G.R. No. 204759 - People's General Insurance Corp. vs. Guansing

Case Summary (G.R. No. 204759)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Accident: February 4, 2006. Complaint filed by PGIC: August 28, 2006 (Civil Case No. 06115736, RTC Manila, Branch 41). Sheriff’s purported service: September 20, 2006. RTC decision for PGIC: January 28, 2010 (awarding P437,800.00 plus fees and costs). Court of Appeals reversed: December 10, 2012 (held service defective; remanded). Supreme Court review by certiorari and final disposition: November 14, 2018. Because the decision date is after 1990, analysis is governed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Constitutional foundation: Due process under the 1987 Constitution (notice and opportunity to be heard). Rules of Court invoked: Rule 14 (Sections 6, 7, and 20) on modes of service and voluntary appearance; Rule 131, Section 3(m) on the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. Controlling jurisprudence cited: Manotoc v. CA, Interlink Movie Houses v. CA, De Pedro v. Romasan, Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, and related decisions addressing substituted service, sheriff’s returns, and voluntary appearance.

Factual Summary

PGIC filed suit against Guansing and Lizaso for reimbursement. The sheriff’s return certified that summons, complaint, and annexes were served upon respondent Edgardo Guansing at his given address in Barangay Tibagan, Bustos, Bulacan “through the assistance of Brgy. Kagawad Nestor Reyes” and that the documents were received by Guansing’s brother Reynaldo “of sufficient discretion” who signed receipt. The sheriff’s return did not set out detailed attempts to serve Guansing personally or explain why personal service was impossible. Guansing promptly filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, repeatedly maintained the lack-of-service defense, yet subsequently filed an Answer and several other pleadings and motions, and pursued appeals.

Legal Rule on Service of Summons and Sheriff’s Return

Personal service is the preferred and general rule; substituted service is an exception and is permissible only when personal service cannot be effected within a reasonable time. For substituted service to be valid, the sheriff’s return must show (a) impossibility of prompt personal service (usually demonstrated by several attempts—at least three—over a reasonable period, ideally on at least two different dates within about one month), and (b) a clear, detailed narration in the return of the attempts made, dates and times, inquiries, names and relationships of persons found at the residence or office, and the reason substituted service was resorted to. Where substituted service is effected at a residence, it must be left with a person of suitable age and discretion; at an office, with a competent person in charge. A sheriff’s return that lacks these specifics is patently defective and cannot enjoy the full presumption of regularity.

Presumption of Regularity and Its Limits

There exists a disputable presumption that official duty (including the sheriff’s performance) has been regularly performed under Rule 131, Section 3(m). However, that presumption applies only when the sheriff’s return itself contains the requisite detailed narration of attempts and the factual basis for substituted service. A pro forma or conclusory return that merely states service was made through an intermediary without explaining prior personal service attempts or reasons for inability to serve personally is patently defective and does not trigger the presumption of regularity.

Legal Rule on Voluntary Appearance and Its Effect

Jurisdiction over a defendant may also be acquired by voluntary appearance. Under Rule 14, Section 20, voluntary appearance is equivalent to service of summons; but a special appearance limited to contesting jurisdiction does not amount to voluntary appearance. Filing an Answer or other pleadings that seek or invoke affirmative relief, or otherwise participate in the proceedings without expressly and unequivocally preserving an objection to personal jurisdiction, constitutes voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction and cures defects in service of summons. Jurisprudence consistently treats pleadings seeking affirmative relief (motions to transfer, motions to admit an answer, motions for extension, or appeals) as indicia of voluntary appearance.

Application of Rules to the Present Case

The sheriff’s return in this case was deficient: it did not narrate multiple attempts at personal service, did not specify dates/times of attempts or inquiries made, and failed to explain why substituted service upon Guansing’s brother was necessary. Therefore, the return was patently defective and could not, on its face, establish valid substituted service. Nonetheless, respondent Guansing filed an Answer

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 204759)

Facts of the Case

On February 4, 2006, at around 9:45 a.m., Eduardo Lizaso, an employee of Edgardo Guansing, was driving Guansing's truck along Legarda Street, Sampaloc, Manila and collided with the rear portion of Andrea Yokohama's Isuzu Crosswind.
The impact caused Yokohama's Isuzu Crosswind to hit other vehicles and rendered the Isuzu Crosswind beyond repair.
Yokohama's Isuzu Crosswind was insured with People's General Insurance Corporation (petitioner).
Yokohama filed a total loss claim under her insurance policy; petitioner paid the full amount of P907,800.00 as settlement.
Petitioner claimed to have been subrogated to all the rights and interests of Yokohama against Guansing and sought reimbursement from Guansing of the total amount paid, less the salvage value of P470,000.00.
Despite repeated demands, Guansing failed to reimburse the amount claimed.

