Case Summary (G.R. No. 127383)
Background of the Case
On October 11, 2006, Chinatrust filed a complaint against Nation Petroleum Corporation and the individual petitioners, seeking a money claim along with a writ of preliminary attachment before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, which was designated as Civil Case No. 06-872. Summonses were issued the following day and attempted service occurred subsequently, with the process server encountering difficulties in executing personal service.
Service of Summons
On October 30, 2006, service attempts were made at the defendants' workplace. The process server reported serving summons through Ricky Ang and later through Charlotte Magpayo, who was a corporate secretary, but the service was disputed based on claims that proper jurisdiction was not established. The petitioners contended that the substituted service was void due to non-compliance with the requisite provisions of the Rules of Court.
Regional Trial Court's Ruling
On May 17, 2007, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, holding that the corporate secretary authorized Magpayo to receive summons. It also deemed that Ricky Ang was validly served. The RTC concluded that the process server's actions were warranted due to the failure to serve the other defendants directly.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals
The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), challenging the RTC's findings concerning jurisdiction over Nation Petroleum Corporation and the individual petitioners. While the CA affirmed the RTC's order regarding the individual petitioners, it dismissed the case against Nation, citing insufficient evidence regarding the authority of Magpayo to receive the summons effectively.
Arguments of the Petitioners
The petitioners argued that the process server failed to establish impossibility for personal service and that Magpayo was not a competent person authorized to receive summons. They asserted that the requirements for substituted service were not followed, rendering the service invalid.
Position of The Asian Debt Fund
The Asian Debt Fund maintained that the issues regarding the service of summons should not be addressed under a petition for review on certiorari, framing them as factual questions. They reiterated that the presence of Magpayo constituted a valid substituted service due to the impossibility of personal service.
Supreme Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It held that jurisdiction over a party is acquired through valid service of summons or voluntary appearance, highlighting the necessity of making diligent efforts for personal service. It was determined that the attempts for personal service were inadequate as only two attempts were made on the same day, failing to satisfy the minimal requirements outlined in prior jurisprudence.
Requirements for Substituted Ser
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 127383)
Case Overview
- This case involves a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse the April 29, 2011 decision and January 30, 2012 resolution of the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals had only partially granted the petitioners' petition for certiorari against the May 17, 2007 order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 56.
- The RTC denied the petitioners' motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over their persons.
Antecedents
- On October 11, 2006, respondent Chinatrust (Philippines) Banking Corporation filed a money claim of US $458,614.84 against Nation Petroleum Corporation and the individual petitioners in the RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 06-872.
- The RTC issued summonses to the defendants on October 12, 2006, indicating their addresses.
- The RTC granted the application for a writ of attachment on October 27, 2006, conditioned on Chinatrust posting a bond.
- Service of summons was attempted on October 30, 2006, where the process server reported partial success, with summons served to Ricky Ang and Melinda Ang, but not to the other individual defendants.
Motion to Dismiss
- On November 21, 2006, the defendants entered a special appearance and filed a motion to dismiss, arguing:
- Lack of jurisdiction over Nation due to improper service of summons (served to a property custodian).
- Individual defendants were not validly served.
- Improper resort to substituted service.
- Chinatrust opposed the motion, asserting valid service and arguing that the process server a