Case Digest (G.R. No. 146553)
Facts:
The case involves the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) as the petitioner and spouses Willie and Julie L. Evangelista, along with LTS Philippines Corporation, as respondents. On April 12, 2000, BPI filed Civil Case No. 00-495 in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City to collect a sum of money from the respondents. The case was assigned to Judge Salvador S. Abad Santos. The spouses Evangelista had previously executed a continuing suretyship for loans obtained by LTS Philippines Corporation, which amounted to a total of P30,000,000.00. Additionally, they secured a separate loan of P6,600,000.00 with a real estate mortgage over a property in Quezon City.
After the respondents defaulted on their obligations, BPI conducted an extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged property, which was sold at public auction for P8,013,200.00. However, the proceeds were insufficient to cover the outstanding obligation of P34,015,432.22. BPI subsequently reduced its claim to P21,812,534.60...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 146553)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
- On April 12, 2000, Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) filed Civil Case No. 00-495 against Spouses Willie and Julie L. Evangelista and LTS Philippines Corporation (LTS) to collect a sum of money.
- LTS had obtained loans from BPI amounting to P20,000,000.00, secured by a continuing suretyship executed by the Spouses Evangelista, who also obtained a separate loan of P6,600,000.00, secured by a real estate mortgage.
- After LTS and the Spouses Evangelista defaulted on their loans, BPI foreclosed the mortgaged property, which was sold at public auction for P8,013,200.00. The proceeds were insufficient to cover the total obligation, leaving a deficiency of P26,002,232.22, later reduced to P21,812,534.60.
Service of Summons:
- On May 15, 2000, summons were served on the Spouses Evangelista through Ms. Carmen Paanto, a person of suitable age and discretion at their residence. For LTS, the summons were served through Ms. Julie Cabrera, who refused to sign the receipt.
- The Spouses Evangelista and LTS filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing improper service of summons, lack of jurisdiction, lack of cause of action, and non-compliance with a condition precedent.
- The trial court denied the Motion to Dismiss, ruling that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties applied to the process server’s actions.
Court of Appeals Decision:
- The Court of Appeals (CA) annulled and set aside the trial court’s resolution, ruling that the service of summons was defective. The CA held that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the respondents due to the improper service of summons.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Jurisdiction in Civil Cases:
- Jurisdiction over the defendant in a civil case is acquired either through proper service of summons or the defendant’s voluntary appearance in court. Defective service of summons means the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the defendant.
Presumption of Regularity:
- The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties does not apply when the defect in the service of summons is apparent on the face of the return. Clear and convincing evidence is required to overcome this presumption.
Substituted Service:
- Substituted service of summons is only valid if prior attempts at personal service have failed, and this must be clearly stated in the return. The impossibility of personal service must be shown before resorting to substituted service.
Remand for Proper Service:
- If the service of summons is found to be defective, the trial court should issue new summons and ensure proper service to acquire jurisdiction over the defendants.
Technical Rules and Substantive Justice:
- While procedural rules must be followed strictly, the Court also recognizes the need to balance technical rules with the pursuit of substantive justice. Evidence may be presented to prove proper service, and if the defect is confirmed, new summons should be issued.
Duty of Process Server:
- The responsibility for proper service of summons lies with the process server, not the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not required to ensure that the process server complies with the rules.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings to determine whether the summons were properly served. If the service was defective, new summons should be issued and served properly to ensure the court acquires jurisdiction over the respondents.