Case Summary (G.R. No. 132133)
Attempted Service and Default
The RTC sheriff attempted personal service at Ocampo’s Batangas address, which proved incomplete. Barangay officials directed him to Ocampo’s father’s house, where her uncle, Victor Macahia, informed the sheriff that Ocampo had permanently relocated to Italy. The sheriff left the summons with Macahia. Ocampo failed to answer, was declared in default, and the RTC proceeded ex parte.
Court of Appeals’ Certiorari Ruling
Ocampo’s Rule 65 petition argued lack of jurisdiction due to invalid service of summons and alleged grave abuse of discretion in recognizing a criminal foreign judgment. The CA found that Ocampo’s “whereabouts are unknown,” making substituted service under Sec. 7 improper. The CA ruled that only service by publication (Sec. 14) was permissible under the circumstances. It held the RTC judgment null and void for lack of jurisdiction and revoked the passport‐cancellation order.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Substituted Service
The Supreme Court affirmed that personal service is the rule (Sec. 6). Substituted service presupposes that the address is the defendant’s current dwelling or place of business. Here, the RTC sheriff knew Ocampo no longer lived at the Philippine address and had no substitute address in Italy. BDO Remittance itself admitted Ocampo’s “last known address” in Italy was uncertain. Consequently, service on her uncle at an address she no longer occupied did not satisfy Sec. 7.
Jurisdictional Defect and Due Process
Because substituted service requires that the process be left at the defendant’s actual residence or place of business with someone of suitable age and discretion, and Ocampo did not reside there at the time, the service was invalid. Without valid service, the RTC never acquired personal jurisdiction. The Court emphasized the cons
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 132133)
Facts of the Case
- BDO Remittance (formerly Express Padala (Italia) S.P.A.), an Italian corporation, employed Helen M. Ocampo as a remittance processor in September 2002.
- In February 2004, Ocampo was dismissed for misappropriating €24,035.60 through falsified invoices for customer money‐transfer orders spanning February–December 2003.
- BDO Remittance filed a criminal complaint in the Court of Turin, Italy. Ocampo pleaded guilty; on April 13, 2005, she was convicted and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and a €300 fine, with enforcement suspended due to her guilty plea.
Petition for Recognition of Foreign Judgment
- On September 22, 2008, BDO Remittance filed a petition before the RTC of Mandaluyong City (Civil Case No. MC08-3775) seeking recognition of the Turin Court Decision and requesting the DFA to cancel or restrict Ocampo’s Philippine passport until she served her sentence.
Attempted Service of Summons
- On November 21, 2008, the sheriff attempted personal service at Ocampo’s alleged Batangas address but discovered the address incomplete.
- Barangay officials pointed to Ocampo’s father’s house; her uncle, Victor P. Macahia, stated that Ocampo and her family had already relocated to Italy and accepted the summons on her behalf by substituted service.
RTC Proceedings and Decision
- Ocampo failed to file an answer; BDO Remittance moved to declare her in default. The RTC granted the motion and allowed ex parte evidence.
- On September 14, 2009, the RTC recognized the Turin Court Decision as valid and binding in the Philippines and ordered the DFA to cancel or restrict Ocampo’s passport pending her service of sentence.
Court of Appeals Proceedings
- Ocampo, unrepresented during the appeal period, missed the deadline. Her mother received and forwarded the RTC Decision on February 11, 2010.
- Ocampo secured counsel and on April 12, 2010 filed a Rule