Case Summary (G.R. No. 170281)
Preliminary Proceedings and RTC Dismissal
The AMLC filed for civil forfeiture of Glasgow’s CSBI deposit (P21.3 million) and obtained a TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction. Glasgow could not be served at its last known address, prompting motions for alias summons and leave to serve by publication. The RTC issued alias summons but neither resolved the publication request nor effected service. After archiving and reinstatement orders, and despite the AMLC’s diligent motions, the RTC dismissed the complaint on October 27, 2005 for improper venue, insufficiency in form and substance, and failure to prosecute, lifting the injunction and ordering release of the funds.
Venue Proper Under AMLA and Civil Forfeiture Rules
The Supreme Court held that under Section 3, Title II of A.M. 05-11-04-SC, venue lies in any Regional Trial Court within the judicial region where the property is located. Pasig City falls within the National Capital Judicial Region, of which RTC Manila is a part. Glasgow never challenged venue; dismissal on that ground was plain error.
Sufficiency in Form and Substance of the Complaint
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action examines the complaint’s allegations, not their truth. Section 4, Title II of the Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture requires a verified petition containing the respondent’s name and address, a description of the property and its location, the prohibited acts and statutory provisions relied upon, and the relief prayed for. The AMLC’s complaint met these requirements by identifying Glasgow and CSBI, specifying the account number and amount, alleging estafa and Securities Regulation Code violations, citing suspicious‐transaction reports and freeze orders, and praying for forfeiture.
No Failure to Prosecute
Delay in service was attributable to Glasgow’s disappearance from its registered address and the RTC’s failure to act on the AMLC’s motion for leave to serve by publication. The AMLC pursued alias summons and publication relief promptly and made diligent inquiries into Glasgow’s whereabouts. Under Marahay v. Melicor, dismissal for non-prosecution requires a wanton failure by the plaintiff, which did not occur here.
Service by Publication Authorized in In Rem Proceedings
Civil forfeiture is an action in rem, targeting the pr
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 170281)
Facts
- On July 18, 2003, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), filed a complaint for civil forfeiture under Republic Act No. 9160 (Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001, as amended), docketed as Civil Case No. 03-107319 before the RTC of Manila, Branch 47.
- The subject of forfeiture was P21,301,430.28 in bank deposits maintained by Glasgow Credit and Collection Services, Inc. (Glasgow) in account CA-005-10-000121-5 with Citystate Savings Bank, Inc. (CSBI).
- AMLC issued Suspicious Transaction Reports and Resolutions Nos. 094, 096, 101, and 108 directing freeze orders against Glasgow’s accounts.
Procedural History
- July 21, 2003: RTC Manila issued a 72-hour TRO on the Republic’s urgent plea.
- August 4, 2003: Hearing on preliminary injunction; August 8, 2003: writ of preliminary injunction granted, restraining Glasgow and CSBI from dealing with the funds.
- Summons to Glasgow returned unserved; October 8, 2003: Republic filed a verified omnibus motion for alias summons and leave to serve by publication.
- October 15, 2003: Alias summons issued; Motion to serve by publication left unresolved.
- January 30, 2004: Case archived for failure to serve alias summons.
- May 31, 2004: Case reinstated; court directed service of alias summons within 15 days; still no action on publication motion.
- June 30, 2004: Sheriff’s return: alias summons unserved—Glasgow left its last known address.
- August 11, 2005: Republic filed manifestation and ex parte motion to resolve publication; Glasgow filed special-appearance Motion to Dismiss.
- October 27, 2005: RTC Branch 47 dismissed the forfeiture complaint for (1) improper venue, (2) insufficiency in form and substance, and (3) failure to prosecute; lifted injunction and ordered release of funds.
- November 23, 2005: Supreme Court issued TRO prohibiting Glasgow and CSBI from dealing with the funds and from implementing the RTC order.
Issue
Whether the RTC correctly dismissed the Republic’s complaint for civil forfeiture on the grounds