SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 227160. November 14, 2016.]
ESTATE OF THE SPOUSES EMILIO Z. DULALIA AND LEONARDA GARCIA-DULALIA, REPRESENTED BY NARCISO G. DULALIA AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs. AVESCO MARKETING CORP., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT JIMMY TANG, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 November 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 227160 — Estate of the Spouses Emilio Z. Dulalia and Leonarda Garcia-Dulalia, represented by Narciso G. Dulalia as Special Administrator, vs. Avesco Marketing Corp., represented by its President Jimmy Tang
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DENY the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure of the petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 142955 committed any reversible error in affirming the Decision dated October 13, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Manila City (RTC) that, in turn, upheld the Judgment dated December 17, 2014 of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 3, Manila (MeTC). Said MeTC Judgment dismissed petitioner's Complaint for Unlawful Detainer on the grounds of lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction over the person of the respondent.
Both the letter dated September 23, 2013 and the Notice to Vacate dated December 16, 2013 sent by petitioner to respondent did not contain any demand to pay rentals, in contravention of Section 2, 1 Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner's September 23, 2013 letter merely informed respondent that Narciso G. Dulalia was the new Special Administrator of the Dulalia Estate and that thenceforth monthly rentals should be paid to him. It did not contain a demand for payment of a certain sum of money or back rentals covering a specific period of time.
The courts below are likewise correct in holding that the MeTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent as the summons was not properly served upon it. The summons was served upon respondent through a certain Emy Ong who is a mere secretary of respondent's President and not to one of those allowed to receive summons on behalf of respondent corporation as enumerated in Section 11, 2 Rule 14 of the Rules. In addition, the respondent has neither voluntarily submitted to the MeTC's jurisdiction nor waived its right to interpose the defense of lack of jurisdiction. In fact, it seasonably and consistently asserted lack of jurisdiction as a special and affirmative defense.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the assailed June 23, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 142955.
SO ORDERED. (Mendoza, J., on official leave from November 8-15, 2016 per Resolution dated January 26, 2016 in A.M. No. 07-11-02-SC under the 2016 Wellness Program)." CAIHTE
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. SECTION 2. Lessor to Proceed against Lessee Only after Demand. — Unless otherwise stipulated, such action by the lessor shall be commenced only after demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is made upon the lessee, or by serving written notice of such demand upon the person found on the premises, or by posting such notice on the premises if no person be found thereon, and the lessee fails to comply therewith after fifteen (15) days in the case of land or five (5) days in the case of buildings. [Emphasis supplied]
2. SECTION 11. Service upon Domestic Private Juridical Entity. — When the defendant is a corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of the Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be made on the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel.