E.B. Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd. i.

Benito, 312 SCRA 65 ,1999|

FACTS:
E.B. Villarosa & Partners is a limited partnership with principal officeaddress at 102 Juan
Luna St., Davao City and with branch offices at Paraaque andCagayan de Oro City (CDO).
Villarosa and Imperial Development (ID) executedan Agreement wherein Villarosa agreed to
develop certain parcels of land in CDO belonging to ID into a housing subdivision. ID, filed a
Complaint for Breach of Contract and Damages against Villarosa before the RTC allegedly for
failure of thelatter to comply with its contractual obligation.Summons, together with the
complaint, were served upon Villarosa, through itsBranch Manager Wendell Sabulbero at the
address at CDO but the Sheriffs Returnof Service stated that the summons was duly served
"E.B. Villarosa & Partner thruits Branch Manager at their new office Villa Gonzalo, CDO, and
evidenced by thesignature on the face of the original copy of the summons." Villarosa prayed
for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of improper service of summons andfor lack
of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Villarosa contends that theRTC did not acquire
jurisdiction over its person since the summons wasimproperly served upon its employee in its
branch office at CDO who is not one of those persons named in Sec. 11, Rule 14 upon whom
service of summons may bemade. ID filed a Motion to Declare Villarosa in Default alleging
that Villarosa hasfailed to file an Answer despite its receipt allegedly on May 5, 1998 of
thesummons and the complaint, as shown in the Sheriff's Return.
ISSUE:
W/N an agent of a corporation can receive summons in behalf of their corporation?
HELD:
The court agrees with the contention of Villarosa. Earlier cases haveuphold service of
summons upon a construction project manager; a corporation'sassistant manager; ordinary
clerk of a corporation; private secretary of corporateexecutives; retained counsel; officials
who had charge or control of the operationsof the corporation, like the assistant general
manager; or the corporation's Chief Finance and Administrative Office. In these cases, these
persons were consideredas "agent" within the contemplation of the old rule.Notably, under
the new Rules, service of summons upon an AGENT of thecorporation is NO LONGER
authorized.The designation of persons or officers who are authorized to accept summons for
a domestic corporation or partnership is now limited and more clearly specified inSection11,
Rule 14. The rule now states "general manager" instead of only"manager";"corporate
secretary" instead of "secretary"; and "treasurer" instead of "cashier." The phrase agent, or
any of its directors" is conspicuously deleted inthe new rule.A strict compliance with the
mode of service is necessary to confer jurisdiction of the court over a corporation. The officer
upon whom service is made must be onewho is named in the statute; otherwise the service is
insufficient. . . The liberalconstruction rule cannot be invoked and utilized as a substitute for
the plain legalrequirements as to the manner in which summons should be served on a
domesticcorporation. .

GALURA vs. MATH AGRO

FACTS:
Spouses Galura purchased broiler starters and finishers from Math-Agro Corporation
(MAC). The Spouses Galura paid MAC P72,500. Despite several demands, they failed to pay
the P353,500 unpaid balance. MAC engaged the services of a certain Atty. Pasamba for the
purpose of collecting the unpaid balance from the Spouses Galura. A demand letter was sent
to spouses Galura wherein it stated that they were giving them 5 days upon receipt of the
letter, to pay the unpaid balance plus interest; that failure to pay would result in an action in
court.
Because of non-payment after demand was made, MAC filed a complaint with the RTC
praying that the court would order spouses Galura to settle the balance plus attorneys fee
and litigation expenses. In their complaint, MAC provided for their address where summons
may be served to them. Clerk of Court Ortega issued the summons.
1st SERVICE: went to 230 Apo St., Sta. Mesa Heights , Quezon City where he was informed
that the Spouses Galura were presently residing at Tierra Pura Subdivision, Tandang Sora,
Quezon City .
2nd SERVICE: went to G.L. Calayan Agro System, Inc. in Barrio Kalayaan, Gerona , Tarlac to
serve the summons, however he learned that the property had been foreclosed and that the
Spouses Galura no longer resided there.
3rd SERVICE: went to Tierra Pura Subdivision, Tandang Sora, Quezon City , to serve the
summons. Sildo served the summons on Teresa L. Galuras sister, Victoria Lapuz.
The Spouses Galura failed to file their answer. RTC declared them in default and
allowed MAC to present its evidence ex parte. RTC ruled in favor of MAC and ordered the
Spouses Galura to pay the unpaid balance, attorneys fees, and expenses of litigation.
Subsequently, RTC issued a writ of execution to implement its Decision.
Thereafter, Spouses Galura received from their parents-in-law a copy of the 10
November 2004 Order. Spouses Galura filed with the CA a petition for annulment of judgment
and final order under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, with prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, claiming that the RTCs Decision and
Order were void beacuse the RTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over their persons because the
substituted service of summons was invalid, and there was extrinsic fraud because MAC made
them believe that it would not file a case against them - MAC, despite the commitment of its
owner not to file the complaint, did so. Such an act on the part of Math-Agro and its owner
constitutes extrinsic fraud, as it prevented petitioners from defending themselves in the
action lodged with the RTC.
CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals held that there was a
valid substituted service of summons, that the allegation of extrinsic fraud was unbelievable,
and that the Spouses Galura should have first availed of the ordinary remedies of new trial,
appeal, or petition for relief. The Spouses Galura filed a MR but was denied. Hence, the
present petition.
ISSUES:
1.
Was there a valid substituted service of summons? NONE.
2.
Should have they availed first of the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, or petition
for relief? NO.
HELD:
1.
Sildo, in his Rertun, did not state that his attempts to serve the summons by personal
service at the Tierra Pura Subdivision address failed, and that the same could not be made
within a reasonable time. He likewise failed to state facts and circumstances showing why
personal service of the summons upon the petitioners at the said address was impossible.
Finally, he also failed to state that Ms. Victoria Lapuz, the person with whom he left the

