G.R. No. L-41819 - People vs. Manlapaz y Poling

On December 23, 2002, PNOC Exploration Corporation filed Civil Case No. 69262 in the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 167, against Pedro T. Santos, Jr. to recover P698,502.10, the unpaid balance of a car loan for a Honda CRV, evidenced by a promissory note and chattel mortgage, with acceleration clause upon separation from service.
Personal service of summons failed despite diligent efforts to locate petitioner at his last known address.

RTC granted PNOC’s motion for service by publication; summons published in Remate on May 20, 2003; PNOC submitted an affidavit of publication by the advertising manager and an affidavit of registered‐mail service by its employee.
Petitioner did not answer; PNOC moved for ex parte reception of evidence; RTC granted on September 11, 2003; evidence was presented ex parte and the case was deemed submitted on October 15, 2003.

On October 28, 2003, petitioner filed an “Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and to Admit Attached Answer,” alleging non-compliance with Section 19, Rule 14 (affidavit not by clerk) and denial of due process for lack of notice of the September 11, 2003 order; he prayed to strike ex parte evidence and admit his answer.
RTC denied the motion on February 6, 2004, ruling that the complementary service affidavit need not be by clerk, that a copy of the order was mailed (though unclaimed), and that the answer was filed beyond the reglementary period.

Petitioner filed a certiorari petition in the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the RTC’s jurisdiction, notice, and technicality over equity; meanwhile, on May 19, 2004, the RTC rendered judgment ordering petitioner to pay P698,502.10 plus interest and costs (reconsideration pending).
The CA, in a decision dated September 22, 2005, and a resolution on December 29, 2005, upheld the RTC’s September 11, 2003 and February 6, 2004 orders and dismissed the petition; petitioner then filed this Rule 45 petition for review in the Supreme Court.

Whether service of summons by publication, complemented by registered mail, complied with the Rules of Court and conferred jurisdiction over petitioner.
Whether petitioner was denied due process for lack of notice of RTC orders and processes.
Whether petitioner’s “Omnibus Motion” constituted a voluntary appearance equating to service of summons.
Whether the RTC erred in refusing to admit petitioner’s belated answer and in proceeding ex parte.