Case Digest (G.R. No. 156759)
Facts:
Allen A. Macasaet, Nicolas V. Quijano, Jr., Isaias Albano, Lily Reyes, Janet Bay, Jesus R. Galang, and Randy Hagos v. Francisco R. Co, Jr., G.R. No. 156759, June 05, 2013, the Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.
On July 3, 2000 Francisco R. Co, Jr. (respondent) filed a libel complaint arising from an allegedly defamatory article published in the June 6, 2000 issue of the tabloid Abante Tonite, naming Abante Tonite and several of its officers and staff — Allen A. Macasaet (Publisher), Nicolas V. Quijano (Managing Director), Isaias Albano (Circulation Manager), Lily Reyes (Columnist/Reporter), Janet Bay, Jesus R. Galang, and Randy Hagos (Editors) — as defendants. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 00-97907 and raffled to Branch 51 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Manila, which issued summons directed to the defendants at the business address indicated in the complaint (Monica Publishing Corporation, BF Condominium Building, Intramuros, Manila).
On September 18, 2000, RTC Sheriff Raul Medina attempted personal service in the morning but found the defendants absent; he returned that afternoon and again found them unavailable. The sheriff then effected substituted service at the office: he left copies of the summons and complaint with Lu‑Ann Quijano (secretary/wife) and Rene Esleta (editorial assistant), stating in his sheriff's return (dated September 22, 2000) that personal service was ineffectual because some defendants were “always out and not available” or “always roving outside and gathering news,” and that substituted service was therefore applied.
On October 3, 2000 the defendants (petitioners here) filed a special‑appearance motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the sheriff failed to first effect personal service in accordance with Section 6 and Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court; they also moved to drop Abante Tonite on the ground that it was neither a natural nor a juridical person. At hearing Sheriff Medina testified to his two attempts at personal service that same day and explained why he resorted to substituted service.
On March 12, 2001 the RTC denied the motion to dismiss, finding the substituted service valid because the sheriff had shown efforts at personal service and because those who received the papers at the office were persons of sufficient age and discretion (citing Section 7, Rule 14). The RTC directed petitioners to file answers. A motion for reconsideration was denied on June 29, 2001; the RTC reiterated that substituted service was justified by petitioners’ nature of work (constantly out gathering news) and also rejected the claim that Abante Tonite could not be sued, applying the doctrine of corporation by estoppel given the publication’s public representation and profit‑seeking nature.
Petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus seeking nullification of the RTC orders. On March 8, 2002 the CA dismissed the petition, holding there was no grave abuse of discretion by the trial court in finding substantial compliance with the rules on substituted service and in ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the substituted service of summons on petitioners valid so as to vest the RTC with jurisdiction over their persons?
- Was the inclusion of Abante Tonite as a defendant proper despite its alleged lack of juridica...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)