Case Summary (G.R. No. 166554)
Case Background
The case originated when private respondent Consuelo P. Torres filed a collection complaint against the petitioners for a sum of money, stating that Loreto Alfaro-Laus executed a promissory note to pay P66,000.00 within three months. Upon maturity, only P11,000.00 was paid, prompting Torres to file a lawsuit for the remaining balance of P55,000.00, plus interest and attorney's fees.
Service of Summons
Deputy Sheriff Romero S. Cruz attempted to serve the summons to the petitioners on October 10, 1989. After failing to find them at their residence, he resorted to substituted service through Josephine Areola, who identified herself as a maid. The petitioners did not receive a copy of the summons personally, nor was it properly served as required by the Revised Rules of Court.
Default Declaration
The trial court declared the petitioners in default on December 29, 1989, due to their failure to file an answer. The petitioners claimed they only received this order on January 22, 1990, and subsequently, a default judgment was issued on January 24, 1990. The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over their persons due to the allegedly improper service of summons.
Denial of Motion to Dismiss
The trial court denied the petitioners' motion to dismiss on March 5, 1990, stating that a default judgment had already been rendered. Following this, the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied on July 9, 1990, reaffirming that proper service of summons had occurred.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals
On July 17, 1990, the petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul the trial court's orders on grounds of grave abuse of discretion and the lack of proper service of summons. The Court of Appeals ultimately dismissed the petition on May 30, 1991, arguing that the motion to dismiss was filed too late and the default judgment had already been rendered. Additionally, it contended that the remedies available to a defaulted defendant were not pursued properly.
Judicial Review on Certiorari
The Supreme Court, upon review, determined that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the petitioners due to the invalid substituted service of summons. It emphasized that proper service is mandatory for jurisdiction to exist, noting that the deputy sheriff had not shown sufficient effort to serve the summons personally prior to resorting to substitutes, nor did he prove that such service was warranted.
Rulings on Jurisdiction and Default
Consequently, the Supreme Court found that the orders declaring the petitioners in default a
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 166554)
Case Background
- The petitioners, Spouses Pepito and Loreto Laus, sought a review of the decision issued by the Court of Appeals on 30 May 1991, which dismissed their petition for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction.
- The Court of Appeals' ruling stemmed from two orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, which declared the petitioners in default and denied their motion for reconsideration regarding this default declaration.
Factual Antecedents
- On 24 August 1989, private respondent Consuelo P. Torres filed a complaint against "Loredo (sic) Alfaro-Laus and John Doe" for the collection of a debt of P66,000.00.
- The complaint alleged that Loreto Alfaro-Laus executed a promissory note for repayment, of which only P11,000.00 was paid by maturity.
- Despite receiving a demand letter, the petitioners failed to make further payments, prompting the filing of the complaint.
Service of Summons
- Deputy Sheriff Romero S. Cruz attempted to serve the summons at the petitioners' residence on 10 October 1989 but was unsuccessful in making personal service after waiting ten minutes.
- He resorted to substituted service, handing the summons to Josephine Areola, who purported to be the petitioners' maid.
- The return of service indicated that the summons was duly served through Areola, who signed the document.
Default Judgment
- The petitioners did not file an answer to the complaint, resulting in the RTC issuing an order declaring them in default on 29 December 1989.
- The RTC rendered a judgment by default on 24 January 1990, ordering the petitioners to pay the outstanding amount, plus interest and attorney's fees.