Title
United Coconut Planters Bank vs. Spouses Sy
Case
G.R. No. 204753
Decision Date
Mar 27, 2019
UCPB sued NGI, NPGI, and Sps. Sy for unpaid credit accommodations. RTC granted a writ of attachment, but SC ruled proceedings void due to improper service of summons, affirming CA's decision.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 204753)

Petitioner and Respondents

Petitioner: UCPB
Respondents: Spouses Alison Ang-Sy and Guillermo Sy; Renato Ang; Nena Ang; Ricky Ang; Derick Chester Sy; Nation Granary, Inc.; Nation Petroleum Gas, Inc.

Key Dates

• November 27, 2006 – Complaint filed and prayer for ex parte preliminary attachment granted.
• December 4–5, 2006 – Service of process and levy/garnishment effected.
• June 8, 2007 – RTC denied defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, granted suspension for NGI and NPGI.
• February 10, 2012 – CA reversed the RTC, voiding the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction.
• December 7, 2012 – CA denied UCPB’s Motion for Reconsideration.
• March 27, 2019 – Supreme Court rendered final decision.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution – Judicial power and due process.
• Rules of Court, Rule 14 – Service of summons on individuals (Sec. 6), substituted service (Sec. 7), and service on juridical entities (Sec. 11, exclusive list).
• Rules of Court, Rule 14, Sec. 20 – Effect of voluntary appearance.
• Rule 45 – Petition for Review on Certiorari.
• Rule 65 – Special appearance to question jurisdiction.

Filing and Grant of Preliminary Attachment

UCPB sought recovery of P824,390,158.21 plus interest and damages, P1,000,000 attorney’s fees, and costs of suit, based on unpaid import and trust‐receipt lines totaling US$18,800,400.00. The RTC issued a writ of preliminary attachment on November 30, 2006, and summonses were served on December 4, 2006; a Toyota Land Cruiser was levied the same day and stocks and assets were garnished on December 5.

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal and corporate jurisdiction, contending that: (1) no personal service on the spouses; substituted service was improperly attempted without prior personal service; and (2) corporate summons was delivered to an unauthorized custodian rather than to an officer enumerated in Rule 14, Sec. 11. They prayed for dismissal, discharge of attachment, and suspension due to a stay order. The RTC denied the motion on June 8, 2007, except that it suspended proceedings against NGI and NPGI.

Special Appearance and CA Proceedings

Respondents filed a Rule 65 petition before the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s order denying the Motion to Dismiss. The CA granted the petition, holding that the RTC acquired no jurisdiction over the persons of either the individual or corporate defendants because of defective service of summons, rendering all proceedings void. UCPB’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

Issue Before the Supreme Court

Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the parties despite defective service of summons, either by cure through voluntary submission or waiver, or by failure of the corporations to contest jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction and Service Requirements

Jurisdiction over defendants must be acquired by: (a) valid service of summons under Rule 14, or (b) voluntary appearance. Personal service requires handing a copy to the defendant in person. Substituted service is permitted only after several failed attempts at personal service, leaving copies with a person of suitable age and discretion at the residence or business. Corporate service is valid only when made on designated officers: president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel. Defective service renders proceedings void.

Defective Service on Individual Respondents

The Sheriff’s Report showed only a single‐day attempt at personal service and failed to identify a suitable person of age and discretion for substituted service. The return lacked specifics on understanding and delivery of summons, violating the “ironclad” requirement for detailed returns.

Defective Service on Corporate Respondents

Summons were served on an OIC Property Supply Custodian, who is not among the exclusive list of corporate officers under Rule 14, Sec. 1

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.