VLASONENTERPRISESCORPORATIONv.

COURTOFAPPEALSand
DURAPROOFSERVICES,
representedbyitsGeneralManager,CesarUrbinoSr.
FACTS:
PoroPointShippingServiceswasthenactingasthelocalagentofOmegaSea
TransportCompanyofHonduras&Panama(Omega)whenitrequestedpermission
foritsvesselM/VStarAce,experiencingenginetrouble,tounloaditscargoand
haveitstoredinthePhilippinePortsAuthoritycompoundinSanFernando,La
UnionwhileawaitingtranshipmenttoHongkong.
TheBureauofCustomsapprovedtherequest.Despitetheapproval,thecustoms
personnelstillboardedthevesselwhenitdockedonthesuspicionthatitwasthe
hijackedM/VSilverMedownedbyMedLinePhilippinesandthatitscargowould
besmuggledintothecountry.Thevesselanditscargowereseized.
Anoticeofhearingwasservedonitsconsignee,SingkongTradingCo.of
Hongkong,anditsshipper,DusitInternationalCo.,LtdofThailand.Whileseizure
proceedingswereongoing,threetyphoonshitLaUnion,andthevesselranaground
andwasabandoned.Asalvageagreementwasenteredintowiththerespondent
DuraproofServicestosecureandrepairthe
vessel.
Thewarrantofseizurewaslifteduponfindingthattherewasnofraud.
However,theCustomsCommissionerdeclinedtoissueaclearanceandeven
forfeitedthevesselanditscargo.Adecisionwasdecreedfortheforfeitureandsale
ofthecargoinfavorofthegovernment.
Seekingtoenforceitspreferredlien,theDuraprooffiledapetitionforcertiorari,
prohibitionandmandamusbeforetheRTCofManilaattackingtheactionsofthe
Bureau.PPA,Rep.SilverioMangaoangandMedLinePhils.werenamedas
respondents.Subsequently,Duraproofamendedits
petitionastoincludeformerDistrictCollectorQuiray,PPAPortManager
AdolfoAmor,Jr.,VlasonEnterprisesSingkongTradingCompany,Dusit
InternationalCo.,Inc.,ThaiNanEnterprisesLtd.AndThaiUnitedTradingCo.,Ltd
asrespondents.Inbothitspetitions,therewasfailuretoallegeagainstVlason
Enterprisesorprayforareliefagainstit.
Summonsesfortheamendedpetitionwereservedtotherespondentsandtheir
counsels.Summonsbypublicationwereallowedtobeserveduponthealien
respondentswhohadnorepresentativesinthecountry.

Thecasesagainsttheotherrespondentsweredismissedonthegroundsoflitis
pendentiaandlackofjurisdictiondespiteDuraproofmovingtodeclarethemin
default.Duraproofagainmovedtodeclaretheotherrespondentsindefault.There
wasnorecordthatthesemotionswereactedupon.
Thereafter,Duraproofamendedagainitspetitionwithsupplementalpetition.
TherestoftherespondentsweredeclaredindefaultandDuraproofwasallowedto
presentitsevidence.WithregardtoVlasonEntreprises,itwasallegedthatit
exhibitedconstantintimidationandharassmentandincurredheavyoverhead
expensescausingirreparabledamages.Thetrialcourtrenderedadecisioninfavorof
Duraproof.
Vlason,byspecialappearance,filedamotionforreconsiderationonthegroundsit
wasnotimpleaded,servedsummonsordeclaredindefault.Italsofiledaspecial
appearancebeforetheCAprayingthatthelevybeliftedoffits
properties,oraTRObeissuedagainsttheauction.Itsmotionwasgrantedandthe
previousdecisionwasreversed.However,DuraproofcounteredthatalthoughVlason
filedthemotionforreconsiderationinatimelymanner,ithasotherwisefailedto
includeanoticeofhearingmakingitsmotionamerescrap
ofpaperDuraprooffiledamotiontofileasupplementalpetitionimpleadingVlason
asoneoftherespondents.ItwasgrantedbytheCA.
Furthermore,itwasabletoobtainawritofpreliminaryinjunctionagainstthe
respondentstopreventthemfrominterferinginthetransferofthevesselandits
cargofromthePPAcompound.
Hence,thisappeal.
ISSUE:WhetherornotVlasonEnterpriseswasproperlyservedwithsummons.
RULING:No.
Acorporationmaybeservedsummonsthroughitsagentsorofficerswhounderthe
Rulesaredesignatedtoacceptserviceofprocess.Asummonsaddressedtoa
corporationandservedonthesecretaryofitspresidentbindsthatcorporation.Thisis
basedontherationalethatservicemustbemadeonarepresentativesointegrated
withthecorporationsued,thatitissafetoassumethatsaidrepresentativehad
sufficientresponsibilityanddiscretiontorealizetheimportanceofthelegalpapers
servedandtorelaythesametothepresidentorotherresponsibleofficerofthe
corporationbeingsued.The
secretaryofthepresidentsatisfiesthiscriterion.Thisrulerequires,however,thatthe
secretaryshouldbeanemployeeofthecorporationsoughttobesummoned.Onlyin

