333 SCRA 545 Conflict of Laws Private International Law Service of Summons in In Personam

Cases
In 1989, Cesar Urbino, Sr. sued Poro Point Shipping Services for damages the former incurred when one
of the latters ship ran aground causing losses to Urbino. Urbino impleaded Banco Do Brasil (BDB), a
foreign corporation not engaged in business in the Philippines nor does it have any office here or any
agent. BDB was impleaded simply because it has a claim over the sunken ship. BDB however failed to
appear multiple times. Eventually, a judgment was rendered and BDB was adjudged to pay $300,000.00
in damages in favor of Urbino for BDB being a nuisance defendant.
BDB assailed the said decision as it argued that there was no valid service of summons because the
summons was issued to the ambassador of Brazil. Further, the other summons which were made through
publication is not applicable to BDB as it alleged that the action against them is in personam.
ISSUE: Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction over Banco Do Brasil.
HELD: No. Banco Do Brasil is correct. Although the suit is originally in rem as it was BDBs claim on the
sunken ship which was used as the basis for it being impleaded, the action nevertheless became an in
personam one when Urbino asked for damages in the said amount. As such, only a personal service of
summons would have vested the court jurisdiction over BDB. Where the action is in personam, one
brought against a person on the basis of his personal liability, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. When the defendant is a non-resident,
personal service of summons within the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person.
This cannot be done, however, if the defendant is not physically present in the country, and thus, the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot validly try and decide the case against
him.