G.R. No. L-58345 - DECEMBER 1981 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-58345December 9, 1981 FBA Aircraft, S.A., et al. vs. Segundo Zosa, et al. A.M. No. 2162December 14, 1981 Aguilar Integrated National Police vs. Anastacio Zamuco A.M. No. 2266December 14, 1981 Lorenza M. De Labaco vs. Sheriff Norberto O. Parale A.M. No. P-2443December 14, 1981 R.M. Salazar, Jr. Const. vs. Rodolfo M. Espineli G.R. No. L-31871December 14, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Ceferino T. Medrana G.R. No. L-51539December 14, 1981 Summit Guaranty & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-52196December 14, 1981 Continental Cement Corp. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-53406December 14, 1981 Nat'l. Union of Bank Employees vs. Minister of Labor G.R. No. L-54335December 14, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Emmanuel Felipe Velasco G. R. No. L-57205December 14, 1981 Dominador Danan vs. Felipe V. Buencamino G.R. No. L-27810December 14, 1981 Rep. of the Philippines vs. Consolidated Terminals, Inc. G.R. No. L-28102December 14, 1981 Elias L. Penaco vs. Zoilo H. Ruaya G.R. No. L-30621December 14, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Jose Orpilla G.R. No. L-31403December 14, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Jacobito Marquez G.R. No. L-31694December 14, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Leonardo D. Rosales G.R. No. L-32944December 14, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Rodrigo C. Mendoza G.R. No. L-33609December 14, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Jesus G. Ruiz G.R. No. L-36554December 14, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Jovito Aguel G.R. No. L-41493 and L-41494December 14, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Teodoro Villamor G.R. No. L-42900December 14, 1981 Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. vs. Guardson Lood G.R. No. L-46371December 14, 1981 Amparo Santos vs. Felisa De La Fuente Samson G.R. No. L-48605December 14, 1981 Domna N. Villavert vs. Employees' Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-56314December 14, 1981 Anita M. Seares vs. Harold M. Hernando G.R. No. L-56704December 18, 1981 Petrophil Corporation vs. Blas Ople A.M. Nos. 543-MC and 1525-MJDecember 19, 1981 Angela L. Dailay-Papa vs. Ben Almora A.M. No. 2026-CFIDecember 19, 1981 NENITA DE VERA SUROZA vs. REYNALDO P. HONRADO A.M. No. P-2529December 19, 1981 Vicente to vs. Alfredo Distor G.R. No. L-31429December 19, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Roscoe G. Daban G. R. No. L-36315December 19, 1981 Jose W. Diokno vs. Juan Ponce Enrile G.R. No. L-39121 and L-39122December 19, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Jacinto Parcon, et al. G.R. No. L-48907December 19, 1981 Severino Tajonera vs. Fernando Lamaroza G.R. No. L-50180December 19, 1981 Francisca Rico Reyes vs. Minister of Labor G.R. No. L-55273-83December 19, 1981 Gaudencio Rayo vs. Court of First Instance of Bulacan G.R. No. L-55954December 19, 1981 Fermin Casocot vs. Cipriano V. Vamenta Jr. G.R. No. L-56443December 19, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Napoleon D. Villanueva A.M. No. 924December 28, 1981 Renato M. Coronado vs. Angel S. Huertas A.M. No. 1567-MJDecember 28, 1981 Danilo Sta. Maria vs. Anastacio T. Zamuco G.R. No. L-26540December 28, 1981 Mutual Paper Inc. vs. Eastern Scott Paper Co. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. FBA Aircraft, S.A., et al. vs. Segundo Zosa, et al. Aguilar Integrated National Police vs. Anastacio Zamuco Lorenza M. De Labaco vs. Sheriff Norberto O. Parale R.M. Salazar, Jr. Const. vs. Rodolfo M. Espineli People of the Philippines vs. Ceferino T. Medrana Summit Guaranty & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals Continental Cement Corp. vs. Court of Appeals Nat'l. Union of Bank Employees vs. Minister of Labor People of the Philippines vs. Emmanuel Felipe Velasco Dominador Danan vs. Felipe V. Buencamino Rep. of the Philippines vs. Consolidated Terminals, Inc. Elias L. Penaco vs. Zoilo H. Ruaya People of the Philippines vs. Jose Orpilla People of the Philippines vs. Jacobito Marquez People of the Philippines vs. Leonardo D. Rosales People of the Philippines vs. Rodrigo C. Mendoza People of the Philippines vs. Jesus G. Ruiz People of the Philippines vs. Jovito Aguel People of the Philippines vs. Teodoro Villamor Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. vs. Guardson Lood Amparo Santos vs. Felisa De La Fuente Samson Domna N. Villavert vs. Employees' Compensation Commission Anita M. Seares vs. Harold M. Hernando Petrophil Corporation vs. Blas Ople Angela L. Dailay-Papa vs. Ben Almora NENITA DE VERA SUROZA vs. REYNALDO P. HONRADO Vicente to vs. Alfredo Distor People of the Philippines vs. Roscoe G. Daban Jose W. Diokno vs. Juan Ponce Enrile People of the Philippines vs. Jacinto Parcon, et al. Severino Tajonera vs. Fernando Lamaroza Francisca Rico Reyes vs. Minister of Labor Gaudencio Rayo vs. Court of First Instance of Bulacan Fermin Casocot vs. Cipriano V. Vamenta Jr. People of the Philippines vs. Napoleon D. Villanueva Renato M. Coronado vs. Angel S. Huertas Danilo Sta. Maria vs. Anastacio T. Zamuco Mutual Paper Inc. vs. Eastern Scott Paper Co. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-58345 December 9, 1981
FBA AIRCRAFT, S.A. and ITL, INC.,petitioners,
vs.
