Case Summary (G.R. No. 225035)
Factual Background
Monina C. Santos filed a Complaint for Sum of Money and Damages against Carson Realty & Management Corporation on March 23, 2007. The Officer’s Return of Process Server Jechonias F. Pajila, Jr. stated that the Summons dated April 11, 2007 was served at Carson’s Ortigas office upon Precilla S. Serrano who was described as “corporate secretary.” Thereafter Carson, through its corporate secretary and counsel Atty. Tomas Z. Roxas, Jr., filed an Appearance and Motion dated April 25, 2007 acknowledging receipt of the Summons and seeking fifteen days from April 27, 2007 to file a responsive pleading. Carson subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging invalid service because the Summons was not served on an officer authorized under the Rules of Court.
Service Attempts and Substituted Service
Process Server Pajila made repeated attempts to serve alias summonses issued in September 2007 and September 2008. The Officer’s Return dated October 28, 2008 recorded attempts on October 2, October 16, October 27, and October 28, 2008 to serve Carson’s president or general manager at Unit 601 Prestige Tower Condominium, and recited that on October 28, 2008 the process server resorted to substituted service by leaving the alias Summons with Ms. Lorie Fernandez, an employee and receptionist, who refused to acknowledge receipt. Fernandez filed a manifestation asserting her lack of authority to accept process.
Trial Court Proceedings and Default
Santos moved to declare Carson in default and the RTC, finding the summons improperly served at earlier stages, nevertheless granted the second motion and declared Carson in default by Order dated June 29, 2009, permitting Santos to present evidence ex parte. Carson filed motions to set aside the order of default, a motion for reconsideration and a motion for leave to file an answer with counterclaims, which the RTC denied in orders dated December 4, 2009, November 22, 2010, and September 9, 2011. Carson then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals challenging the validity of the service of the September 9, 2008 alias Summons and the resultant default.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals denied Carson’s petition and held that the RTC had properly acquired jurisdiction over Carson for two alternative reasons. First, the CA found that Carson voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the RTC by filing the Appearance and Motion of April 25, 2007 in which it sought additional time to file a responsive pleading without a conditional appearance expressly preserving objections to personal jurisdiction. Second, the CA held that the substituted service upon Ms. Lorie Fernandez satisfied the requirements for substituted service because Fernandez was a competent person charged with authority to receive court documents on behalf of the corporation. The CA therefore upheld the RTC’s June 29, 2009 Order declaring Carson in default and denied reconsideration in its June 8, 2016 Resolution.
Issues Presented
The issues presented to the Supreme Court were whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over Carson Realty & Management Corporation and whether Carson was properly declared in default for failure to file a responsive pleading.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision dated August 20, 2015 and the Resolution dated June 8, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 121983. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit and that the RTC had jurisdiction and properly declared Carson in default.
Legal Reasoning on Substituted Service and Jurisdiction
The Court reiterated that in personal actions the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant through personal or substituted service of summons but emphasized that substituted service is in derogation of the preferred method of personal service and therefore subject to strict requisites. The Court reviewed the formulation in Manotoc v. Court of Appeals and summarized the requirements for resort to substituted service: a showing of the impossibility of prompt personal service within a reasonable time; a detailed narration of efforts exerted to locate and personally serve the defendant in the Return of Summons; service upon a person of suitable age and discretion if at residence; and service upon a competent person in charge if at the defendant’s office or place of business. The Court explained that the Officer’s Return dated October 28, 2008 recited multiple, dated attempts to serve Carson’s officers and the circumstances leading to substituted service upon Fernandez, and that these facts showed deliberate evasion by the corporate officers and substantial compliance with the Rule’s demands. The Court further observed that while strict compliance with the Rules has been enforced in many cases, substantial compliance will suffice where circumstances so warrant and where strictness would frustrate the administration of justice, citing Sagana v. Francisco and Macasaet v. Co, Jr.
Legal Reasoning on Voluntary Submission and Default
The Court also ruled that even if substituted service were deemed invalid, the RTC had acquired jurisdiction over Carson by reason of its voluntary submission to the court’s authority. The Court applied Section 20, Rule 14 and precedent that seeking affirmative relief from the court constitutes voluntary appearance and submission to jurisdiction, unless the appearance is expressly made special or conditional to contest jurisdiction. The Supreme Court found that Carson, through its counsel, requested additional time to file an answer in the April 25, 2007
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 225035)
Parties and Posture
- Carson Realty & Management Corporation was the petitioner before the Supreme Court and the defendant in the trial court proceedings.
- Monina C. Santos was the complainant and plaintiff below who filed the complaint for sum of money and damages.
- The action originated before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, Branch 216, where summons were issued and subsequently contested.
- The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision dated August 20, 2015 and a Resolution dated June 8, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 121983 which the petitioner sought to reverse.
- The present petition was filed with the Supreme Court as a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Key Facts
- Monina C. Santos filed her Complaint on March 23, 2007 and an initial Summons dated April 11, 2007 was allegedly served at Carson's business address on April 12, 2007 through Precilla S. Serrano who was described as a "corporate secretary" in the Officer's Return.
- Atty. Tomas Z. Roxas, Jr. filed an Appearance and Motion dated April 25, 2007 on behalf of Carson acknowledging receipt of the Summons and seeking a fifteen-day extension from April 27, 2007 to file a responsive pleading.
- Carson later moved to dismiss for improper service on the ground that Serrano was only a staff assistant and was not authorized to receive summons under Section 11, Rule 14.
- The RTC issued alias summonses dated September 24, 2007 and September 9, 2008 after finding service issues, and Process Server Jechonias F. Pajila, Jr. made multiple attempts to effect personal service.
- The Officer's Return dated October 28, 2008 recited attempts on October 2, October 16, October 27, and October 28, 2008 and stated that substituted service was resorted to by leaving the alias Summons with receptionist Ms. Lorie Fernandez who refused to acknowledge receipt.
- Ms. Fernandez filed a Manifestation asserting her lack of authority to receive process, and Santos filed motions to declare Carson in default which the RTC ultimately granted in its June 29, 2009 Order.
- Carson filed motions to set aside the default and for reconsideration which the RTC denied in orders dated December 4, 2009, November 22, 2010, and September 9, 2011, prompting Carson to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals on November 9, 2011.
- The Court of Appeals denied the petition and the motion for reconsideration, and the Supreme Court denied the present petition and affirmed the CA decisions.
Procedural History
- The RTC noted Atty. Roxas' appearance and granted a fifteen-day extension in its Order dated May 3, 2007.
- The RTC denied Carson's Motion to Dismiss and issued alias summonses on September 24, 2007 and September 9, 2008.
- The RTC declared Carson in default in its Order dated June 29, 2009 and later denied Carson's motions to lift or set aside the default in orders dated December 4, 2009 and November 22, 2010.
- Carson filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, which denied relief