7.

BPI v Santiago 519 S 389

jurisdiction over its person and consequently, the Order issued by the RTC,
permanently enjoining the foreclosure sale, was therefore void and does not bind
BPI.

Service of Summons
Facts:

Centrogen, a domestic corporation engaged in pharmaceutical business obtained

several loans from Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC), which was
secured by a real estate mortage over a parcel of land by Irene Santiago.

Subsequently, FEBTC merged with BPI. Due to failure of Centrogen to pay its
loans, BPI filed a case for Extra-Judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
over the subject property before the RTC of Sta. Cruz, Laguna.

Thereafter, a Notice of Sale was issued by the Provincial Sheriff on 21 January

2003. On the same day, the Spouses Santiago were served with the copy of the
Notice of Sale.Upon receipt the spouses and Centrogen filed a Complaint
seeking the issuance of a TRO and Preliminary and Final Injunction and in the
alternative, for the annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage with BPI.

The complaint alleged that the initial loan obligation in the amount of
P490,000.00, including interest thereon has been fully paid. Such payment
notwithstanding, the amount was still included in the amount of computation of
the arrears as shown by the document of Extra-Judicial Foreclosure of Real
Estate Mortgage filed by the latter.

Moreover, the Spouses Santiago and Centrogen contended that the original loan
agreement was for the amount of 5 Million but only 2 Million was released by
petitioner and as a result, the squalene project failed and the company groped for
funds to pay its loan obligations.

On 27 February 2003, BPI was summoned to file and serve its Answer and on
the same day, summons was served on the Branch Manager of BPI . Instead of
filing an Answer, BPI filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant and other procedural infirmities attendant to the
filing of the complaint.

BPI claimed that the Branch Manager of its Sta. Cruz, Laguna Branch, was not
one of those authorized by Section 11, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court to
receive summons on behalf of the corporation. The summons served upon its
Branch Manager, therefore, did not bind the corporation. Also alleged lack of
authorityof the person who signed. RTC denied the MD and issued new
summons.

The RTC granted the TRO to prevent foreclosure sale. BPI file MR but was
denied hence this petition with BPI alleging that the court a quo did not acquire

Issue: Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction over BPI

YES. The Court acquired jurisdiction over BPI. The defect of the service of the original
summons was cured by the issuance of the new summons which was not questioned
by BPI.

There was substantial compliance. Although it may be true that the service of
summons was made on a person not authorized to receive the same in behalf of
the petitioner.
o Since it appears that the summons and complaint were in fact
received by the corporation through its said clerk, the Court finds
that there was substantial compliance with the rule on service of
summons.

The ultimate test on the validity and sufficiency on service of summons is

whether the same and the attachments thereto where ultimately received by the
corporation under such circumstances that no undue prejudice is sustained by it
from the procedural lapse and it was afforded full opportunity to present its
responsive pleadings.
o This is but in accord with the entrenched rule that the ends of
substantial justice should not be subordinated to technicalities and,
for which purpose, each case should be examined within the factual
milieu peculiar to it.

The Court also emphasized that there is no hard and fast rule pertaining to the
manner of service of summons. Rather, substantial justice demands that every
case should be viewed in light of the peculiar circumstances attendant to each.

8.

San Pedro v Willy Ong and Normita Caballes GR 177598 October 17, 2008

HELD:
9.

Santos v PNOC Exploration GR 170943 September 23, 2008

No, Santos failed to file an answer in time, which is why he had to file an
Omnibus Motion to Admit Attached Answer. The disputed order of September 11,
2003 was a finding that the Santos was in default for failure to file an answer or
pleading within the period fixed.

It is illogical to notify him of the order simply on account of the reality that he was
no longer residing and/or found on his last known address and his whereabouts
unknown thus the publication of summons. Santos could not reasonably demand
that copies of orders and processes be furnished him.

His residence or whereabouts is not known and he cannot be located. In the

case at bar, there is obviously no way notice can be sent to him and the notice
requirement cannot apply to him. The law does not require that the impossible be
done. Nemo tenetur ad impossible. The law obliges no one to perform an
impossibility. Laws and rules must be interpreted in a way that they are in
accordance with logic, common sense, reason and practicability. Be that as it
may, a copy of the September 11, 2003 order was still mailed to him at his last
known address but it was unclaimed.