The Honorable SEGUNDO ZOSA, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Rizal, Makati Station, Branch XXXVI, DELFIN CAÑELAS and ARTEMIO CRUZ, as Deputy Sheriffs of the Provincial Sheriff of the Province of Rizal and SUMMIT PHILIPPINES AIRWAYS, INC. (Formerly Sterling Philippine Airways, Inc.),respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
TEEHANKEE,J.:
After consideration of the allegations, issues and arguments of the petition for mandamus with preliminary mandatory injunction and the urgent motion for release of the attached three aircraft and engines, respondents' comments thereon, and respondent court's subject Order of September 23, 1980 dismissing private respondent Summit Philippines Airways, Inc.'s complaint below "for lack of jurisdiction over the persons of the defendant and the writ of attachment (is) dissolved" (Annex B, petition) and Order of November 10, 1980 (Annex C, petition) maintaining the attachment until its dismissal order is final (respondent having filed an appeal therefrom by record on appeal), the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petition for lack of clear showing by petitioners that they are entitled to the release of the attached aircraft.
Respondent court ruled in its aforesaid November 10, 1980 Order denying respondent-plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order of September 23, 1980 but maintaining the attachment until the dismissal of the complaint shall have become final (since petitioners-defendants are foreign corporations adjudged for the nonce to be "not doing business in the Philippines [and] plaintiff [respondent] would be completely helpless if these planes are pirated out of the Philippines") that respondent-plaintiff, as a result of its dismissal order, "has two options to pursue: (1) go to the proper appellate court for a ruling that is definite and definitive that a foreign corporation can be sued in the Philippines on the basis of an isolated transaction; or (2) the plaintiff may file anew a complaint asking for extra-territorial services of summons under Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court." (Record, p. 53)
In the interest of an expeditious disposition of cases and to avoid needless delays in their determination on the merits, the Court holds that it is unnecessary with reference to the first option to secure and await a definite ruling from the appellate court on the suability of petitioners-foreign corporations, prescinding from the ruling inFacilities Management Corporation vs. Osa(89 SCRA 131) that " (I)ndeed, if a foreign corporation, not engaged in business in the Philippines, is not barred from seeking redress from courts in the Philippines,a fortiorithat same corporation cannot claim exemption from being sued in Philippine courts for acts done against a person or persons in the Philippines," as underscored by petitioners' filing of the petition at bar and seeking redress from this Court. The question of respondent's appeal from the dismissal order is thus rendered moot. .
As to respondent court's second option, the Court rules that it is equally unnecessary for respondent-plaintiff to file anew a complaint asking for extraterritorial service of summons upon petitioners-defendants.ℒαwρhi৷Petitioners-defendants' properties having been attached within the Philippines, extraterritorial of summons clearly may be effected under Rule 14, section 17 and respondent court is DIRECTED to grant such leave for extraterritorial service of summons in the case below (without going through the ritual of "filing a new complaint"), as prayed for by respondent-plaintiff in the proceedings below and thereafter to proceed with due dispatch in the hearing and determination of the case on the merits.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero, Melencio-Herrera and Plana, JJ., concur.