Gemperle vs. Schenker
1
Gemperle vs. Schenker G.R. No. L-18164; January 23, 1967 Facts: This case was the result of William Gemperle’s retaliatory act when respondent spouses Paul and Helen Schenker filed a case against him for the enforcement of Schenker's allegedly initial subscription to the shares of stock of the Philippines-Swiss Trading Co., Inc. and the exercise of his alleged pre-emptive rights to the then unissued original capital stock of said corporation and the increase thereof, as well as for an accounting and damages. Petitioner alleged that the said complaint tainted his name as a businessman. He then filed a complaint for damages and prays for the retraction of statements made by Helen Schenker. Summons was personally served to Helen Schenker but not to Paul Schenker. Helen then filed an answer with a counterclaim, but Paul Schenker filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the court never acquired jurisdiction over his person since admittedly, he is a Swiss citizen, residing in Zurich, Switzerland, and has not been actually served with summons in the Philippines. Issue: Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of Paul Schenker. Ruling: Yes, although as a rule, when the defendant is a non-resident and in an accion in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant can be acquired only through voluntary appearance or personal service of summons. But this case is an exception to the said rule. The Supreme ratiocinated: “We hold that the lower court had acquired jurisdiction over said defendant, through service of the summons addressed to him upon Mrs. Schenker, it appearing from said answer that she is the representative and attorney-in-fact of her husband aforementioned civil case No. Q-2796, which apparently was filed at her behest, in her aforementioned representative capacity. In other words, Mrs. Schenker had authority to sue, and had actually sued on behalf of her husband, so that she was, also, empowered to represent him in suits filed against him, particularly in a case, like the of the one at bar, which is consequence of the action brought by her on his behalf.”
description
conflicts of law
Transcript of Gemperle vs. Schenker
Gemperle vs. Schenker
G.R. No. L-18164; January 23, 1967
Facts:
This case was the result of William Gemperles retaliatory act when respondent spouses Paul and Helen Schenker filed a case against him for the enforcement of Schenker's allegedly initial subscription to the shares of stock of the Philippines-Swiss Trading Co., Inc. and the exercise of his alleged pre-emptive rights to the then unissued original capital stock of said corporation and the increase thereof, as well as for an accounting and damages. Petitioner alleged that the said complaint tainted his name as a businessman. He then filed a complaint for damages and prays for the retraction of statements made by Helen Schenker. Summons was personally served to Helen Schenker but not to Paul Schenker. Helen then filed an answer with a counterclaim, but Paul Schenker filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the court never acquired jurisdiction over his person since admittedly, he is a Swiss citizen, residing in Zurich, Switzerland, and has not been actually served with summons in the Philippines.
Issue:
Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of Paul Schenker.
Ruling:
Yes, although as a rule, when the defendant is a non-resident and in an accion in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant can be acquired only through voluntary appearance or personal service of summons. But this case is an exception to the said rule. The Supreme ratiocinated:
We hold that the lower court had acquired jurisdiction over said defendant, through service of the summons addressed to him upon Mrs. Schenker, it appearing from said answer that she is the representative and attorney-in-fact of her husband aforementioned civil case No. Q-2796, which apparently was filed at her behest, in her aforementioned representative capacity. In other words, Mrs. Schenker had authority to sue, and had actually sued on behalf of her husband, so that she was, also, empowered to represent him in suits filed against him, particularly in a case, like the of the one at bar, which is consequence of the action brought by her on his behalf.
