G.R. No. 246017 - Malcampo-Repollo vs. People

Ask AI

G.R. No. 246017: Malcampo-Repollo vs. People

Getting related questions...
What do you want to know about the case?
Ask AI quickly gives answers based only on the current context to avoid mistakes. Always verify with the original text.

New Chat Started

Ask AI

Title Source: Supreme Court: Salcedo vs. Court of Appeals

Case: G.R. No. L-18480

Decision Date: Jan 31, 1963

Remedios Rodriguez sued Leopoldo Salcedo for child recognition and support. Summons served via housemaid upheld; default judgment affirmed. Appeals dismissed; execution enforced.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 246017)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Procedural Background

In January 1956, Remedios Rodriguez filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Quezon (Civil Case No. 42-G) against Leopoldo Salcedo.
The complaint sought:

Recognition of her child, Ricardo Eulogio Rodriguez, allegedly begotten by Salcedo, as his illegitimate child;
Payment of monthly support computed from the filing of the case until the child reached majority;
Award of moral, actual, and exemplary damages;
Payment of attorney’s fees and costs.

Service of Summons and Default

Summons were issued and reportedly served on Salcedo on July 25, 1956, through his housemaid, Nenita Baltazar, who was deemed of legal age and possessed requisite discretion.
Salcedo’s failure to file an answer within the reglementary period led to his declaration in default on September 4, 1956.
Subsequent to the default, the plaintiff was allowed to introduce evidence and, on November 27, 1956, the court rendered judgment ordering Salcedo:

To acknowledge Ricardo Eulogio Rodriguez as his illegitimate child;
To pay a monthly support of P200.00 from the filing date until the child’s majority;
To pay moral damages of P10,000.00, actual damages of P20,000.00, and exemplary damages of P5,000.00;
To pay attorney's fees of P1,000.00 and other costs.

Issuance of Writs of Execution and Relief Motions

On February 21, 1958, the court issued an alias writ of execution against Salcedo’s properties in Quezon City.
Claiming that he had only learned of the judgment upon receipt of the execution writ, Salcedo filed an urgent motion on February 24, 1958, seeking to set aside the decision and the execution writ.

During the hearing, Salcedo was permitted to testify and adduce evidence supporting his allegations.
The court denied his motion on September 19, 1958, on the grounds that it was filed out of time and lacked a supporting affidavit of merit.

A subsequent motion for reconsideration of the default order was also denied on October 24, 1958, with no appeal taken from either denial.
On January 22, 1959, a second alias writ of execution was issued.

Petition for Certiorari and Appeal Procedures

On May 4, 1959, Salcedo filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 24770-R), challenging:

The validity of the service of summons on him through his housemaid;
The consequent jurisdiction of the lower court in rendering judgment against him.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on November 19, 1959, upholding that:

Service of summons on the housemaid was valid;
The petitioner’s allegations lacked supporting evidence.

Instead of seeking review of the CA’s dismissal, Salcedo later filed with the trial court a notice of appeal from the judgment on the merits and a motion for an extension of time to file a record on appeal.

The motion for extension was denied, and the appeal was dismissed on January 14, 1960.

On January 26, 1960, the trial court issued a third alias writ of execution.

Petition for Mandamus Before the Court of Appeals

Salcedo subsequently filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 27157-R) to compel the trial court to approve the record on appeal.
The Court of Appeals granted a writ of preliminary injunction to suspend execution of the decision but eventually rendered judgment on May 20, 1961, dismissing the petition for mandamus.

The CA held that the trial court committed no abuse of discretion in issuing the order of execution or in denying the motion for extension.

The petition for review now before the Supreme Court challenges the CA’s dismissal of Salcedo’s mandamus petition.

Final Controversy

The Supreme Court’s review centers on Salcedo’s contention that:

The service of summons via his housemaid was legally defective; and
Consequently, the trial court lacked jurisdiction, rendering the judgment null and void.

Such contention had been raised previously in motions for reconsideration and the certiorari petition, all of which were denied and became final.
Salcedo’s subsequent petition for mandamus, filed after the finality of prior orders, is therefore adjudged without merit.

Issues:

Whether the service of summons on Salcedo through his housemaid amounted to valid service, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon the lower court.

The petitioner challenges the adequacy and legality of the service method used.
The issue reexamines principles on legitimate service of summons.

Whether Salcedo’s subsequent motions, including those for setting aside the default judgment and for an extension of time to file a record on appeal, were procedurally barred or substantively without merit.

The question examines if prior denials and the lapse of time render subsequent relief inadmissible.
It also considers whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying these motions.

Whether the petition for mandamus filed in the Court of Appeals to compel the trial court to admit the late record on appeal should be granted despite the finality of prior judgments and orders.

It involves the issue of whether any prejudicial error occurred that would warrant reopening the case.
The issue considers the impact of finality and previous judicial determinations on the merits of the petition.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

END