Case Digest (G.R. No. 183182)
Facts:
On September 29, 2005, Gentle Supreme Philippines, Inc. (GSP) filed a collection case for the enforcement of a writ of preliminary attachment against Consar Trading Corporation (CTC), its president Ricardo Consulta (Consulta), and vice-president Norberto Sarayba (Sarayba) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 68, designated as Civil Case 70544. GSP claimed that CTC, via Consulta and Sarayba, purchased merchandise but subsequently refused to settle the payment. Before the service of summons was executed, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary attachment against the defendants after GSP posted the required bond. Subsequently, the RTC ordered summons against the defendants. However, on October 11, 2005, the sheriff failed to deliver the summons to any authorized officers of CTC or to Consulta and Sarayba, leading him to leave copies with Agnes Canave, whom he reported as Sarayba's secretary and an authorized representative of both Sarayba and Consulta. None
...Case Digest (G.R. No. 183182)
Facts:
- Initiation of the Case
- Gentle Supreme Philippines, Inc. (GSP) filed a collection case on September 29, 2005, with an application for a writ of preliminary attachment against:
- Consar Trading Corporation (CTC)
- CTC’s president, respondent Ricardo Consulta
- CTC’s vice-president, Norberto Sarayba
- The complaint alleged that CTC, through Consulta and Sarayba, purchased merchandise from GSP but failed to pay for it.
- Proceedings at the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
- The RTC of Pasig City, Branch 68, issued a writ of preliminary attachment against the defendants after the requisite bond was filed by GSP.
- Summons were subsequently issued by the RTC against the defendants.
- Service of Summons
- On October 11, 2005, the RTC’s sheriff attempted service of the summons and copies of the complaint.
- The sheriff failed to serve any of CTC’s authorized officers or the individual defendants (Consulta and Sarayba) directly.
- Instead, the sheriff left copies of the documents with Agnes Canave, who was identified in the return as:
- Sarayba’s secretary and an authorized representative of both Sarayba and Consulta.
- No answer was filed by the defendants, prompting the RTC, on November 18, 2005, to declare them in default and proceed with an ex parte evidentiary hearing.
- Subsequent Evidence and Developments
- After trial, the RTC ruled that because the defendants had defrauded GSP, they were solidarily liable for:
- The value of the merchandise supplied
- Attorney’s fees and the costs of the suit
- The RTC subsequently issued a writ of execution on January 25, 2006, which included the attachment of a registered land owned by Consulta.
- On June 9, 2006, Ricardo Consulta filed a petition for annulment of the RTC’s decision before the Court of Appeals (CA).
- He argued that he discovered the suit only upon receiving a notice of sale on execution of his property.
- He contended that the service of summons was improper, as service was effected through Canave—a person who was merely Sarayba’s secretary and not necessarily in charge of receiving such documents.
- Communications and Admissions Indicating Knowledge of the Suit
- Following the RTC’s decision, GSP’s subsequent evidence included:
- A letter from CTC (signed by Sarayba) indicating a proposal for payment of the adjudged amount.
- Postdated checks signed by both Consulta and Sarayba.
- Additional evidence included:
- The sheriff’s garnishment of CTC’s bank accounts on the same occasion as the service of summons.
- An admission by Consulta that CTC was served through Canave, implying that proper notice was given.
- Court of Appeals Decision and Subsequent Motions
- On March 18, 2008, the CA ruled that the RTC sheriff did not properly serve summons on all defendants and remanded the case, directing the RTC to ensure valid service.
- Both Consulta and GSP filed respective motions for reconsideration of the CA decision.
- Consulta’s motion for partial reconsideration was denied for tardiness.
- GSP’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied for lack of merit.
- The CA decision thus stood until the case reached the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Whether or not the service of summons on respondent Ricardo Consulta was valid, specifically:
- Is leaving the summons with Agnes Canave—who was identified as Sarayba’s secretary and allegedly not the person formally in charge—sufficient for proper service on Consulta?
- Does the mode of substituted service, as executed by the RTC sheriff, satisfy the requirements for establishing jurisdiction over Consulta’s person, thereby rendering the judgment valid?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)