summons, was a person of sufficient age and discretion, and residing in the said Tierra Pura
address.
The requisites of a valid substituted service: (1) service of summons within a reasonable time
is impossible; (2) the person serving the summons exerted efforts to locate the defendant; (3)
the person to whom the summons is served is of sufficient age and discretion; (4) the person
to whom the summons is served resides at the defendants place of residence; and (5)
pertinent facts showing the enumerated circumstances are stated in the return of service. In
Sandoval, the Court held that statutory restrictions for substituted service must be strictly,
faithfully and fully observed.
The summons must be served to the defendant in person. It is only when the defendant
cannot be served personally within a reasonable time that a substituted service may be
made. Impossibility of prompt service should be shown by stating the efforts made to find the
defendant personally and the fact that such efforts failed. This statement should be made in
the proof of service in the Return. This is necessary because substituted service is in
derogation of the usual method of service. It has been held that this method of service is in
derogation of the common law; it is a method extraordinary in character, and hence may be
used only as prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by statute.
In the present case, there was no showing in the return of service (1) of the impossibility of
personal service within a reasonable time; (2) that Lapuz, the person on whom summons was
served, was of suitable age and discretion; and (3) that Lapuz resided in the residence of the
Spouses Galura. Consequently, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the
Spouses Galura, and thus the Spouses Galura are not bound by the RTCs Decision and Order.
2.
When a petition for annulment of judgment or final order under Rule 47 is grounded on
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, the petitioner does not need to allege
that the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, or petition for relief are no longer available
through no fault of his or her own.
In a case where a petition for annulment of a judgment or final order of the RTC filed under
Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is grounded on lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant/respondent or over the nature or subject of the action, the petitioner need not
allege in the petition that the ordinary remedy of new trial or reconsideration of the final order
or judgment or appeal therefrom are no longer available through no fault of her own. This is
so because a judgment rendered or final order issued by the RTC without jurisdiction is null
and void and may be assailed any time either collaterally or in a direct action or by resisting
such judgment or final order an any action or proceeding whenever it is invoked, unless
barred by laches.

CITIZENS SURETY AND INSURANCE CO v. MELENCIO-HERRERA

FACTS:
Citizens Surety and Insurance Co (Citizens) alleged that at the request of Santiago
Dacanay, it issued 2 surety bonds to guarantee payment of P5K promissory notes in favor
Gregorio Fajardo and Manufacturers Bank & Trust Co respectively. As security, the Santiago
and Josefina Dacanay executed an Indemnity Agreement to jointly indemnify Citizens for
losses, costs and expenses (with 12% annual interest) and a REM over a parcel of land in
Baguio. The Dacanays failed to pay the promissory notes compelling Citizens to pay. The
Dacanays failed to reimburse Citizens however, forcing the latter to cause the extrajudicial
foreclosure of the mortgage and file a case to recover the unsatisfied balance.
At petitioners request, the respondent Judge caused summons to be made by
publication in the Philippines Herald. But despite such publication and deposit of copy with the
Manila post office, the defendant did not appear within 60 days from the last publication.
Plaintiff sought the defendants to be declared in default, but the Judge eventually
dismissed the case, the suit being in personam and the defendants not having appeared.
ISSUE:
W/N summons made by publication is sufficient for the court to acquire jurisdiction.
HELD:
No. In an action strictly in personam, personal service of summons, within the forum, is
essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, who does not
voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court. In other words, summons by
publication cannot consistently with the due process clause in the Bill of Rights confer
upon the court jurisdiction over said defendants.
The proper recourse for the creditor is to locate properties, real or personal, of the resident
defendant debtor with unknown address and cause them two be attached, in which case, the
attachment converts the action into a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem and the summons by
publication may be valid.
Given the skill of debtors to conceal their properties however, the decision of the respondent
Judge should be set aside and held pending in the archives until petitioner tracks down the
whereabouts of the defendants person or properties.