G.R. No. 203298 - Interlink Movie Houses, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

On 22 July 2008, petitioner Interlink Movie Houses, Inc., represented by its president Edmer Y. Lim, filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 167, Pasig City in Civil Case No. 71732.
The complaint sought the recovery of unpaid rentals and damages arising from an alleged breach of a lease contract against respondents Expressions Stationery Shop, Inc. (a domestic corporation) and Joseph Lim Bon Huan.

The first service of summons was effected on 24 September 2008 by Sheriff Benedict R. Muriel, who served the documents at the office of the defendant company’s president through Jonalyn Liwanan.
Respondents later challenged the sufficiency of this service, alleging that the manner of delivery did not comply with the required procedures.

On 5 January 2009, Interlink filed a motion to declare the respondents in default due to their alleged failure to answer.
On 6 January 2009, respondents, via their counsel Atty. Generosa Jacinto, entered a special appearance and contended that the service of summons was defective, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction.

Following the RTC’s finding that the initial service was defective pursuant to Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, the court ordered the issuance and service of new summonses.
On 11 May 2009, Sheriff Muriel attempted a second service of summons on Expressions at the office of its president, Joseph Bon Huan, through a person named Amee Ochotorina, who identified herself as one of Bon Huan’s secretaries.
Respondents maintained that this alternative form of service was defective because Ochotorina was not among the officers (president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel) authorized under Section 11.

On 10 February 2010, the RTC granted Interlink’s motion declaring the defendants in default, permitting an ex parte presentation of evidence despite the respondents’ objections.
Respondents, through an omnibus motion filed on 5 March 2010 (and later denied on 9 August 2010), sought to recall the RTC’s order on the ground that the second service did not transfer jurisdiction.

The RTC rendered its decision on 15 September 2010 in favor of Interlink, ordering the defendants to pay PhP600,000.00 for unpaid rentals, PhP242,676.00 for additional rental use, PhP300,000.00 as actual damages, and the costs of the suit.
Aggrieved by this ruling, respondents elevated the case by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA).

On 17 May 2012, the CA nullified the RTC’s orders and decision, basing its ruling on the determination that the second service of summons was defective and the trial court had not acquired jurisdiction over the respondents.
Interlink moved for reconsideration, but the CA reaffirmed its decision in a resolution dated 6 September 2012.
Subsequently, Interlink petitioned for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the CA’s annulment of the RTC’s proceedings.

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the respondents through valid service of summons.
Whether the second service of summons, effected through Amee Ochotorina, complied with the requirements of Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
Whether the respondents’ participation via special appearance constituted a waiver of their objection to the court’s jurisdiction.
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly nullified the RTC’s decision on the ground of defective service of summons.