G.R. No. 149756 - Ramos vs. Sarao

Petitioner, Constantino A. Pascual (substituted by his heirs represented by Zenaida Pascual), filed a Complaint for Specific Performance with Prayer for Issuance of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction with Damages before the RTC, Branch 12, Malolos, Bulacan, against respondent, Lourdes S. Pascual, alleging interference with corporate and internal affairs of Rosemoor Mining Corporation.
The underlying issue involved orders and decisions rendered by the RTC affecting the petitioner’s interests, which later became the subject of appellate review and a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

On May 21, 2002, the process server attempted personal service at the defendant’s address (No. 4 Manikling St., Talayan Village, Quezon City).

The process server reported that, at the time of service, the defendant was absent and only her maid was present, who refused to accept the summons despite repeated insistence.
A certification from the barangay clerk attested to the process server’s alleged exertion of effort, although the summons was returned “NOT SERVED.”

A subsequent alias summons was issued, and on May 29, 2002, another attempt was made:

The process server, this time accompanied by barangay officials, went to the same address, but was not allowed inside the premises.
Information from the maid and observations (such as the defendant’s car parked inside) suggested that the defendant was present but intentionally avoided service.
The attempted service was returned as “UNSERVED” on May 30, 2002.

The summons (dated August 12, 2002) together with a copy of the complaint was served at the defendant’s residence.
Although the defendant was not personally available, a copy was left with her housemaid—deemed “at the age of reason”—who refused to sign for receipt.

Due to the respondent’s failure to file a responsive pleading, petitioner filed a Motion to Declare Defendant in Default on September 17, 2002.
The RTC issued an Order on October 30, 2002, declaring the respondent in default and permitting the filing of evidence ex-parte.
A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration by the respondent was denied on November 27, 2002.
On December 3, 2002, the RTC rendered a Decision in favor of the petitioner, with the following key directives:

An injunction ordering the respondent to cease interfering with the internal affairs of Rosemoor Mining Corporation.
Payment of ₱100,000.00 as moral damages, ₱30,000.00 as attorney’s fees, and the payment of court costs.

The respondent attempted to set aside the default order through a motion on December 13, 2002, which was denied on April 4, 2003; later motions for reconsideration were also eventually denied.

On June 29, 2005, the Court of Appeals (CA) granted the respondent’s Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65, nullifying and vacating the RTC’s Decision and Orders.
In response, petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, with a prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction, raising issues on improper service and other procedural aspects.
There was also a substitution of the respondent by his heirs (through representation by his wife, Zenaida Pascual) later admitted by the Supreme Court on June 30, 2008.

Petitioner maintained that there was valid substituted service, arguing for the presumption of regularity in official functions and that his remedy of review was proper.
In contrast, respondent contended:

The service of summons was defective as it was attempted on an illiterate maid, thereby failing to establish personal jurisdiction.
There was grave abuse of discretion in declaring her in default and in denying her motion to set aside the order.
The respondent further raised issues on possible violations of Republic Act No. 6713 and alleged forum shopping by the petitioner.
Respondent argued that the CA’s decision, by constraining the application of the doctrine of finality to void judgments, was necessary as the underlying judgment lacked jurisdiction.

Whether there was a valid substituted service of summons on the respondent in accordance with the requirements of the Rules on Civil Procedure.

Did the process server satisfy the “impossibility of prompt personal service” requirement by making multiple attempts on different dates?
Were the necessary details required by Rule 14 (substituted service) sufficiently provided in the officer’s returns?

Whether the alleged defective service of summons deprived the RTC of jurisdiction over the respondent, and thus, whether the subsequent judgment of default and Decision rendered against her is void.

Whether the petitioner’s reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions should save the substituted service from invalidation in the absence of strict compliance with procedural requirements.

Whether the filing of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 was appropriate in lieu of or in addition to an ordinary appeal, especially when the judgment (being void for lack of jurisdiction) could not have attained finality.
Whether the respondent’s other claims—including allegations of forum shopping, contempt of court, and abuse of discretion in declaring her in default—merit consideration.