Practice question
A plaintiff sues a qualifying foreign private juridical entity that has transacted business in the Philippines but has no resident agent. The plaintiff invokes the specific Rule14 §14 procedure and seeks leave for authorized service abroad in an action in personam. The defendant argues that extraterritorial service can never be allowed in any in-personam case. Which is the sound response?
- The absolute objection overlooks the specific foreign-entity provision, which must be assessed on its own conditions.
- The defendant is correct because no exception exists.
- A Philippine plaintiff may always email any foreign person without leave.
- The phrase 'foreign entity' automatically proves valid service.
- The action becomes in rem simply because service occurs abroad.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-10-20-sc_2019.html — AM19-10-20-SC, 2019 amendments, Rule14 §§1–5,13,20–23.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/apr2023/gr_206005_2023.html — SAGING v Standard Fruit, GR206005, April12 2023, main decision.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/jul2023/gr_209449_2023.html — Republic v NCIP, GR209449, July11 2023, en banc main decision (notice and jurisdiction over the res).
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.