Case Summary (G.R. No. 172349)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Complaint for libel filed: July 3, 2000. Sheriff’s attempted service: September 18, 2000 (two attempts). Sheriff’s return dated September 22, 2000. RTC denied motion to dismiss: March 12, 2001; denied motion for reconsideration: June 29, 2001. CA denied petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus: March 8, 2002; CA denied reconsideration: January 13, 2003. Petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, which rendered the appealed decision affirming the CA.
Factual Background: Complaint and Parties
Respondent sued Abante Tonite and the individual petitioners for alleged libel arising from an article published in the June 6, 2000 issue. Summonses were issued and directed to the defendants at the business address listed in the pleadings: Monica Publishing Corporation, Rooms 301–305, 3rd Floor, BF Condominium Building, Solana Street corner A. Soriano Street, Intramuros, Manila.
Factual Background: Attempts at Service and Sheriff’s Return
On September 18, 2000, RTC Sheriff Raul Medina attempted personal service in the morning, found defendants absent, returned in the afternoon and again found them absent. The sheriff then effected substituted service and certified in his return (dated September 22, 2000) that: (1) Allen Macasaet’s summons was left with his secretary, Lu-Ann Quijano; (2) Nicolas Quijano’s summons was left with his wife, Lu-Ann Quijano; and (3) the summonses for Albano, Bay, Galang, Hagos, and Reyes were left with Rene Esleta, Editorial Assistant — all described as persons of sufficient age and discretion. The return recited that personal service attempts were made but were ineffectual because the persons were “always out” or “always roving” to gather news.
RTC Proceedings: Motion to Dismiss and Hearing
Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing substituted service was invalid because the sheriff did not adequately attempt personal service in compliance with Sections 6 and 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. They also moved to drop Abante Tonite as a party on the ground it was neither a natural nor juridical person. At the hearing, Sheriff Medina testified to two attempts at personal service on the same date and to the information given by office personnel that the defendants were habitually out of the office. On March 12, 2001, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss, finding substituted service valid under the circumstances and deeming the persons who received the papers competent to recognize their importance and relay them to the defendants.
RTC Denial of Reconsideration and Rationale
On June 29, 2001 the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration. The court emphasized that the sheriff’s testimony demonstrated two personal-service attempts on the same day and that petitioners’ occupations justified the conclusion personal service within a reasonable time was impracticable. The RTC also addressed Abante Tonite’s status, holding that the publication displayed indicia of a juridical entity and, alternatively, could be treated as a corporation by estoppel so as not to leave injured parties without remedy.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, concluding the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The CA found factual and legal bases for the RTC’s orders: the sheriff’s return evidenced efforts at personal service that proved “ineffectual and unavailing,” and the substituted service was valid as there was substantial compliance with the Rules of Court. The CA also sustained the RTC’s inclusion of Abante Tonite as defendant under the doctrine of corporation by estoppel where the publication represented itself to the public in a manner indicating corporate attributes.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petitioners through the substituted service effected at their business address; and 2) Whether Abante Tonite could be impleaded as a defendant despite not being a registered juridical person.
Applicable Law and Legal Principles
- Jurisdiction in personam is essential for personal judgments and is grounded in due process under the 1987 Constitution. For actions in personam, the court obtains jurisdiction over a defendant either by proper service of summons or by the defendant’s voluntary appearance.
- The summons serves two objectives: (a) to vest the court with jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, and (b) to afford the defendant an opportunity to be heard.
- Rules of Court: Section 6, Rule 14 prescribes personal service as the primary method; Section 7, Rule 14 permits substituted service (leaving the summons at defendant’s residence with a person of suitable age and discretion or at the office with a competent person in charge) only if personal service cannot be effected within a reasonable time. Substituted service is extraordinary and must comply strictly with the statutory requirements, except that a defendant may waive defects by expressly or impliedly submitting to the court’s jurisdiction (e.g., by filing pleadings and participating in proceedings).
Analysis: Validity of Substituted Service in This Case
The sheriff conducted two attempts at personal service on the same date and received consistent information from office personnel that the defendants were habitually absent due to the nature of their occupation (field reporting and business duties). The sheriff’s return explicitly stated the attempts and the factual basis for resorting to substituted service. Under the Rules, substituted service is permissible only after reasonable attempts at personal service have failed; what constitutes a “reasonable time” depends on the circumstances. The Court found the sheriff’s
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 172349)
Case Caption and Procedural Posture
- Reporter citation: 710 Phil. 167, FIRST DIVISION, G.R. No. 156759; decision promulgated June 05, 2013; penned by Justice Bersamin.
- Petitioners: Allen A. Macasaet, Nicolas V. Quijano, Jr., Isaias Albano, Lily Reyes, Janet Bay, Jesus R. Galang, and Randy Hagos — defendants in the underlying libel suit.
- Respondent/Plaintiff below: Francisco R. Co, Jr., a retired police officer assigned at the Western Police District in Manila.
- Nature of case: Petition for review of Court of Appeals (CA) decision (March 8, 2002) and denial of motion for reconsideration (January 13, 2003) that upheld the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 51, Manila orders (March 12, 2001 and June 29, 2001) denying petitioners' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction based on alleged invalid substituted service; underlying suit for libel.
