A summons addressed to a corporation and served on the secretary of its president binds that

corporation.A corporation may be served summons through its agents or officers who under the
Rules are designated to accept service of process. A summons addressed to a corporation and
served on the secretary of its president binds that corporation. This is based on the rationale that
service must be made on a representative so integrated with the corporation sued, that it is safe to
assume that said representative had sufficient responsibility and discretion to realize the
importance of the legal papers served and to relay the same to the president or other responsible
officer of the corporation being sued. The secretary of the president satisfies this criterion. This rule
requires, however, that the secretary should be an employee of the corporation sought to be
summoned. Only in this manner can there be an assurance that the secretary will bring home to
the corporation [the] notice of the filing of the action against it. Vlason Enterprises Corporation
vs. Court of Appeals, 310 SCRA 26, July 6, 1999
Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Appeals; Jurisdictions; In general, in order for a Court to have
authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter
and over the parties; Requisites for Appellate Courts Acquisition of Jurisdiction.In general, in
order for a Court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction
over the subject matter and over the parties. Jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the jurisdiction
to hear and decide a case, is conferred by law. Jurisdiction over the person, on the other hand, is
acquired by service of summons or by voluntary appearance. At first glance and mindful of the rule
that the filing of motions seeking affirmative relief, such as the motion for extension of time to file
petition for review filed by Fernandez in this case, is considered voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the court it may seem at once apparent that the Court of Appeals had in fact acquired
jurisdiction over his person. It has been repeatedly held that an appearance in whatever form,
without expressly objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, is a submission to the
jurisdiction of the court over the person. He may appear by presenting a motion, for example, and
unless by such appearance he specifically objects to the jurisdiction of the court, he thereby gives
his assent to the jurisdiction of the court over his person. Fernandez vs. Court of Appeals, 458
SCRA 454, G.R. No. 131094 May 16, 2005
It is basic that a court must acquire jurisdiction over a party for the latter to be bound by its decision
or orders. Valid service of summons, by whatever mode authorized by and proper under the Rules,
is the means by which a court acquires jurisdiction over a person. Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan,
603 SCRA 348, G.R. No. 170122 October 12, 2009
A defendant who files a motion to dismiss, assailing the jurisdiction of the court over his person,
together with other grounds raised therein, is not deemed to have appeared voluntarily before the
court. What the rule on voluntary appearancethe first sentence of the above-quoted rulemeans
is that the voluntary appearance of the defendant in court is without qualification, in which case he
is deemed to have waived his defense of lack of jurisdiction over his person due to improper

service of summons. Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan, 603 SCRA 348, G.R. No. 170122 October 12,
2009
Special Appearance; A special appearance before the courtchallenging its jurisdiction over the
person through a motion to dismiss even if the movant invokes other groundsis not tantamount
to estoppel or a waiver by the movant of his objection to jurisdiction over his person, and, such is
not constitutive of a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.The leading La Naval
Drug Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 78 (1994), applies to the instant case. Said case
elucidates the current view in our jurisdiction that a special appearance before the court
challenging its jurisdiction over the person through a motion to dismiss even if the movant invokes
other groundsis not tantamount to estoppel or a waiver by the movant of his objection to
jurisdiction over his person; and such is not constitutive of a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction
of the court. Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan, 603 SCRA 348, G.R. No. 170122 October 12, 2009
An appearance in whatever form, without expressly objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over
the person, is a submission to the jurisdiction of the court over the person.In Fernandez v. Court
of Appeals, 458 SCRA 454 (2005), this Court ruled that an appearance in whatever form, without
expressly objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, is a submission to the
jurisdiction of the court over the person. A defendant may, e.g., appear by presenting a motion and
unless by such appearance he specifically objects to the jurisdiction of the court, he thereby gives
his assent to the jurisdiction of the court over his person. Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan, 603 SCRA
348, G.R. No. 170122 October 12, 2009
It must be noted that HSBANK initially filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer or Motion
to Dismiss. HSBANK already invoked the RTCs jurisdiction over it by praying that its motion for
extension of time to file answer or a motion to dismiss be granted. The Court has held that the
filing of motions seeking affirmative relief, such as, to admit answer, for additional time to file
answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for
reconsideration, are considered voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the
court. Consequently, HSBANKs expressed reservation in its Answer ad cautelam that it filed the
same as a mere precaution against being declared in default, and without prejudice to the Petition
for Certiorari and/or Prohibition...now pending before the Court of Appeals to assail the jurisdiction
of the RTC over it is of no moment. Having earlier invoked the jurisdiction of the RTC to secure
affirmative relief in its motion for additional time to file answer or motion to dismiss, HSBANK
effectively submitted voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the RTC and is thereby estopped from
asserting otherwise, even before this Court. (Italics in the original; emphasis supplied) Hongkong
& Shanghai Banking Corp., Ltd. v. Catalan 483 Phil. 525, 542-543 (2004).
Administrative Law; Judges; Referral of the case back to the barangay cannot be equated with
gross ignorance of the law.Evidently, the barangay failed to exert enough effort required by law to
conciliate between the parties and to settle the case before it. Hence, respondent judge was not
incorrect in remanding the case to it for completion of the mandated proceedings. We cannot fault

him for seeking to promote the objectives of barangay conciliation and for taking to heart the
provisions of Supreme Court Circular No. 14-93. His referral of the case back to the barangay
cannot be equated with gross ignorance of the law. Neither does it constitute grave abuse of
discretion or obvious partiality. Bonifacio Law Office vs. Bellosillo, 394 SCRA 65, A.M. No. MTJ00-1308 December 16, 2002
Voluntary Submission; The filing of motions seeking affirmative relief, such as, to admit answer, for
additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default
with motion for reconsideration, are considered voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
In the case at bench, when Atiko filed its Notice of Appeal, Memorandum of Appeal, Motion for
Reconsideration of the April 8, 2003 Decision of the RTC, and Petition for Review, it never
questioned the jurisdiction of the MeTC over its person. The filing of these pleadings seeking
affirmative relief amounted to voluntary appearance and, hence, rendered the alleged lack of
jurisdiction moot. In Palma v. Galvez, 615 SCRA 86 (2010), this Court reiterated the oft-repeated
rule that the filing of motions seeking affirmative relief, such as, to admit answer, for additional time
to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for
reconsideration, are considered voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court. Atiko Trans,
Inc. vs. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc., 655 SCRA 625, G.R. No. 167545 August
17, 2011
Well-settled is the rule that service of summons on a domestic corporation is restricted, limited and
exclusive to the persons enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
following the rule in statutory construction that expressio unios est exclusio alterius. Service must
therefore be made on the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary,
treasurer, or in-house counsel. Dole Philippines, Inc. (Tropifresh Division) vs. Quilala, 557
SCRA 433, G.R. No. 168723 July 9, 2008