Case Digest (G.R. No. 118696)
Facts:
The case, entitled *Ramona S. Orosa, Jose S. Orosa, Liza O. Trinidad, Myrna D. Destura, and Alfredo S. Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals, Bertan Press, and Antonio J. Bertoso*, was decided by the Philippine Supreme Court under G.R. No. 118696 on September 3, 1996. The private respondents, Bertan Press and Antonio J. Bertoso, filed a complaint for a sum of money against the petitioners in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 92-63476. The trial court issued summons to the petitioners, and service was performed on February 6, 1993. Summons were served on Ramon S. Orosa, Jose S. Orosa, Liza O. Trinidad, and Myrna D. Destura through their secretary, Maribel Viernes, and on Alfredo S. Mendoza through his employee, Juan (Jun) Besana.On February 24, 1993, the petitioners sought additional time to file their answer to the complaint. However, an urgent ex-parte motion submitted by the private respondents led the trial court to declare the petitioners in
Case Digest (G.R. No. 118696)
Facts:
- Background and Procedural History
- The case involves petitioners Ramon S. Orosa, Jose S. Orosa, Liza O. Trinidad, Myrna D. Destura, and Alfredo S. Mendoza against private respondents Bertan Press and Antonio J. Bertoso, as well as the Court of Appeals.
- Respondents filed a complaint for a sum of money before the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Civil Case No. 92-63476), prompting the issuance of summons against the petitioners.
- Service of Summons
- The trial court issued summons based on the complaint, and the sheriff’s return dated 8 February 1993 indicated that service was effected on 6 February 1993.
- The summons was served personally on petitioners Ramon S. Orosa, Jose S. Orosa, Liza O. Trinidad, and Myrna D. Destura through their secretary, and on petitioner Alfredo S. Mendoza through his employee.
- Petitioners’ Motions and Entry of Default
- On 24 February 1993, petitioners filed a motion for additional time to file their answer.
- On 5 March 1993, following an urgent ex-parte motion by the respondents, the trial court issued an order on 8 March 1993 declaring the petitioners in default for failing to file their answer within the reglementary period.
- Despite later filing their answer along with a motion for reconsideration on 30 March 1993, the trial court on 22 March 1994 denied the motion for reconsideration and expunged their answer from the records.
- Appeal to the Court of Appeals
- On 19 April 1994, petitioners elevated the issue by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals rendered a decision on 18 October 1994 dismissing the petition and denying a motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction and/or temporary restraining order.
- A subsequent motion for reconsideration filed before the Court of Appeals was likewise denied in the resolution dated 20 January 1995.
- Core Contentions of Petitioners
- Petitioners argued there was no valid service of summons because there was no evidence of earnest efforts to serve them personally.
- They contended that they were actually served on 9 February 1993 when their employees delivered the summons, which would fall within the reglementary period for filing the answer.
- By filing a motion for additional time to answer, petitioners claimed that the defect in service should be remedied or negated.
- Relevant Provisions on Service of Summons
- Sections 7 and 8 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court were cited:
- Section 7 mandates that summons be served personally or, if refused, by tendering it to the defendant.
- Section 8 allows for substituted service if the defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time.
- The sheriff’s return lacked details on the impossibility of personal service, a point later emphasized in evaluating the validity of the service.
- Evidence and Judicial Presumptions
- The sheriff’s certificate of service, indicating that service was effected on 6 February 1993, is deemed prima facie evidence of proper service.
- Petitioners’ attempts to demonstrate a later actual receipt (as of 9 February 1993) were deemed insufficient to overcome the clear evidence presented by the sheriff’s return.
- Discretion of the Trial Court
- The trial court exercised its discretion in denying the motion for additional time because the motion was filed beyond the reglementary period.
- The decision to declare petitioners in default, and the subsequent denial of the motion for reconsideration, was within the sound discretion of the trial court.
Issues:
- Validity of Service
- Whether the service of summons, executed via substituted service as indicated by the sheriff’s return, was valid under Sections 7 and 8 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
- Whether the lack of details outlining the impossibility of personal service affects the validity of the substituted service.
- Waiver of Service Defect
- Whether the filing of a motion for additional time by petitioners constitutes a waiver of any defect in the service of summons.
- The significance of petitioners’ voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction by filing the motion and later the answer.
- Judicial Discretion and Timeliness
- Whether the trial court’s denial of the motion for additional time to file the answer, thereby declaring petitioners in default, amounted to a grave abuse of discretion.
- Whether the discrepancy between the dates noted in the sheriff’s return (6 February 1993) and petitioners’ alleged actual receipt (9 February 1993) has probative value.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)