By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado

SURVIVORS OF AGRICHEMICALS IN GENSAN (SAGING), INC. VS. STANDARD FRUIT COMPANY, ET AL.,
G.R. NO. 206005 (APRIL 12, 2023): CASE LAW ON SERVICE OF SUMMONS UPON FOREIGN PRIVATE
JURIDICAL ENTITY UNDER SECTION 12, RULE 14 OF THE REVISED RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
This is one of the cases I personally handled when I was still connected with a law firm in Metro
Manila more than ten (10) years ago. This is among the mass Tort cases filed by purported Banana
plantation workers in Mindanao against banana companies and suppliers of pesticide being sprayed by
airplane called DBCP or Dibromochloropropane which controls soil namatodes to ensure good harvest.
The plaintiffs, numbering to tens of thousands, allege that they became sterile or suffered illnesses
because of the aerial spray of DBCP in Banana plantations.
In this case lodged in the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 15, Judge Ridgway Tanjili
granted the Motions to Dismiss of defendants Dole and Del Monte Companies (“defendants
Companies”) for improper service of Summons and failure to state a cause of action. The Summons
were served to the defendants Companies by delivering the same to the Department of Foreignh Affairs
to be served by the authorized officer to the defendants Companies through their consulate or embassy
office in the United States.
Petitioner SAGING directly went to the Supreme Court filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court on questions of law. The Supreme Court under the ponencia of
Justice Marvic Leonen interpreted Section 12, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, i.e., “SEC. 12. Service upon
foreign private juridical entity. -When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has
transacted business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in
accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government official
designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines”, as it is enough
that the Complaint alleges that the defendants Companies transacted business in the country. This is a
shift from the previous rule that it should be “doing business in the Philippines” revealing an intent to
change the qualifier, and the Court, through Justice Leonen, held that the provision should be
interpreted to give effect to this intent. Hence, considering that the Complaint alleges that the
defendants Companies have manufactured, sold, or distributed in the Philippines products that contain
DBCP, there is sufficient allegation that they transacted business in the Philippines, hence, the rules
apply to them.
The Court then held that extraterritorial service of summons is now allowed for foreign private
juridical entities not registered in the Philippines or that have no resident agent even on in personam
cases or personal actions. The Court held: “We further note that the provision does not qualify that this
type of service of summons applies only to actions in rem or quasi in rem. Thus, the amended provision
applies in this case, and the service of summons through the appropriate court in the foreign country
with the assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs may be recognized as valid.”
However, defendants Companies contend that even assuming arguendo that the amendments
allow extraterritorial service of summons with the assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the
rules were still not complied because Summons was served via registered mail. The rules (Section 12,
Rule 14) as amended provide: “If the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the Philippines or
has no resident agent, service may, with leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines through any of
the following means: a) By personal service coursed through the appropriate court in the foreign
country with the assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs; b) By publication once in a newspaper
of general circulation in the country where the defendant may be found and by serving a copy of the

summons and the court order by registered mail at the last known address of the defendant; c) By
facsimile or any recognized electronic means that could generate proof of service; or d) By such other
means as the court may in its discretion direct.”
The Court held that there is no evidence to show that Summons was not validly served to
defendants Companies and their allegations that it was served only by mail are unsubstantiated. The
Court relied on the doctrine under Section 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court that it is presumed that
the official duty has been regularly performed. Hence, the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the
defendants Companies and the Court directed that the case be remanded to the trial court for
disposition on the merits.