G.R. No. L-46255 - Litonjua vs. Court of Appeals

Aurelio Litonjua was the defendant in Civil Case No. 17853 filed before the Court of First Instance of Rizal.
The plaintiff’s complaint sought monetary claims for underpayment, overtime pay, separation pay, attorney’s fees, and additional costs.
Owing to Litonjua’s failure to answer the complaint, a default was declared and the trial court rendered judgment by default on August 16, 1973.

Litonjua, in his Motion to Set Aside Judgment by Default and/or for New Trial filed on September 3, 1973, asserted that he was never properly served with a summons as required by law.
He contended that the lack of proper service deprived him of his right to be heard (due process) and to present his defense, a denial that substantially affected his rights.
Litonjua argued that if he were the proper party responsible for employment matters mentioned in the complaint, then the actual employment relationship would have been different.

The records indicate that a sheriff attempted service on June 26, 1973 by relying on substituted service, leaving the summons with Miss Rudy (Rodolfo) Pamintuan, the cashier of E & L Realty Co.
Despite the cashier’s refusal to sign for the summons—citing that she was not authorized to do so—the sheriff recorded that service was effected.
Prior information, including an affidavit by Pamintuan, confirmed that Litonjua was known to be of advanced age and rarely present at the E & L Realty Co. office; his residence at 1536 Princeton St., Wack Wack Subdivision, Mandaluyong, Rizal was actually known but not visited by the sheriff.

After the trial court denied Litonjua’s motion to set aside the default judgment, he manifested his intention to appeal on October 1, 1973.
On appeal, Litonjua advanced three assignments of error, with the primary issue being the alleged failure of proper summons service which resulted in his deprivation of a full and fair opportunity to be heard.
The record on appeal further shows that no opposition was filed against the Record on Appeal prepared by the petitioner, adding to the procedural context of the service issue.

Whether the service of summons upon Aurelio Litonjua was properly effected in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Whether the substituted service executed by leaving the summons with the cashier of E & L Realty Co. met the requisite standards of giving actual notice to the defendant.

Whether improper service of summons deprived Litonjua of due process, thereby preventing the court from acquiring jurisdiction over his person.
Whether the default judgment rendered as a result of the allegedly faulty service should be deemed void and set aside.

Whether the case of Montalban v. Maximo, which dealt with substituted service for a temporarily absent defendant, is applicable in this in personam suit.
Whether the decisions in Dultra v. Court of First Instance and Delta Motor Sales Corporation v. Mangosing, which reinforced the invalidity of judgments based on improperly served summons, control the outcome of the present case.