FRENCH OIL MILL MACHINERY CO.

, INC
CASE NUMBER:16 v. CA

Sept. 11, 1998 G.R. No. Martinez

126477
Article III Section I Charles Genoveza
Petitioners: FRENCH OIL MILL MACHINERY Respondents: Court of Appeals
CO., INC

Doctrine:
It is not enough to merely allege in the complaint that a defendant foreign corporation is doing
business. For purposes of the rule on summons, the fact of doing business must first be "established
by appropriate allegations in the complaint" and the court in determining such fact need not go beyond
the allegations therein
Facts:
1. Ludo and Luym Oleochemical Co. filed a complaint for breach of contract with damages
against French Oil Mill Machinery Co., Inc. Subsequently, summons for both respondents
were served to Trans-World Trading Company.
2. The French Oil Mill Machinery Co., Inc. filed a special appearance with motion to dismiss
on the ground that the lower court had no jurisdiction over its person due to improper
service of summons contending that it is not doing business in the Philippines and that Trans-
World Trading Company is not its agent. Initially, the lower court dismissed the complaint
for lack of jurisdiction over petitioner but when a motion for reconsideration was filed, it
reversed its ruling and ruled that summons was properly served. cdasia
3. In a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed before the Court of Appeals, the
appellate court upheld the ruling of the lower court. Hence, this petition for review
on certiorari raising the issue of whether or not there was proper service of summons to the
petitioner. CHDAaS

Issue/s: Ruling:

Whether petitioner was validly served with summons 1. NO

Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis:

It is not enough to merely allege in the complaint that a defendant foreign corporation is doing
business. For purposes of the rule on summons, the fact of doing business must first be "established
by appropriate allegations in the complaint" and the court in determining such fact need not go beyond
the allegations therein. In any case, the determination that a foreign corporation is doing business is
merely tentative and only to enable the local court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the foreign
corporation through service of summons. It does not foreclose a subsequent finding to the contrary
depending on the evidence.
|||