendants, if any, have been attached Complaint does not involve the personal status of CF Sharp, nor any property in the Philippines in which creditors have or claim an interest, or which was attached, but purely an action for injunction, it is a personal action as well as an action in personam, not an action in rem or quasi in rem As a personal action, personal or substituted service of summons on the defendants, not extraterritorial service, is necessary to confer jurisdiction on the court. In an action for injunction, extra-territorial service of summons and complaint upon the non-resident defendants cannot subject them to the processes of the regional trial courts which are powerless to reach them outside the region over which they exercise their authority.
View more...
Comments