Case Summary (G.R. No. 163584)
Petitioner’s Position
Petitioner contests the validity of service of summons, asserting that summons was improperly served and consequently the RTC never acquired personal jurisdiction over her. She sought relief from the default judgment rendered against her on the ground of defective service.
Respondent’s Claims and Relief Sought
Respondent filed a complaint for sum of money (alleging the US$20,054.00 loan) and subsequently moved to declare petitioner in default for failure to answer after alleged service of summons. Following default, respondent presented evidence ex parte and secured a judgment ordering petitioner to pay the principal sum, stipulated interest, moral damages, attorney’s fees, and costs; respondent also obtained a writ of execution.
Key Dates and Procedural Timeline
- Memorandum of Agreement: January 12, 2000 (loan date).
- Complaint filed: August 25, 2000.
- Return of service reflecting petitioner no longer at original address: March 5, 2001.
- Alias summons issued to new address: July 20, 2001.
- Trial court declared petitioner in default: February 28, 2003.
- RTC judgment on default: June 20, 2003 (including monetary awards and other relief).
- Writ of execution issued: September 8, 2003.
- Petition for relief from default judgment filed by petitioner: September 26, 2003.
- RTC resolutions denying relief and denying reconsideration: February 11, 2004 and May 11, 2004, respectively.
(Decision reviewed by the Supreme Court and denominated in the instant matter.)
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Governing procedural rule: Rule 14, Sections 6 and 7, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (service of summons in person and substituted service). Constitutional backdrop: the 1987 Philippine Constitution is the applicable constitutional framework for cases decided in 1990 or later; its due process guarantees inform the requirements that notice and service of process must meet. The Court’s analysis applies the 1997 Rules’ criteria for substituted service within this constitutional context.
Legal Standard for Service of Summons
- Personal service (Section 6) is preferred and requires handing the summons to the defendant in person (or tendering it if the defendant refuses to receive and sign).
- Substituted service (Section 7) is allowed when personal service is impracticable within a reasonable time; it may be effected by leaving copies at the defendant’s residence with a person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or by leaving copies at the defendant’s office or place of business with a competent person in charge.
- Substituted service is extraordinary and must meet three established circumstances: (a) personal service within a reasonable time was impossible; (b) reasonable efforts were made to locate and personally serve the party; and (c) the summons was left with a person of suitable age and discretion at the residence or with a competent person in charge at the office. Failure to meet these requirements renders subsequent proceedings void for lack of jurisdiction.
Factual Findings on Service Attempts
The sheriff’s return shows two unsuccessful attempts to enter the Alabang Hills subdivision to effect service at petitioner’s then-address. The security guard (A.H. Geroche) refused entry, stating petitioner had instructed that no one be allowed inside to proceed to her house when she was not present. The sheriff left copies of the summons and complaint with the security guard (who declined to sign as recipient) after being prevented from making direct contact with petitioner.
Application of Law to Facts
- Impossibility of personal service: The repeated refusal by the subdivision security guard, pursuant to petitioner’s instruction to deny entry, rendered personal service impracticable.
- Efforts to locate/serve: The sheriff made repeated attempts and attempted to explain that a person of suitable age and discretion residing at the house could receive the summons; notwithstanding, the guard persistently denied entry. These attempts satisfy the requirement that efforts were exerted to effect personal service within a reasonable time.
- Service upon a person of suitable age and discretion: Although the security guard was not a resident or a person related to petitioner, the sheriff left the copies with him when entry was denied. The petitioner did not controvert t
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 163584)
Parties, Docket and Nature of Action
- Petition for review on certiorari assailing RTC Resolutions dated February 11 and May 11, 2004, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 274, Parañaque City, in Civil Case No. 00-0372.
- Petitioner: Remelita M. Robinson.
- Respondent: Celita B. Miralles.
- Original action: Complaint for sum of money filed by respondent against petitioner, docketed Civil Case No. 00-0372.
- Case citation and relevant Supreme Court information: 540 Phil. 1; G.R. No. 163584; Decision authored by Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.; date of decision December 12, 2006.
Factual Background
- On August 25, 2000, respondent Celita Miralles filed a complaint for sum of money against petitioner Remelita Robinson.
- Respondent alleged that petitioner borrowed from her US$20,054.00 as shown by a Memorandum of Agreement executed by both on January 12, 2000.
- Summons was initially served on petitioner at her given address; however, the return of service of Sheriff Maximo Potente dated March 5, 2001, stated that petitioner no longer resided at that address.
- The trial court issued an alias summons on July 20, 2001, directing service at petitioner’s new address: No. 19 Baguio St., Alabang Hills, Muntinlupa City.
Attempts at Service and Sheriff's Return
- Sheriff Maximo Potente attempted to serve the alias summons at Alabang Hills but was refused entry by the subdivision’s security guard on at least two occasions.
- The security guard stated that petitioner had instructed that no one be allowed to proceed to her house if she was not around.
- Sheriff Potente explained that, under the rules, a summons can be received by “any person of suitable age and discretion living in the same house” if the defendant is not around, but the guard nonetheless refused to allow entry.
- Because of the guard’s refusal to allow entry and to affix his signature, the sheriff “served the summons by leaving a copy thereof together with the copy of the complaint to the security guard by the name of A.H. Geroche, who refused to affix his signature on the original copy thereof, so he will be the one to give the same to the defendant.”
Motion for Default, Ex Parte Presentation, and Trial Court Judgment
- Respondent filed a motion to declare petitioner in default for failure to file an answer seasonably despite service of summons.
- On February 28, 2003, the trial court granted respondent’s motion, declared petitioner in default, and allowed respondent to present evidence ex parte.
- On June 20, 2003, the trial court issued an Order containing the dispositive portion which read:
- “WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff as follows The sum of US$20,054.00 as the unpaid obligation, plus the stipulated interest of 3% a month from May 2000 (date of default) until fully paid; Php100,000.00 for moral damages; Php50,000.00 plus Php1,500.00 per appearance as attorney's fees; Costs of suit. SO ORDERED.”
- A copy of the Order was sent to petitioner by registered mail to her new address.
- Upon respondent’s motion, the trial court issued a writ of execution on September 8, 2003.
Petition for Relief from Judgment; RTC Resolutions
- On September 26, 2003, petitioner filed a petition for relief from the judgment by default, asserting that summons was improperly served and that the trial court therefore never acquired jurisdiction over her, rendering all proceedings void.
- The trial court issued a Resolution dated February 11, 2004, denying the petition for relief.
- Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the trial court in a Resolution dated May 11, 2004.
- Petitioner thereafter elevated the case by petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Sole Issue on Appeal
- Whether the trial court correctly ruled that a substituted service of summons upon petitioner had been validly effected.