- Final disposition at Supreme Court level: Petition for review denied; CA decision affirmed; petitioners ordered to pay costs of suit.
Antecedent Facts (Nature of Underlying Libel Action)
- On July 3, 2000, respondent sued Abante Tonite (daily tabloid) and individuals associated with it — Publisher Allen A. Macasaet; Managing Director Nicolas V. Quijano; Circulation Manager Isaias Albano; Editors Janet Bay, Jesus R. Galang and Randy Hagos; Columnist/Reporter Lily Reyes — for alleged libel arising from an article published in the June 6, 2000 issue of Abante Tonite.
- Case docketed as Civil Case No. 00-97907 and raffled to RTC, Branch 51, Manila.
- RTC issued summons to each defendant to be served at their business address: Monica Publishing Corporation, Rooms 301-305, 3rd Floor, BF Condominium Building, Solana Street corner A. Soriano Street, Intramuros, Manila.
Sheriff’s Attempts and the Sheriff’s Return (September 18–22, 2000)
- Sheriff Raul Medina attempted personal service at the stated address on the morning of September 18, 2000; the defendants were out of the office and unavailable.
- Sheriff returned in the afternoon of September 18, 2000 for a second attempt; was again informed that petitioners were still out of the office.
- Sheriff resorted to substituted service and explained his actions in a sheriff’s return dated September 22, 2000.
- Sheriff’s Return (substance and particulars):
- Allen A. Macasaet: summons served at Monica Publishing through his secretary Lu-Ann Quijano, “a person of sufficient age and discretion working therein,” who signed to acknowledge receipt; sheriff certified that efforts to serve personally were “ineffectual and unavailing” because “per information of Ms. Quijano said defendant is always out and not available,” thus substituted service was applied.
- Nicolas V. Quijano: served through his wife Lu-Ann Quijano, who signed; sheriff certified similar unsuccessful personal service attempts and that Quijano was “always out and not available,” thus substituted service applied.
- Isaias Albano, Janet Bay, Jesus R. Galang, Randy Hagos and Lily Reyes: served through Rene Esleta, Editorial Assistant of Abante Tonite, who signed; sheriff certified that personal service attempts were “ineffectual and unavailing” because “per information of (sic) Mr. Esleta said defendants is (sic) always roving outside and gathering news,” thus substituted service applied.
- Sheriff concluded: “Original copy of summons is therefore, respectfully returned duly served.” (Manila, September 22, 2000)
Petitioners’ Motion to Dismiss and Sheriff’s Testimony
- On October 3, 2000, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss through counsel as a special appearance, alleging lack of jurisdiction due to invalid substituted service; further moved to drop Abante Tonite as a defendant arguing it was neither a natural nor a juridical person.
- At the hearing, Sheriff Medina testified:
- He went to petitioners’ office address in the morning of September 18, 2000 and could not find the defendants; returned in the afternoon and still found them absent.
- Office personnel informed him Macasaet and Quijano were “always out and not available,” and Albano, Bay, Galang, Hagos and Reyes were “always out roving to gather news.”
- He concluded further attempts to serve them personally within a reasonable time would be futile and thus resorted to substituted service.
RTC Orders — March 12, 2001 (Denial of Motion to Dismiss) and June 29, 2001 (Denial of Reconsideration)
- RTC March 12, 2001 order:
- Denied petitioners’ motion to dismiss for lack of merit.
- Found from the sheriff’s return that efforts to serve summons personally on defendants were ineffectual as they were “always out and unavailable,” and thus substituted service was validly applied.
- Held that persons who received the summons (secretary, wife, editorial assistant) were competent persons with sufficient discretion to realize the importance of the legal papers and to relay them to the defendants (citing Section 7, Rule 14, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).
- Directed defendants to file answers within the remaining period allowed by the Rules of Court.
- RTC June 29, 2001 order denying reconsideration:
- Reiterated sheriff’s testimony that the sheriff attempted service in morning and afternoon of September 18, 2000, but was informed petitioners were out and unavailable and “always out because they were roving around to gather news,” leading the sheriff to resort to substituted service.
- Stated there was “substantial compliance with the rules, considering the difficulty to serve the summons personally to them because of the nature of their job which compels them to be always out and unavailable.”
- Addressed impleading of Abante Tonite: held Abante Tonite is a daily tabloid of general circulation, for public consumption, profit-generating, and that “aAbante Tonitea falls within the provision of Art. 44 (2 or 3), New Civil Code.” The RTC further held that even if Abante Tonite were not registered with the SEC, it is “deemed a corporation by estoppel” because it possesses attributes of a juridical person and otherwise cannot be held liable for damages it may inflict.
Court of Appeals Ruling (March 8, 2002) and Denial of Reconsideration (January 13, 2003)
- CA March 8, 2002 decision:
- Dismissed petitioners’ petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.
- Held that certiorari requires showing of grave abuse of discretion or an act without or in excess of jurisdiction; found no such abuse by the RTC.
- Noted the sheriff’s return certified that “aeffort to serve the summons personally xxx were made, but the same were ineffectual and unavailing xxx.” and sustained the trial court’s finding of substantial complianc