Commencement of Litigation and Service of Process

On August 28, 2006, petitioner filed a Complaint for a sum of money and damages against Edgardo Guansing and Eduardo Lizaso, docketed as Civil Case No. 06-115736 at Branch 41, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila City.
The sheriff's return reflects service on Guansing's brother, Reynaldo Guansing; the sheriff's return did not explain why summons was served on Reynaldo instead of personally on Edgardo Guansing.
The sheriff's return as recited in the record reads in part:
- "That on September 20, 2006, I was able to served (sic) Summons, Complaint and its Annexes thereto attached, upon the defendant EDGARDO GUANSING at his given address in Barangay Tibagan, Bustos, Bulacan thru the assistance of Brgy. Kagawad Nestor Reyes and received by his brother REYNALDO GUANSING of sufficient discretion who acknowledge[d] the receipt hereof as evidence[d by] his signature. . . . . WHEREFORE, I respectfully return the original copy of Summons to the Honorable Court, DULY SERVED, to the defendant EDGARDO GUANSING . . . for its records and information."

Initial Motions and RTC Rulings

On September 27, 2006, Edgardo Guansing filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over his person, alleging he did not personally receive the summons.
Petitioner contended that substituted service was an alternative and proper mode of service.
The RTC, in an October 11, 2006 Order, denied Guansing's Motion to Dismiss for lack of merit (Order penned by Judge Vedasto B. Marco).
On November 10, 2006, Guansing filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the October 11, 2006 Order; the RTC denied the motion in its November 30, 2006 Order.
Guansing filed a one-page Answer on January 28, 2007 containing a general denial of material allegations and causes of action and reiterating lack of jurisdiction over his person.
The case proceeded to pre-trial with subsequent filings including an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Postponement (filed February 2, 2008), a Pre-trial Brief (dated March 8, 2008), and other postponements by both parties.
On December 5, 2008, petitioner filed a Motion to Render Judgment on the Pleadings, which the RTC granted.
In its January 28, 2010 Decision, the RTC ruled against Guansing and ordered reimbursement, attorney's fees, and costs of suit. The dispositive portion ordered:
- The sum of P437,800 for reimbursement of the remaining cost of the Isuzu Crosswind plus twelve percent (12%) interest from August 28, 2006 until fully paid;
- The sum of P50,000.00 as attorney's fees; and
- Costs of the suit.
Guansing filed a Motion for Reconsideration on March 11, 2010; the RTC denied it in a February 23, 2011 Order.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals and Its Decision

Guansing appealed to the Court of Appeals on March 8, 2011.
In a December 10, 2012 Decision, the Court of Appeals granted Guansing's appeal, holding that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over him because summons was improperly served on his brother and the sheriff did not explain why summons was not personally served upon Guansing.
The Court of Appeals set aside the RTC January 28, 2010 Decision and February 23, 2011 Order and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings to include valid service of summons. The dispositive portion read:
- "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The January 28, 2010 Decision and the February 23, 2011 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 41, in Civil Case No. 06-115736 are SET ASIDE. Let the case be REMANDED to the said trial court for further proceedings which shall include the valid service of summons. SO ORDERED."

Petition for Review to the Supreme Court and Issues Framed

On January 29, 2013, petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
The issues presented for resolution were:
1. Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of respondent Edgardo Guansing through service of summons; and
2. Whether respondent Guansing, by filing his Answer and other subsequent pleadings, voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that subsequent filings did not amount to voluntary appearance and that Garcia v. Sandiganbayan was inapplicable because it expanded the meaning of "voluntary appearance" in Rule 14, Section 20 of the Rules of Court.
Guansing, in his Comment, maintained that the sole issue was lack of valid service of summons and that the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the RTC decisions.

Governing Legal Principles on Jurisdiction, Due Process, and Service of Summons

The rule requiring jurisdiction over the parties is based on due process, which consists of notice and hearing: notice informs parties of facts and law; hearing affords the opportunity to be heard.
Jurisdiction over complainants/petitioners is acquired upon filing; jurisdiction over defendants/respondents is acquired through valid service of summons or voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction.
Violation of due process is a jurisdictional defect; therefore, proper service of summons is imperative and a decision rendered without proper service suffers a jurisdictional infirmity.
As a general rule, personal service is the preferred mode of service of summons. Rule 14, Sections 6 and 7 of the Rules of Court provide:
- Section 6: Service in person on defendant — whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by handing a copy to the defendant in person or by tendering it if he refuses to receive and sign.
- Section 7: Substituted service — if for justifiable causes the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time, service may be effected by leaving copies at the defendant's residence with a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein, or at defendant's office or regular place of business with a competent person in charge.
Jurisdiction over a defendant in an action in personam is acquired upon valid personal or substituted service of summons or voluntary app