JOHNLO TRADING COMPANY vs. HON. JOSE P.

FLORES
G.R. No. L-3987 May 18, 1951

FACTS:
In 1950, M. B. Florentino & Co., Ltd. (M.B.F.) filed a case against Johnlo Trading
Company (J.T.C.) and Lipsett Pacific Corporation for the collection of P14,304.19 and
damages in the sum of P10,000. MBF alleged that J.T.C. had transferred all its equipment
and properties in the Philippines with the intent to defraud its creditors. The motion for
attachment was granted, but later amended at the request of M.B.F.. The deposit in the
amount of P25,000 was garnished in compliance with the court's order.

J.T.C. is a joint venture organized by two foreign corporations, was not required to
register with the Bureau of Commerce or obtain a license to do business in the
Philippines as required by law. However, the summons for the company was served on
Charles T. Balcoff upon the claim that he is its representative in the Philippines. The court
declared the company in default, and M.B.F.was allowed to submit its evidence.

J.T.C. filed a motion for reconsideration and prayed for the setting aside of the order, but
the motion was denied. J.T.C. claims that the summons served on Balcoff is ineffectual
because he is neither an agent nor a representative authorized to received legal process in
its behalf. M.B.F. claims that the service made on Balcoff is valid and binding under
section 14, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Balcoff is the representative of Johnlo Trading Company.

RULING:
Yes. The court ruled that Charles T. Balcoff, an attorney, was acting as both counsel for
the petitioner and its representative in the settlement of claims in the Philippines.
However, the court ruled that it is unclear whether Balcoff acted solely as counsel for the
petitioner or as a representative of J.T.C. Balcoff's representation in the Philippines was
sufficient to bind his client, as he was presumed to communicate the service made upon
him of any process that may result in a judgment and execution that may deprive it of its
property.

The court also found that Balcoff acted not only as counsel for J.T.C. but also as its
representative in the settlement of claims. Records have shown that Atty. Balcoff acted as
J.T.C.’s representative in its demilitarization contract. Balcoff also sent telegrams to the
counsel of the plaintiff and Luzon Surety Company, leading the court to believe that
Balcoff really acted as the representative of Johnlo Trading Company.