TOPIC: Domicile and Residence of a Foreign Corporation

G.R. No. L-58345 December 9, 1981

FBA AIRCRAFT, S.A. and ITL, INC., petitioners,

vs.
The Honorable SEGUNDO ZOSA, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Rizal, Makati Station,
Branch XXXVI, DELFIN CAELAS and ARTEMIO CRUZ, as Deputy Sheriffs of the Provincial Sheriff of the
Province of Rizal and SUMMIT PHILIPPINES AIRWAYS, INC. (Formerly Sterling Philippine Airways, Inc.),
respondents.

FACTS:

The Court of First Instance dismissed a complaint filed by private respondent against petitioners, foreign
corporations which are not engaged in business in the Philippines, for lack of jurisdiction over the latters
persons, and ordered that the writ of attachment previously issued against the three aircrafts and engines
of petitioners be maintained until its dismissal order shall have become final, private respondent having
appealed therefrom. The trial court gave respondent-plaintiff two options to pursue as a result of its
dismissal order: "1) go to the proper appellate court for a ruling that is definite and definitive that a foreign
corporation can be sued in the Philippines on the basis of an isolated transaction; or 2) the plaintiff may
file anew a complaint asking for extra-territorial services of summons under Section 17, Rule 14 of the
Rules of Court." Petitioners defendants meanwhile filed this petition for mandamus with preliminary
injunction and

Petitioners defendants meanwhile filed this petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction and an
urgent motion for the release of the attached aircrafts and engines.

ISSUE:

Whether or not an attachment of a foreign corporation's properties in the Philippines may be maintained.

HELD:

YES.

Foreign corporation not engaged in business in the Philippines is not barred from seeking redress from
the Philippine courts, the same corporation cannot claim exemption from being sued in the Philippine
courts for acts done against a person or persons in the Philippines. It is equally unnecessary for
respondent-plaintiff to file anew a complaint for extra-territorial services of summons upon petitioners-
defendants, because, the latters properties having been attached within the Philippines, extra-territorial
services of summons clearly may be effected under Rule 14, Section 17 of the Rules of Court. Under our
jurisprudence, pending extraterritorial service of summons to a foreign corporation, an attachment of a
foreign corporation's properties in the Philippines may be maintained.