Kawasaki Port Service Corp et al v Amores et al 001

GR Nos. L-58340, July 16, 1991, Bidin, J.

Digested by Bounce • Law 112 – PRIL

Sharp & Co, a corp under the laws of the Phils, was being sued by corps from Japan to answer for the
obligation of a different corp Sharp Kabushiki, a corp organized under the laws of Japan. It prayed for
an injunction or a declaration from the lower court that it is a separate corp from Kabushiki. The court
authorized extraterritorial service of summons by registered mail with return cards so the PETs are
asserting that it since it is in personam, extraterritorial service did not result to the Court having
jurisdiction over their persons. SC agreed with the PETs. There are only 4 instances when
extraterritorial service is allowed. The instant case does not fall under any. As a personal action,
personal or substituted service of summons on the defendants, not extraterritorial service, is necessary
to confer jurisdiction on the court.

FACTS:
● PResp CF Sharp & Co Inc. (Sharp & Co) filed a complaint against 79 Japanese corporations as
defendants, among which are the PETs herein.
● Sharp & Co is a corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines while another
corporation, CF Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha (Sharp Kabushiki) is organized under the laws of
Japan.
● These corporations are in all respects separate and distinct from each other.
● Sharp Kabushiki was unable to settle its obligations to several of its creditors/ some of the PETs
in this case so the PETs have been attempting to demand from Sharp & Co the payment of
the obligation notwithstanding the corporations being separate and distinct from each other.
● Sharp & Co prayed for injunction against the demand of the PETs and as an alternative, prayed
for a judicial declaration that as a separate corporation, it is not liable for the obligations of Sharp
Kabushiki
● Upon motion of Sharp & Co, respondent judge Amores authorized extraterritorial service of
summons upon defendants to be effected by registered mail with return cards
● Several PETs filed their special appearance to question the jurisdiction of the Court over their
persons.
● The RESP Judge issued an Order denying the special appearance and the subsequent MR; hence,
this petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the Orders was filed.
● PETs: Inasmuch as the reliefs prayed for by Sharp & Co are in personam, service by registered
mail cannot be availed of because Section 17 of Rule 14 authorized this mode of service only in
actions in rem or quasi in rem.

ISSUE/S & HOLDING:

● WON the court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the PETS through extraterritorial
service NO

RATIO:
● Extraterritorial service of summons is proper only in 4 instances:
 ● When the action affects the personal status of the plaintiffs;
● When the action relates to, or the subject of which is property within the Phils, in which
the DEF has claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent;
● When the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the DEF from any
interest in property located in the Phils; and
● When the DEF non-resident’s property has been attached within the Phils.
● What is sought in this case is a declaration of not only that PREsp is a corporation but also that it
is a separate and distinct from sharp Kabushiki, and therefore, not liable for its indebtedness.
● Monetary obligations do not refer to status, rights and obligations.
● More importantly, where a declaratory judgment as to a disputed fact would be
determinative of issues rather than a construction of a defined stated rights, status and
other relations, commonly expressed in written instrument, the case is not for
declaratory judgment.
● PETs merely demanded payment of the obligations of Kabushiki. In other words, there is
no action relating to or the subject of which are the properties of the DEFs in the Phils nor
can it be said that they have claimed any lien or interest.
● Finally, the alternative relief sought is injunction. It was not prayed that the PETs be
excluded from any property located in the Phils., nor was it alleged that the properties of
the DEFs have been attached.
● It is purely aan 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 DEFs, not
extraterritorial service, is necessary to confer jurisdiction for the court.
○ The extraterritorial service was null and void.

DISPOSITIVE
Petition is GRANTED.
Orders of RESP Judge are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.