G.R. No. 5418 - People vs. Tanedo

On August 15, 1958, plaintiffs initiated a suit against defendant Fr. Gerardo Maximo, who was residing at the parish church in Concepcion, Malabon, Rizal.
The cause of action arose from a motor vehicle accident on December 16, 1957, that injured Paul Hershell Montalban, son of the plaintiffs.

On August 15, 1958, the summons was served on Fr. Gerardo Maximo at the parish church through Fr. Arsenio Bautista, a priest of the same parish.
On August 23, 1958, Fr. Bautista sent a letter to the Clerk of Court noting that Fr. Maximo had left for Europe on August 7, 1958, with an expected return in early November; however, he returned during the second week of October, 1958.

On September 20, 1958, the lower court declared the defendant in default based on the plaintiffs’ motion filed on September 13, 1958.
On June 8, 1959, the court rendered judgment against the defendant, ordering him to pay:

P10,000.00 as actual damages for the loss of his spleen.
P10,000.00 for loss or impairment of earning capacity, talents, and physical strength.
P5,000.00 as moral damages for Paul Hershell Montalban.
P5,000.00 as moral damages for Pablo C. Montalban and Regina Barretto.
P1,000.00 as exemplary damages.
P3,000.00 for attorney’s fees along with litigation costs.

On December 16, 1959, the plaintiffs formally informed the defendant at the Malabon Catholic Church of the lower court’s decision, quoting the dispositive part of the judgment and suggesting contact with their lawyer, Jose W. Diokno.
On December 20, 1959, the defendant, through his counsel Dr. Nicanor T. Santos, responded by explaining that he was unaware of the civil case and referenced his prior acquittal in a related criminal action.

On January 14, 1960, after the issuance of a writ of execution dated January 7, 1960, Deputy Sheriff Liberato C. Manalo demanded the payment, to which the defendant replied that he was “financially hard up,” with no property available for execution.
On January 30, 1962, an alias writ of execution was issued, and on February 1, 1962, the deputy sheriff levied a residential house in Caloocan City, purportedly belonging to the defendant.
On February 20, 1962, the defendant, by counsel, filed a verified motion to annul the proceedings on the ground that the summons was not properly served in accordance with Section 7, Rule 14.
The court denied the motion on March 3, 1962, and subsequently rejected the defendant’s move for reconsideration on March 24, 1962, leading to the present appeal.

On September 2, 1965, the defendant’s lawyer informed the court of the defendant’s death on August 1, 1965.
On October 18, 1967, after unsuccessful attempts to substitute the deceased defendant with an heir or estate administrator, the Court appointed the Clerk of Court as the representative of the deceased.
The case’s background also raises issues regarding the mode of service—specifically the validity of substituted service when the defendant is temporarily abroad.

Is substituted service under Section 8, Rule 14 (formerly Section 7, Rule 7) valid when the defendant, a resident of the Philippines, is temporarily absent from the country?
Does leaving a copy of the summons at the defendant’s dwelling or residence with a responsible person satisfy the requirements of due process?

Can the defendant’s argument that Section 18, Rule 14 (regarding service on residents temporarily out of the Philippines) is the exclusive method for such cases be sustained?
How do Section 8 and Section 18 relate, and which provision is operative when personal service is impracticable?

Does the defendant’s failure to take timely action—despite being made aware of the judgment—affect the finality and enforceability of the judgment rendered against him?
Can the defense of lack of notice be raised after a prolonged delay in responding to the default judgment?