thismannercantherebeanassurancethatthesecretarywillbringhometothe
corporation[the]noticeofthefilingoftheactionagainstit.

Inthepresentcase,BeberowasthesecretaryofAngliongto,whowaspresidentof
bothVSIandpetitioner,butshewasanemployeeofVSI,notofpetitioner.The
piercingofthecorporateveilcannotberesortedtowhenservingsummons.
Doctrinally,acorporationisalegalentitydistinctandseparatefromthemembers
andstockholderswhocomposeit.However,whenthecorporatefictionisusedasa
meansofperpetratingafraud,evadinganexistingobligation,circumventinga
statute,achievingorperfectingamonopolyor,ingenerallyperpetratingacrime,the
veilwillbeliftedtoexposetheindividualscomposingit.Noneoftheforegoing
exceptionshasbeenshowntoexistinthepresentcase.Quitethecontrary,the
piercingofthecorporateveilinthiscasewillresultinmanifestinjustice.
Thiswecannotallow.Hence,thecorporatefictionremains.
Petitionerclaimsthatthetrialcourtdidnotacquirejurisdictionoverit,becausethe
formerhadnotbeenservedsummonsanewfortheSecondAmendedPetitionorfor
theSecondAmendedPetitionwithSupplementalPetition.
Wedisagree.Althoughitiswellsettledthatanamendedpleadingsupersedesthe
originalone,whichisthusdeemedwithdrawnandnolongerconsideredpartofthe
record,itdoesnotfollowipsofactothattheserviceofanewsummonsforamended
petitionsorcomplaintsisrequired.Wherethe
defendantshavealreadyappearedbeforethetrialcourtbyvirtueofasummonson
theoriginalcomplaint,theamendedcomplaintmaybeserveduponthemwithout
needofanothersummons,evenifnewcausesofactionarealleged.
Afteritisacquired,acourtsjurisdictioncontinuesuntilthecaseisfinally
terminated.Conversely,whendefendantshavenotyetappearedincourtandno
summonshasbeenvalidlyserved,newsummonsfortheamendedcomplaintmustbe
servedonthem.Itisnotthechangeofcauseofactionthatgivesrisetotheneedto
serveanothersummonsfortheamendedcomplaint,butrathertheacquisitionof
jurisdictionoverthepersonsofthedefendants.Ifthetrialcourthasnotyetacquired
jurisdictionoverthem,anewserviceofsummonsfortheamendedcomplaintis
required.
Inthiscase,thetrialcourtobviouslylaboredundertheerroneousimpressionthat
petitionerhadalreadybeenplacedunderitsjurisdictionsinceithadbeenserved
summonsthroughthesecretaryofitspresident.Thus,itdispensedwiththeservice
onpetitionerofnewsummonsforthesubsequent
amendmentsofthePetition.Wehavealreadyruled,however,thatthefirstserviceof
summonsonpetitionerwasinvalid.Therefore,thetrialcourtneveracquired
jurisdiction,andthesaidcourtshouldhaverequiredanewserviceofsummonsfor
theamendedPetitions.