Case Digest (G.R. No. 225035)
Facts:
Carson Realty & Management Corporation v. Red Robin Security Agency and Monina C. Santos, G.R. No. 225035, February 08, 2017, Supreme Court Third Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner is Carson Realty & Management Corporation; respondents are Red Robin Security Agency and Monina C. Santos (Santos). The petition is a Rule 45 appeal seeking to reverse the Court of Appeals’ August 20, 2015 Decision and June 8, 2016 Resolution in CA‑G.R. SP No. 121983.
On March 23, 2007, Santos filed a Complaint for Sum of Money and Damages against Carson before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 216. The sheriff’s return shows service of a summons dated April 11, 2007 was effected at Carson’s business address on April 12, 2007 through a person identified as corporate secretary Precilla S. Serrano. On April 25, 2007 Carson, through its corporate secretary and counsel Atty. Tomas Z. Roxas, filed an Appearance and Motion seeking a 15‑day extension to file a responsive pleading; the RTC granted the extension on May 3, 2007.
Rather than file an answer, Atty. Roxas moved to dismiss for improper service, asserting the summons had not been served on persons authorized under the Rules. The RTC denied dismissal and ordered an alias summons. Multiple attempted services of an alias summons dated September 24, 2007 were unsuccessful; the process server attempted service at Carson’s offices and at Atty. Roxas’s law office but was unable to effect personal service. Carson repeatedly maintained that substituted service was improper for a corporation and that its law office was not empowered to accept process.
The RTC issued a further alias summons dated September 9, 2008. The officer’s return dated October 28, 2008 recited several attempts (October 2, 16, 27 and 28, 2008) to serve Carson’s President/General Manager and stated that on October 28 the process server left the alias summons with an employee, Ms. Loreta M. Fernandez (receptionist), who refused to acknowledge receipt. Fernandez later manifested she lacked authority to accept the documents. Santos moved to declare Carson in default; the RTC first denied, but on June 29, 2009 granted the second Motion to Declare Defendant in Default and allowed Santos to present evidence ex parte.
Carson filed motions to set aside the default and for reconsideration, all denied by successive RTC orders through September 9, 2011. On November 9, 2011 Carson filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC for declaring it in default due to purportedly invalid substituted service through Fernandez. The CA denied the petition in its August 20, 2...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC acquire jurisdiction over Carson?
- Was Carson properly declared in default? ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)