Valid Service of Summons on Corporate Secretary: Lessons from Millex v. Citystate

The Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Millex Construction and Development Corporation v. Citystate Insurance Corporation (G.R. No. 149670) settles an important question in civil procedure: when is service of summons on a corporate officer valid, and what happens when a company challenges that service only after a default judgment? The ruling offers practical guidance for corporations facing lawsuits and for lawyers handling service of process.

The Facts of the Case

Citystate Insurance Corporation paid insurance proceeds to its insured, Restie Perez, after his vehicle was damaged in a collision with a truck owned by Millex Construction. Subrogated to Perez’s rights, Citystate sued Millex for sum of money in the Makati Regional Trial Court.

Summons was served on Ailyn Marasigan, described in the process server’s return as “secretary of the company.” Millex failed to file an answer, was declared in default, and the trial court rendered judgment against it. Only after receiving the adverse decision did Millex file a notice of appeal, arguing that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction because service of summons was defective.

The Issue

The central question was whether service of summons on Ailyn Marasigan, a secretary, constituted valid service on a domestic corporation under the Rules of Court.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court denied Millex’s petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The Court held that service of summons on a corporation may be made on certain officers identified in Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which includes the corporate secretary. The exact text of that provision is not reproduced in the decision as published in the library, but the Court applied it directly to the facts.

The process server’s return stated that summons was served on Marasigan as “secretary of the company.” Millex did not dispute at the trial level that she was the corporate secretary required by law. The Court emphasized that it was Millex’s burden to disprove the finding of valid service. A belated affidavit from its personnel manager claiming Marasigan was merely a department secretary came too late; Millex had the opportunity to present this evidence earlier and failed to do so.

The Court also noted a procedural flaw: Millex paid its appeal docket fees late, which independently justified dismissal of its appeal.

Why the Timing of Objections Matters

A key lesson from this case is that objections to service of summons must be raised promptly. A defendant who ignores a summons, allows a default judgment, and then challenges jurisdiction only on appeal faces a difficult path. Courts will not entertain new evidence on appeal that could have been presented at trial. The Court quoted the Court of Appeals’ observation that Millex kept silent about Marasigan’s actual position and only raised the issue after losing.

Practical Takeaways

• Corporations must respond to summons promptly. Ignoring a summons leads to default, and a default judgment is difficult to overturn.
• The process server’s return is presumed correct. A corporation disputing service must present contrary evidence at the earliest opportunity, not on appeal.
• Service on a “secretary” may be valid. If the return identifies the person as the corporate secretary, the service complies with Section 11, Rule 14. A company claiming the person was only a department secretary must prove this at trial.
• Procedural deadlines matter. Late payment of appeal docket fees can independently doom an appeal.
• Subrogation allows insurers to sue in the insured’s place. After paying a claim, an insurer may pursue the responsible party for recovery.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.