Case Summary (G.R. No. 163584)
Factual Background and Procedural Posture
Celita Miralles filed a complaint for the sum of US$20,054.00 against Remelita Robinson, based on a Memorandum of Agreement dated January 12, 2000. Summons was initially served at petitioner’s former address but was unsuccessful as petitioner no longer resided there. An alias summons was issued to petitioner’s new address within Alabang Hills subdivision, Muntinlupa City. However, the sheriff was denied access to personally serve the summons because the subdivision’s security guard, acting upon petitioner’s instructions, refused entry. Consequently, the sheriff left the summons and complaint with the security guard, who refused to sign the receipt of summons. Despite these efforts, petitioner did not file an answer, prompting the trial court to declare her in default and allow ex parte presentation of evidence. Judgment was rendered in favor of respondent, awarding the principal sum with interest, moral damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. Petitioner later moved for relief from judgment, disputing the validity of summons service, but the trial court denied her motions.
Legal Issue
The sole issue presented is whether the substitutional service of summons by leaving a copy with the subdivision’s security guard complies with the requirements under Sections 6 and 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, thereby conferring jurisdiction over the person of petitioner on the trial court.
Importance of Summons and Jurisdiction
Summons notifies a defendant of the action and is essential for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Without valid service of summons or a valid waiver thereof, any judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction. According to Philippine procedural law, personal service of summons is preferred, and substituted service is allowed only under justifiable circumstances when personal service is impossible despite reasonable efforts.
Statutory Requirements for Substituted Service
Section 7, Rule 14 permits substituted service by leaving copies of summons at the defendant’s residence with a person of suitable age and discretion living therein, or at the defendant's office with a competent person in charge. For substituted service to be valid, three prerequisites must be proven: (a) personal service within a reasonable time was impracticable; (b) efforts were exerted to locate and serve the party; and (c) service was effected upon a competent or suitable individual at the residence or place of business. Failure to meet these conditions invalidates subsequent proceedings for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner’s Argument Against Validity of Service
Petitioner argues that service upon the subdivision’s security guard does not comply with procedural rules because the security guard is neither related to her nor residing at her residence. The security guard was not authorized to accept summons on her behalf, rendering the substituted service void and depriving the court of jurisdiction.
Court’s Analysis on Substituted Service and Jurisdiction
The Court acknowledges the strict statutory requirements for substituted service but emphasizes that procedural rules should be applied in spirit rather than overly strict letter. The sheriff’s declaration established that personal service was impossible as entry to
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 163584)
Facts of the Case
- Celita B. Miralles (respondent) filed a complaint for the sum of money against Remelita M. Robinson (petitioner) on August 25, 2000, docketed as Civil Case No. 00-0372 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 274, Parañaque City.
- The complaint alleged that petitioner borrowed US$20,054.00 from respondent, evidenced by a Memorandum of Agreement executed on January 12, 2000.
- Summons was initially served at petitioner’s given address, but Sheriff Maximo Potente’s return of service dated March 5, 2001, indicated that petitioner no longer resided there.
- An alias summons was issued on July 20, 2001, to be served at petitioner’s new address at No. 19 Baguio St., Alabang Hills, Muntinlupa City.
- Sheriff Potente was twice refused entry by the subdivision’s security guard, A.H. Geroche, who claimed petitioner instructed that no one be allowed inside the subdivision if she was absent.
- As a result, the sheriff left copies of the summons and complaint with the security guard, who refused to sign for the documents, with the expectation that he would give them to petitioner.
- Respondent moved to declare petitioner in default for failure to answer after summons was purportedly served.
- On February 28, 2003, the RTC granted the motion and allowed respondent to present evidence ex parte.
- On June 20, 2003, the RTC rendered judgment ordering petitioner to pay the principal amount with interest, moral damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.
- The judgment was sent by registered mail to petitioner’s new address.
- Respondent secured a writ of execution on September 8, 2003.
- Petitioner filed a petition for relief from judgment on September 26, 2003, arguing that summons was improperly served and the court lacked jurisdiction.
- The RTC denied the petition on February 11, 2004, and also denied the motion for reconsideration on May 11, 2004.
- Petitioner then filed the instant petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issue
- Whether the RTC correctly ruled that substituted service of summons upon petitioner through the subdivision se