Title
Supreme Court
Carson Realty and Management Corp. vs. Red Robin Security Agency
Case
G.R. No. 225035
Decision Date
Feb 8, 2017
Petitioner challenged default judgment, arguing improper summons service; Court ruled voluntary appearance via extension request conferred jurisdiction, validating substituted service and default.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 225035)

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

• March 23, 2007: Santos filed complaint with RTC, Quezon City, Branch 216.
• April 11–12, 2007: Summons served on Carson through Serrano; April 25 appearance and motion filed; May 3 extension granted.
• September 24, 2007 & November 9, 2007: First alias summons issued and attempted.
• September 9–October 28, 2008: Second alias summons issued; four service attempts culminating in substituted service on Fernandez.
• June 29, 2009: RTC declared Carson in default and allowed ex parte presentation of evidence.
• December 4, 2009 & November 22, 2010: Motions to set aside default denied; ex parte proceedings approved.
• November 9, 2011: Carson filed Rule 65 certiorari petition with CA.
• August 20, 2015 Decision & June 8, 2016 Resolution: CA denied petition.
• February 8, 2017: Supreme Court rendered decision under review.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 decision).
• Rule 14, Sections 11 (service on domestic juridical entities) & 20 (voluntary appearance).
• Rule 9, Section 3 (default and relief from default).
• Rule 65 (certiorari).
• Jurisprudential standards on substituted service (Manotoc v. CA; Sagana v. Francisco).

Service of Summons and Jurisdictional Challenges

Carson first challenged validity of personal service on Serrano and sought dismissal. After denial, Santos obtained alias summons twice. Process Server Pajila made multiple attempts to serve corporate officers; on the fourth attempt he left documents with receptionist Fernandez, who refused to acknowledge receipt. Carson contended that substituted service on a receptionist was invalid because Rule 14, Section 11 limits service to designated officers.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA affirmed RTC jurisdiction on two grounds:

  1. Carson’s voluntary submission by seeking additional time to file a responsive pleading constituted a general appearance, waiving any objection to personal jurisdiction.
  2. Even absent voluntary submission, substituted service on Fernandez was valid because she was a competent person in charge at Carson’s regular place of business, and multiple diligent attempts at personal service had failed.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over Carson.
  2. Whether Carson was properly declared in default.

Supreme Court Ruling on Jurisdiction

The Court held that jurisdiction over a corporate defendant arises either by valid service of summons or by voluntary submission (Section 20, Rule 14). By requesting a 15-day extension to file a responsive pleading without expressly preserving jurisdictional objections, Carson effected a general appearance and submitted to RTC jurisdic

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.