FACTS:

December 23, 2002, PNOC Exploration Corporation, respondent, filed a

complaint for a sum of money against petitioner Pedro Santos Jr. in the RTC of
Pasig. The amount sought to be collected was the petitioners unpaid balance of
the car loan advanced to him by respondent when he was still a member of its
board of directors.

Personal service of summons were made to petitioner but failed because the
latter cannot be located in his last known address despite earnest efforts to do
so. Subsequently, on respondents motion, the trial court allowed service of
summons by publication. Respondent caused the publication of the summons in
Remate, a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. Thereafter,
respondent submitted the affidavit of publication and the affidavit of service of
respondents employee to the effect that he sent a copy of the summons by
registered mail to petitioners last known address.

Petitioner still failed to answer within the prescribed period despite the publication
of summons. Hence, respondent filed a motion for the reception of its evidence
ex parte. Trial court granted said motion and proceeded with the ex parte
presentation and formal offer of its evidence.

Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and to Admit Attached

Answer, alleging that the affidavit of service submitted by respondent failed to
comply with Section 19, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court as it was not executed by
the clerk of court.

Trial court denied the said motion and held that the rules did not require such
execution with the clerk of court. It also denied the motion to admit petitioners
answer because the same was filed way beyond the reglementary period.

Petitioner appeals to the CA via a petition for certiorari contending that the court
committed grave abuse of discretion since it has no jurisdiction due to improper
service of summons, failure to furnish him with copies of its orders and processes
and upholding technicality over equity and justice.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a failure on the part of the trial court to furnish Petitioner
with copies of orders and processes issued in the course of the proceedings

10.

Kawasaki Port Services vs Amores GR 58340 July 16, 1991

Doctrine: An action purely for injunction is a personal action as well as an action in
personam. As a personal action, personal or substituted service of summons upon
the defendant, not extra territorial service, is necessary to confer jurisdiction upon the
Court over the defendant
Facts:

C.F Sharp Kabushiki (Kabushiki) incurred several obligations from several

creditors, including petitioners herein

C.F. Sharp & Co (CF Sharp) anticipated that the creditors of Kabushiki will
run after it

Hence, C.F. Sharp prayed for injunctive relief against the petitioners'
demand for the payment of C.F. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha's liabilities

C.F. Sharp alleged that it is separate and distinct from Kabushiki. That the
former is organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines while the
latter is under the laws of Japan.
o That it had no participation whatsoever or liability in connection with
the transactions between the latter and the defendants.

CF Sharp also prayed for declaratory relief that it is separate and

independent corporation, it is not liable for the obligations and liabilities of
Kabushiki. (Note: not available according to the court as no action in court
has yet been filed by the creditors)

As the creditor-defendants are non-residents, without business addresses in

the Philippines but in Japan, CF Sharp asked the court to effect
extraterritorial service of summons.

Judge Amores authorized the extraterritorial service of summons on

creditors
Naturally, the creditors opposed and filed "Special Appearance to Question
Jurisdiction of This Honorable Court Over Persons of Defendants"

Alleged that lower court does not and cannot acquire jurisdiction
over the persons of defendants on the grounds that private
respondent's action does not refer to its personal status

The action does not have for subject matter property contemplated
in Section 17 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, that the action does
not pray that defendants be excluded from any interest or property
in the Philippines;

And that no property of the defendants has been attached

Action is in personam; and that the action does not fall within any of
the four cases mentioned in Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of
Court.

