Palma v.

Galvez
Petitioner: Leah Palma
Respondent: Hon. Danilo P. Galvez, in his capacity as presiding judge of the RTC of Ilo-ilo City, Branch
24, and Psyche Elena Agudo
Date: March 10, 2010

Summary:
Palma filed an action for damages against several petitioners, one of whom was Agudo, who
was a nurse at the Phil. Heart Center. Palma alleges that the respondents committed
professional fault, negligence, and omission for having removed her right ovary against her will,
and losing the same and the tissues extracted from her during the surgery. The RTCs process
server submitted his return of summons stating that the alias summons were served upon
Agudo through her husband Alfredo in their residence, because Agudo was out of the country
at that time. Several days later, counsel of private respondent filed a Notice of Appearance and
a Motion for Extension of Time to file an Answer, which was granted. Thereafter, he filed
another motion to extend the time to file an answer, reasoning that the draft of the Answer was
still to be sent to Agudo for clarification. At both these instances, Agudos counsel did not
question the validity of service of summons against her. However, instead of filing an Answer,
Agudo filed a MTD on the ground of invalid service of summons, arguing that since she was
abroad, service should have been made via publication under Sec. 15, Rule 14, in relation to
Sec. 16. RTC granted the MTD but SC overturned on petition for certiorari (service of
summons valid). Agudo also argued that a petition for certiorari wasnt proper since the
RTCs order wasnt attended with GADLEJ; however, the SC held that under Sec. 1(g)
Rule 41, such an action was proper, since this the RTCs order accepting the MTD was a
final order against one of several parties in a single case.

Facts:
On July 28, 2003, Leah Palma filed an action for damages with the RTC against the Philippine
Heart Center (PHC) and 2 doctors, alleging that they committed professional fault, negligence
and omission for having removed her right ovary against her will, and losing the same and the
tissues extracted from her during the surgery. Specimens were subsequently found, but it was
doubtful that it was Palmas considering that it was labeled with another persons name.
After those defendants filed their Answers, Palma filed a motion for leave to admit amended
complaint, which was granted. The amended complaint impleaded several new defendants, all
of whom were nurses at PHC, one of whom was herein private respondent Psyche Agudo.
Summons were issued to the new defendants, and on Feb. 17, 2004, the RTCs process
server submitted his return of summons stating that the alias summons and amended
complaint were served upon Agudo through her husband, Alfredo, at their residence, because
she was out of the country (in Ireland).
On March 1, 2004, Agudos counsel filed a Notice of Appearance and a Motion for Extension of
Time to File Answer, stating that he was just engaged by Alfredo and that Agudo was still out
of the country. It was allowed. However, Agudos counsel moved to extend the time to file an
Answer for 20 more days on March 15, stating that the draft of the Answer was still to be sent
to Agudo for clarification/verification through the Philippine Consulate in Ireland.
On March 30, 2004, Agudo filed a MTD on the ground that the RTC had not acquired
jurisdiction over her because she was not properly served with summons. She argued that the
service of summons should have conformed with Sec. 16 Rule 14, which provided that service
of summons to resident citizens temporarily out of the country may also be effected through
publication.
Palma argued that Sec. 16 was not mandatory, and that substituted service (as was done in
this case) was also allowed.
On May 7, RTC issued an order granting Agudos MTD. Palma filed a MR, but it was denied on
July 21. So Palma filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the two RTC orders as
having been issued w/ GADLEJ.
In her Comment, Agudo claims that certiorari isnt the proper remedy, and that Palma should
have filed a petition for review under Rule 45, since the RTC ruling cannot be considered as
having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.
Agudo also claims that the petition wasnt properly verified because the verification was dated
Sept. 15, but the petition was dated Sept. 30,

Issue:
MAIN: W/N certiorari was proper; OTHERS: W/N there was proper verification, W/N there was
valid service of summons

Held:
YES to all. RTC orders set aside and Agudo is directed to file her Answer w/in the
reglementary period from receipt of SC decision

Ratio:
RULE 41 ISSUE: Certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy because under Sec. 1(g) of
Rule 41, when the judgment or final order is not appealable and such judgment/final order is for
or against one or more of several parties (or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims,
and third-party complaints), the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65.
In this case, the RTC Order granting Agudos MTD and denying Palmas MR are final orders
that terminate the proceedings against her while the complaint for damages against the other
defendants are still pending.
Since there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in law, certiorari is proper
to promptly relieve the aggrieved party from the injurious effects of the acts of an inferior court
or tribunal
AS TO VERFICIATION: proper, because the purpose of one is to secure an assurance that the
allegations of the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and correct, and not
merely speculative. Here, the draft of the petition and the verification were sent to her in New
York earlier for her signature. SC accepted such an explanation as to why there are different
dates on the verification and the petition.
Further, this case only raises questions of law, and a verification is not an absolute necessity
where the material facts alleged are a matter of record and the questions raised are mainly of
law.
AS TO VALIDTY OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS: Sec. 16 Rule 14, in relation to Sec. 15, which
provides that service of summons through publication may also be done for residents
temporarily out of the country, merely provides for an alternative mode of service of summons,
as can be gleaned by the permissive words used. Thus, substituted service, as set forth in Sec.
7, can also be done (summons left at the defendants residence with some person of suitable
age and discretion residing therein)
Moreover, RTC already acquired jurisdiction over Agudo when her counsel entered his
appearance (and filed motions to extend time to file an Answer) w/o qualification and without
questioning the propriety of the service of summons. This amounts to voluntary submission to
the jurisdiction of the RTC and she is therefore estopped from asserting otherwise.