Title
The Philippine American Life and General Insurance Company vs. Breva
Case
G.R. No. 147937
Decision Date
Nov 11, 2004
Philamlife challenged improper summons service in a damages case; SC ruled alias summons on amended complaint valid, affirming RTC jurisdiction.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 147937)

Antecedent Events

Milagros P. Morales filed a civil complaint against the petitioner on September 22, 1999, in the Regional Trial Court of Davao City for damages and reimbursement of insurance premiums. The summons was served to the petitioner's regional office on November 19, 1999, via its Insurance Service Officer. The petitioner subsequently moved to dismiss the case, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of summons, claiming that service was made on an employee not authorized under Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Morales later amended her complaint to allow for service at the petitioner's principal office.

Court Orders

The Regional Trial Court issued an order on December 10, 1999, denying the motion to dismiss and allowed an alias summons to be served at the principal office in Manila, emphasizing that the improper service at the regional office did not warrant dismissal at such an early stage of the proceedings. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied on January 14, 2000.

Petition for Certiorari

On March 2, 2000, the petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a special action for certiorari and prohibition, challenging the RTC's orders. The CA dismissed the petition on October 24, 2000, affirming the lower court's decisions and declaring that jurisdiction had been established through the service of the alias summons.

Legal Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner contended that the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss, claiming the service of summons was defective since proper legal procedures were not followed. They maintained that the issuance of an alias summons was improper under Section 5, Rule 14, asserting that an alias summons can only be issued if a previous summons was lost or unserved.

Legal Arguments by the Respondent

The respondent countered that the receipt of the alias summons alongside the amended complaint rectified any initial service defects, arguing that procedural missteps do not necessarily invalidate the entire case. She insisted that the amendment and service of the alias summons were sufficient to secure jurisdiction over the petitioner.

Court's Ruling

The Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, ruling that there was no grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to di

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.