Case Digest (G.R. No. 183370)
Facts:
In the case Nation Petroleum Gas, Incorporated, et al. v. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, with the latter later substituted by Philippine Asset Growth One, Inc. as the respondent, a complaint was filed on October 16, 2006, by Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation against Nation Petroleum Gas, Incorporated (NPGI) and its directors/officers for civil damages arising from estafa related to violations of the Trust Receipts Law. After an ex parte hearing, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 66, Makati City, granted a writ of preliminary attachment on October 26, 2006, and served summons along with pertinent documents to petitioners through Sheriff Leodel N. Roxas. The sheriff reported that the summons and other documents were served on the defendant corporation through Claudia Abante, the liaison officer, upon telephonic instruction of Melinda Ang, corporate secretary of NPGI, as evidenced by Abante’s signature on the documents. The summons was also reportedly served to the
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 183370)
Facts:
- Parties and Initial Complaint
- On October 16, 2006, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (respondent) filed a complaint for civil damages against Nation Petroleum Gas, Incorporated (petitioner corporation) and its directors/officers for estafa involving violations of the Trust Receipts Law.
- The complaint sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment over petitioners’ properties.
- Service of Summons and Sheriff’s Actions
- On October 26, 2006, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 66, Makati City, issued the writ of preliminary attachment.
- Sheriff Leodel N. Roxas served the summons, complaint, application for attachment, affidavit and bond of respondent, and the order and writ of attachment on petitioners at BPI Building, Rizal Street, Candelaria, Quezon.
- The summons and other process papers were received by Claudia Abante, petitioner corporation’s liaison officer, who allegedly received them upon telephone instruction from petitioner Melinda Ang, the corporate secretary. Abante signed the summons receipt.
- Sheriff also served copies of summons on individual petitioners at their respective addresses, but they refused to acknowledge receipt.
- The Sheriff levied petitioners’ real properties registered in multiple locations and a plant equipment in Sariaya, Quezon.
- Petitioners’ Response and Arguments
- On November 15, 2006, petitioners filed a Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss for improper service of summons, arguing:
- The summons was improperly served on Claudia Abante, who is a mere liaison officer and not an officer authorized under Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court to receive summons for a corporation.
- For the individual petitioners, the summons was not personally served at their given addresses, nor was there strict compliance with substituted service requirements (Section 7, Rule 14).
- Cited cases include Spouses Mason v. Court of Appeals, E. B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. v. Judge Benito, Laus v. Court of Appeals, and Samartino v. Raon.
- Respondent’s Opposition
- Respondent filed opposition with a motion to declare defendants in default, asserting:
- Valid service of summons was made on petitioners.
- Abante received summons under Melinda Ang’s instruction, who is the corporate secretary.
- Sheriff’s Report is prima facie evidence of valid service and the sheriff enjoys presumption of regularity in performance of official duties.
- Invoked Oaminal v. Castillo, arguing petitioners voluntarily submitted to court’s jurisdiction by praying for discharge of writ of attachment, an affirmative relief separate from dismissal.
- Petitioners’ Reply and Affidavits
- Petitioners submitted affidavits denying personal service or telephone instruction to Abante.
- Argued that Oaminal is inapplicable as only one motion was filed and the discharge of writ is complementary to dismissal on lack of jurisdiction.
- Relied on Avon Insurance PLC v. Court of Appeals.
- RTC Ruling
- On March 29, 2007, RTC denied petitioners’ motion to dismiss and respondent’s motion to declare default, ruling:
- Service on liaison officer Abante under Melinda Ang’s instruction is valid, amounting to constructive receipt of summons by a corporate officer enumerated under Section 11, Rule 14.
- Petitioners ultimately received summons as they filed a motion to dismiss (responsive pleading).
- Presumption of regularity in sheriff’s service applies and there is no sufficient reason to doubt it.
- Court of Appeals Decision and Petition for Review
- The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s rulings and denied petitioners’ motions for reconsideration.
- Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court raising the following issues:
- Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over corporation by service of summons upon a mere employee (liaison officer).
- Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over individual petitioners by resorting to substituted service absent earnest efforts at personal service.
Issues:
- Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the defendant corporation by service of summons on a liaison officer, who is not among the corporate officers authorized under Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
- Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the individual petitioners by resort to substituted service of summons despite absence of diligent and earnest attempts at personal service within a reasonable time.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)