Title
United Coconut Planters Bank vs. Spouses Sy
Case
G.R. No. 204753
Decision Date
Mar 27, 2019
UCPB sued NGI, NPGI, and Sps. Sy for unpaid credit accommodations. RTC granted a writ of attachment, but SC ruled proceedings void due to improper service of summons, affirming CA's decision.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 204753)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Complaint and Underlying Transaction
    • On 27 November 2006, United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) filed a Complaint for sum of money and/or damages with prayer for ex parte issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against:
      • Nation Granary, Inc. (NGI)
      • Spouses Alison Ang-Sy and Guillermo Sy, Renato Ang, Nena Ang, Ricky Ang and Derick Chester A. Sy (collectively, respondents)
      • Nation Petroleum Gas, Inc. (NPGI)
    • The Complaint alleged that on 28 August 2005, UCPB granted NGI the following credit accommodations:
      • Import Letter of Credit/Trust Receipt Line of US$15,000,000.00
      • Case-to-case Letter of Credit/Trust Receipt of US$3,800,400.00
Both NGI’s obligations were secured by Surety Agreements executed by NPGI and the spouses Sy.
  • Ex Parte Attachment and Service of Summons
    • On 30 November 2006, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 146, granted UCPB’s prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment.
    • On 4 December 2006, summonses and copies of the attachment order were served:
      • Personal service attempts (one day only) on respondents and NGI/NPGI.
      • The Sheriff levied a Toyota Land Cruiser (plate XRK-783) reportedly owned by respondents.
    • On 5 December 2006, respondents’ shares and other assets in NGI and NPGI were garnished.
  • Motion to Dismiss and RTC Ruling
    • On 18 December 2006, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss with Manifestation, alleging:
      • Defective service of summons — served on a mere employee (Charlotte Magpayo), not an authorized corporate officer.
      • No personal service first resorted to before substituted service on the spouses.
    • On 8 June 2007, the RTC:
      • Granted suspension of proceedings as to NGI and NPGI (due to a separate Stay Order).
      • Denied the Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
    • Respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied; they then filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).
  • CA Decision, Resolution and Appeal to the Supreme Court
    • On 10 February 2012, the CA granted respondents’ Rule 65 petition, holding that:
      • Service of summons was defective and the RTC acquired no jurisdiction.
      • All RTC proceedings and orders were void.
    • On 7 December 2012, the CA denied UCPB’s Motion for Reconsideration.
    • UCPB filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, challenging:
      • The CA’s finding that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the defendant corporations.
      • The CA’s finding that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the spouses Sy.

Issues:

  • Jurisdiction Over Defendant Corporations
    • Did the CA err in finding that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over NGI and NPGI, even though they did not challenge the RTC Order before the CA?
  • Jurisdiction Over Individual Respondents
    • Did the CA err in finding that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the persons of spouses Alison Ang-Sy and Guillermo Sy, Renato Ang, Nena Ang, Ricky Ang and Derick Chester A. Sy?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.