Defense: affects status of CF Sharp and liability for Kabushikis

indebtedness

ISSUE: WON an extraterritorial service of summons is allowed in this case and

therefore the Court obtained jurisdiction? NO
HELD:
Extraterritorial service of summons is proper only in four (4) instances:
(1) when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiffs:
(2) when the action relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the
Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or
contingent;
(3) when the relief demanded in such action consists, wholly or in part, in
excluding the defendant from any interest in property located in the
Philippines; and
(4) when the defendant non-resident's property has been attached within the
Philippines

Injunction was asked to enjoin petitioners from demanding from private

respondent the payment of the obligations of Kabushiki. It was not
prayed that petitioners be excluded from any property located in the
Philippines, nor was it alleged, much less shown, that the properties of
the defendants, if any, have been attached

Complaint does not involve the personal status of CF Sharp, nor any
property in the Philippines in which creditors have or claim an interest,
or which was attached, but purely an action for injunction, it is a
personal action as well as an action in personam, not an action in
rem or quasi in rem

As a personal action, personal or substituted service of summons on the

defendants, not extraterritorial service, is necessary to confer
jurisdiction on the court.

In an action for injunction, extra-territorial service of summons and

complaint upon the non-resident defendants cannot subject them to the
processes of the regional trial courts which are powerless to reach them
outside the region over which they exercise their authority.

Ruling of the Court:

11.

Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court cnnot be construed to apply

simultaneously. Said provisions do not provide for alternative modes of service
of summons, which can either be resorted to on the mere basis of convenience
to the parties.

Under our procedural rules, service of summons in the persons of the

defendants is generally preferred over substituted service. Substituted
service derogates the regular method of personal service.

It is an extraordinary method, since it seeks to bind the respondent or the

defendant to the consequences of a suit, even though notice of such action is
served not upon him but upon another whom the law could only presume would
notify him of the pending proceedings. For substituted service to be justified, the
following circumstances must be clearly established:
(a) personal service of summons within a reasonable time was impossible;
(b) efforts were exerted to locate the party; and
(c) the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion
residing at the partys residence or upon a competent person in charge of the
partys office or place of business.

In fine, we rule that jurisdiction over the persons of the respondent spouses
Mogol was validly acquired by the MeTC, Branch 25 in this case. For their failure
to file any responsive pleading to the Complaint filed against them, in violation of
the order of the said court as stated in the summons, respondent spouses Mogol
were correctly declared in default.

Sansio Phils v Mogol GR 177007, July 14, 2009

Facts of the Case:
o

The RTC of Manila, Branch 50, promulgated its Decision, affirming in toto the
Decision of the MeTC of Manila, Branch 25. The RTC declared that there is no
requirement that the summons should only be served in the place stated in the
summons.

What is required is that a summons must be served by handing a copy thereof to

the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it
to him.

Under the circumstances of the case, the service of the copy of the summons
and the complaint inside the courtroom of the MeTC of Manila, Branch 24 was
the most practicable act.

The process server need not wait for the respondent spouses Mogol to reach
with their given address before he could serve on the latter with summons and
the copy of the complaint.

The refusal of respondent spouses Mogol to receive the summons without valid
cause was, thus, equivalent to a valid service of summons that vested jurisdiction
in the MeTC of Manila, Branch 25.

Respondent spouses Mogol sought a reconsideration of the aforesaid Decision,

but the RTC of Manila, Branch 50, denied the same in an Order dated 4 October
2004, finding no cogent reason to disturb its earlier judgment. Thereafter,
respondent spouses Mogol no longer filed any appeal on the above Decision of
the RTC of Manila, Branch 50.

Issue of the Case:

Whether or not the service of summons was validly served to the defendant
under the circumstances mentioned in the case.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review

on Certiorari under Rule 45 is GRANTED. The Decision dated 21 November
2006 and the Resolution dated 12 March 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 70029 are hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The Order dated 18 January
2002 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 33, in Civil Case No. 01-101267 is
hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

Ruling: Where the defendant is a natural person, service may be personal,

substituted, by publication and such other mode of service as the court may deem
sufficient.

12.

1.
2.
3.
4.

Guiguinto Credit v Torres GR 170926, September 15, 2006

Facts:

Respondents are members of Guiguinto Credit Cooperative, Inc. (GUCCI). They

availed of loans from the cooperative but were unable to pay on the due dates
despite demands. Hence, on March 24, 2003, petitioner filed a complaint before
the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan for collection of sum of money and damages.

Summons against respondents were served through a certain Benita S.

Pagtalunan who received the same on April 22, 2003.

On November 18, 2003, petitioner filed a motion to declare respondents in

default which was granted by the trial court. After presenting petitioners evidence
ex-parte, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of petitioner.

