Title
Macasaet vs. Co, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 156759
Decision Date
Jun 5, 2013
Retired officer sued Abante Tonite for libel; substituted summons deemed valid, Abante Tonite held liable as corporation by estoppel.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 156759)

Petitioners

Defendants Macasaet, Quijano, Albano, Reyes, Bay, Galang, and Hagos, collectively challenging the RTC’s exercise of personal jurisdiction based on substituted service and the inclusion of Abante Tonite as a party.

Respondent

Francisco R. Co Jr., plaintiff below, alleging damages from an allegedly libelous article published in the June 6, 2000 issue of Abante Tonite.

Key Dates

• July 3, 2000: Complaint for libel filed (Civil Case No. 00-97907).
• September 18 & 22, 2000: RTC Sheriff’s two personal-service attempts and substituted service.
• October 3, 2000: Petitioners file special appearance and motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
• March 12, 2001: RTC denies motion to dismiss.
• June 29, 2001: RTC denies motion for reconsideration.
• March 8, 2002: Court of Appeals dismisses petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.
• January 13, 2003: CA denies reconsideration.
• June 5, 2013: Supreme Court affirms CA decision under the 1987 Constitution.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (due process, in-personam jurisdiction).
• Rules of Court, Rule 14, Sections 6–7 (personal and substituted service of summons).
• New Civil Code, Art. 44(2)–(3) (corporation by estoppel).

Facts

Sheriff Raul Medina attempted personal service at the defendants’ office in Intramuros, Manila, on September 18, 2000 (morning and afternoon) but found each continuously absent. He then effected substituted service on competent office personnel, reciting futile personal-service efforts. Petitioners filed a special appearance and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and alleged that Abante Tonite could not be sued as a non-juridical entity. The RTC denied both motions, and the CA affirmed.

Issues

  1. Whether substituted service complied with due-process and Rule 14 requirements before vesting the RTC with personal jurisdiction over petitioners.
  2. Whether Abante Tonite, unincorporated and not registered with the SEC, may be a proper party.

Analysis and Ruling

The Supreme Court, applying the 1987 Constitution, reaffirmed that personal jurisdiction in personam requires proper service of summons unless validly waived. Rule 14 mandates that substituted service may follow only after diligent but unsuccessful personal-service efforts within a reasonable time. Sheriff Medina’s two attempts and the factual findings that the defendants were consistently unavailable justifi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.