G.R. No. 191080 - Nogales vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 191080)

Factual Background

BDO Remittance (Italia) S.P.A. employed Helen M. Ocampo as a remittance processor beginning September 2002 and dismissed her in February 2004 for alleged misappropriation of PHP 24,035.60 by falsifying customer-related invoices for transfers from February to December 2003. The company filed criminal charges in Turin, Italy; Ocampo pleaded guilty and, on April 13, 2005, the Court of Turin convicted her, sentenced her to six months’ imprisonment and a penalty of 300.00, but granted suspension of enforcement of sentence.

Petition for Recognition in the Philippines

On September 22, 2008, BDO Remittance (Italia) S.P.A. filed a petition with the RTC of Mandaluyong City for recognition of the Court of Turin Decision and for cancellation or restriction of Ocampo’s Philippine passport by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA). The petition alleged two addresses for Ocampo, one in Italy and one in the Philippines, using the qualifier “last known address.”

Attempted Service and Default Proceedings

The sheriff attempted personal service on November 21, 2008 at an incomplete local address in San Bernardo Village, Tanauan, Batangas. Barangay officials directed the sheriff to the house of Ocampo’s father. The uncle and occupant, Victor P. Macahia, informed the sheriff that Ocampo and her family were already in Italy. The sheriff thereupon left the summons with Macahia. Ocampo did not file an answer. The RTC declared her in default and allowed BDO Remittance (Italia) S.P.A. to present evidence ex parte.

RTC Judgment

The RTC rendered judgment on September 14, 2009 recognizing the Court of Turin Decision as binding in the Philippines and ordering the DFA to cancel or restrict Ocampo’s Philippine passport and to deny renewal until she had served her sentence.

CA Proceedings and Ruling

Respondent filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals on April 12, 2010, principally contending that the RTC acted in grave abuse of discretion in recognizing and enforcing the foreign judgment and that she had not been properly served. The CA granted the petition in its Decision dated January 5, 2012 and held that substituted service under Section 7, Rule 14 was improperly used because Ocampo’s whereabouts were unknown and service, if any, should have proceeded under Section 14, Rule 14 by publication after diligent inquiry. The CA concluded that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over Ocampo and revoked the passport-cancellation order.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The petition for review under Rule 45 raised two principal contentions: that Ocampo employed the wrong remedy before the CA and that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in recognizing the Court of Turin Decision and ordering the DFA to restrict or cancel her passport. The central legal issue, however, was whether substituted service of summons upon the uncle at the Tanauan address validly conferred personal jurisdiction on the RTC over Ocampo.

Parties’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court

BDO Remittance (Italia) S.P.A. argued that substituted service was proper and that the RTC’s recognition and enforcement of the Court of Turin Decision was lawful. Respondent Helen M. Ocampo maintained that she had not been validly served, that her whereabouts were in Italy at the time, and that the substituted service on a caretaker uncle at a former residence failed to satisfy the requirements of the Rules of Court. She supplemented her defenses with a decree from the High Court of Turin dated June 29, 2010 asserting that her criminal liability had been extinguished.

Legal Framework on Service of Summons

The Court reiterated that personal service is the general rule under Section 6, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court and that substituted service under Section 7, Rule 14 is available only when the defendant cannot be served personally after reasonable efforts and when the place served is the defendant’s dwelling or regular place of business at the time of service. When the defendant’s whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service by publication under Section 14, Rule 14 is the extraordinary remedy permitted, subject to leave of court and supportive affidavit. The Court also noted the availability, with court leave, of extraterritorial service under Section 15, Rule 14.

Court’s Assessment of Service in the Present Case

The Supreme Court agreed with the CA that substituted service was improperly used. The sheriff’s report and the petitioner’s own pleadings acknowledged that Ocampo and her family were in Italy and that her Italian address was uncertain, facts that showed she did not reside at the Tanauan address at the time of service. The Court cited Keister v. Navarro for the principle that substituted service presupposes that the address served is the defendant’s current residence or place of business, not a former dwelling. Because Ocampo was not a resident at the location where the summons was left, substituted service failed to effect valid service.

Jurisdictional Consequence and Due Process

The Court emphasized that valid service of summons is indispensable to a defendant’s constitutional right to due process and that a court acquires no jurisdiction over a person not validly summoned. Therefore, the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over Ocampo and its September 14, 2009 decision was void. The petitioner’s reliance on Palma v. Galvez was distinguished on the ground that Palma involved temporary absence from the country, whereas O

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 191080)

Parties and Procedural Posture

BDO Remittance (Italia) S.P.A., formerly Express Padala (Italia) S.P.A., filed a petition for recognition of a foreign judgment with the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City on September 22, 2008.
Helen M. Ocampo was the respondent against whom the petition for recognition sought enforcement and an order to the Department of Foreign Affairs to cancel or restrict her Philippine passport.
The RTC, Branch 212, rendered a Decision on September 14, 2009 recognizing the judgment of the Court of Turin and ordering the DFA to cancel or restrict Ocampo's passport.
Ocampo filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals on April 12, 2010 after the appeal period lapsed, alleging lack of jurisdiction due to invalid service.
The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision on January 5, 2012 setting aside the RTC Decision and revoked the passport restriction order, and denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration by BDO Remittance on June 27, 2012.
BDO Remittance filed a petition for review under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, which was denied by the Supreme Court on September 6, 2017 insofar as there was no valid service of summons, and the RTC Decision was declared void.

Key Factual Allegations

Ocampo was hired by BDO Remittance in September 2002 as a remittance processor and was dismissed in February 2004 for alleged misappropriation of 24,035.60 by falsifying invoices from February to December 2003.
BDO Remittance filed a criminal complaint in the Court of Turin, where Ocampo pleaded guilty and on April 13, 2005 the Court of Turin convicted her to suffer imprisonment of six months and a penalty of 300.00, but granted suspension of the enforcement of sentence.
On November 21, 2008 the sheriff attempted personal service at an address in San Bernardo Village, Darasa, Tanauan, Batangas, and was informed by barangay officials and the occupant, Victor P. Macahia, that Ocampo and her family were already in Italy.
The sheriff left copies of the summons with Macahia, the uncle and caretaker of the house, and Ocampo did not file an answer, prompting BDO Remittance to move for default and to present evidence ex parte.
A copy of the RTC Decision reached Ocampo through her mother on February 11, 2010, and Ocampo subsequently engaged counsel and filed the Rule 65 petition with the Court of Appeals.
Ocampo later presented a decree from the High Court of Turin dated June 29, 2010 claiming that her criminal liability had been extinguished.

Issues Presented

Whether substituted service of summons effected by leaving copies with Victor P. Macahia at Ocampo's former Philippine residence constituted valid service under the Rules of Court.
Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of Ocampo given the mode of service employed.
Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in recognizing a foreign criminal judgment and ordering the DFA to cancel or restrict Ocampo's passport.
Whether Ocampo's remedy via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals was inappropriate.

Contentions of the Parties

BDO Remittance contended that Ocampo resorted to the wrong remedy and that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in recognizing the Court of Turin Decision and ordering passport restriction.
Ocampo contended that enforcement of