Petitioner thereafter moved for the issuance of a writ of execution, which was
granted and accordingly, the writ of execution was issued on even date. Court of
Appeals annulled the judgment of the trial court on the ground that it did not
acquire jurisdiction over the persons of respondents since they were not validly
served with summons and neither did they voluntarily appear in court.

According to the appellate court, the service of summons to Pagtalunan was in

violation of Section 6, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court because there was no
explanation why resort to substituted service of summons was made. Thus, the
appellate court held that respondents were deprived of their right to due process.
MR denied.

Issue: (a) whether summons was validly served on the respondents; and (b) whether
the judgment of the trial court was correctly annulled by the Court of Appeals.

In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is

necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. Jurisdiction over the
person of a resident defendant who does not voluntarily appear in court can be
acquired by personal service of summons as provided under Section 7, Rule 14
of the Rules of Court. If he cannot be personally served with summons within a
reasonable time, substituted service may be made in accordance with Section 8
of the said Rule. If he is temporarily out of the country, any of the following
modes of service may be resorted to:
substituted service set forth in Section 8;
personal service outside the country, with leave of court;
service by publication, also with leave of court; or
(any other manner the court may deem sufficient.

In these types of civil actions, summons on the defendant must be served by

handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or in case of refusal, by
tendering it to him.

If efforts to find defendant personally makes prompt service impossible, service

may be effected by leaving copies of the summons at the defendants dwelling
house or residence with some person of suitable age and discretion residing
therein, or by leaving the copies at the defendants office or regular place of
business with some competent person in charge thereof.

The proper service of summons is a critical step in litigation because upon such
service rests the courts acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant. In the absence of a valid waiver, trial and judgment without such
service are null and void.

In the instant case, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that since substituted
service was availed of in lieu of personal service, there should be a report stating
that Pagtalunan was one with whom respondents had a relationship of trust and
confidence that would ensure that the latter will receive or be notified of the
summons issued in their names.

This is because substituted service may only be availed of when the respondents
could not be served personally within a reasonable period of time, and such
impossibility of prompt service must be shown by stating that earnest efforts have
been made to find the respondents personally and that such efforts have failed.
Such requirements under Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 must be followed strictly,
faithfully and fully in order not to deprive any person of his property by violating
his constitutional right to due process.

The statutory requirements of substituted service must be strictly construed since

it is an extraordinary method of service in derogation of personal service of
summons, availed of only under certain conditions imposed by the Rules of
Court. Any substituted service other than that authorized under Section 7 is
deemed ineffective and contrary to law.

It appears that the process server hastily and capriciously resorted to substituted
service of summons without ascertaining the whereabouts of the respondents.
Such service of summons is not binding upon respondents Nonilo and Sheryl
Ann Torres whose relationship with Pagtalunan was neither readily ascertained
nor adequately explained in the Return of Summons.
o Also, no earnest efforts were made to locate respondent Aida
Torres who was allegedly working abroad at the time summons was
served on her person. No explanation why substituted service was
resorted to through Pagtalunan was stated in the Return.

The Return of Summons by the process server showed that no effort was
exerted and no positive step was taken to locate and serve the summons
personally on respondents. Without specifying the details of the attendant
circumstances or of the efforts exerted to serve the summons, a general
statement that such efforts were made will not suffice for purposes of complying
with the rules of substituted service of summons.

In Laus v. Court of Appeals, we reiterated that substituted service must: (a)

indicate the impossibility of service of summons within a reasonable time, (b)
specify the efforts exerted to locate the petitioners, and (c) state that it was
served on a person of sufficient age and discretion residing therein. We held that
the pre-condition that substituted service may be resorted to only if personal
service cannot be made within a reasonable time must be strictly followed.

Under Section 2 of Rule 47, judgments may be annulled on grounds of extrinsic

fraud and lack of jurisdiction, which refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim. A judgment

of annulment sets aside the questioned judgment or final order or resolution and
renders the same null and void, without prejudice to the original action being
refiled in the proper court.

Potenciano v Barnes GR 159421, August 20, 2008