Case Digest (G.R. No. 170926)
Facts:
Guiguinto Credit Cooperative, Inc. (GUCCI) v. Aida Torres, Nonilo Torres and Sheryl Ann Torres‑Holgado, G.R. No. 170926, September 15, 2006, Supreme Court First Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.
Respondents, members-borrowers of Guiguinto Credit Cooperative, Inc. (GUCCI), allegedly defaulted on loans. On March 24, 2003, petitioner filed a complaint for collection of sum of money and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan, docketed as Civil Case No. 232-M-2003 and raffled to Branch 14.
Summons were, according to the process server Valeriano P. Badato, received on April 22, 2003 by one Benita C. Pagtalunan, described in the Return of Summons filed April 24, 2003 as the defendants' secretary at their given address. On November 18, 2003 petitioner moved to declare respondents in default; the trial court granted the motion, declared the defendants in default, and allowed petitioner to present evidence ex parte on February 10, 2004.
After ex parte presentation, the RTC rendered judgment on September 15, 2004 ordering respondents to pay specified sums and joint attorney’s fees, and a writ of execution issued. Sheriff levied respondents’ house and lot (TCT No. RT‑22289) on May 4, 2005; an auction was scheduled for June 7, 2005 but the Court of Appeals (CA) issued a temporary restraining order (TRO).
On August 24, 2005, the CA (CA‑G.R. SP No. 89974; penned by Justice Labitoria, concurred by Justices delos Santos and Brion) annulled the RTC judgment for lack of jurisdiction over respondents’ persons, holding the substituted service on Pagtalunan invalid because the Return did not show why personal service was impossible nor what efforts were undertaken. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner filed this Rule 45 petition for review on c...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was summons validly served on the respondents such that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over their persons?
- Was the RTC judgment correctly annulled by the Court of Appeals for lack of jur...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)