Posted by Rio Vie C. Dumalag on 25 July 2018
Credits:: Norie Baytic
FACTS:
Whether summons was duly served to acquire jurisdiction over respondents?
HELD:
The SC approved the decision of RTC of Manila City and the CA that substituted service of summons complied with the rules. We are strict in insisting on personal service on the defendant but we do not cling to such strictness when circumstances already justify substituted service instead. It is the spirit of the procedural rules, not their letter, that governs.
The plaintiff in a civil action voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court by the act of filing the initiatory pleading. As to the defendant, the court acquires jurisdiction over his person either by the proper service of the summons, or by a voluntary appearance in the action.
That summons received by their substitutes is sufficient compliance to inform the parties unless substantially show the otherwise. That substituted service of summons can be resorted to with sufficient reasons as when efforts to effect personal service occurred to be futile or impossible within reasonable time.
FACTS:
Francisco Co, Jr. was a retired police officer assigned at the Western Police District in Manila. Abante Tonite is a daily tabloid of general circulation which Publisher was Allen A. Macasaet; Managing Director was Nicolas V. Quijano; Circulation Manager was Isaias Albano; Editors were Janet Bay, Jesus R. Galang and Randy Hagos; and Columnist/Reporter is Lily Reyes.
On July 3, 2000, Co sued petitioners before Branch 51 of the RTC, Manila claiming damages because of an allegedly libelous article published in Abante Tonite on June 6, 2000. In the morning of September 18, 2000, RTC Sheriff Raul Medina proceeded to the business address of Abante Tonite at Monica Publishing Corporation, 301-305 3rd Floor, BF Condominium Building, Solana Street corner A. Soriano Street, Intramuros, Manila, to effect the personal service of the summons on the petitioners but they were then out of the office. He returned in the afternoon but petitioners were still out of the office as was informed by Lu-Ann Quijano and Rene Esleta. He decided to resort to substituted service of the summons and in his sheriff's return had explained the reasons.
On October 3, 2000, petitioners moved for the dismissal of the complaint, alleging lack of jurisdiction over their persons because of the invalid and ineffectual substituted service of summons in accordance with Section 6 and Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. They further moved to drop Abante Tonite as a defendant by virtue of its being neither a natural nor a juridical person that could be impleaded as a party in a civil action. However, the RTC denied the motion and directed them to file their answers to the complaint within the remaining period. Substituted service of summonses was validly applied considering that summonses cannot be served within a reasonable time to the persons of all the defendants. Quijano, Secretary of the President and the wife of the defendant, and Esleta, Editorial Assistant of the defendant, were considered competent persons with sufficient discretion to realize the importance of the legal papers served upon them and to relay it to petitioners (Sec. 7, Rule 14, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).
On June 29, 2001, the RTC denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration because substituted service of summons by sheriff considers the nature of the work of the defendants that they are always on field. Regarding the impleading of Abante Tonite as defendant, the RTC held, Abante Tonite possesses attributes of a juridical person thus the doctrine of corporation by estoppel may appropriately apply. Petitioners brought a petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus in the CA which dismissed it, upholding the trial court's finding.
ISSUE:
On July 3, 2000, Co sued petitioners before Branch 51 of the RTC, Manila claiming damages because of an allegedly libelous article published in Abante Tonite on June 6, 2000. In the morning of September 18, 2000, RTC Sheriff Raul Medina proceeded to the business address of Abante Tonite at Monica Publishing Corporation, 301-305 3rd Floor, BF Condominium Building, Solana Street corner A. Soriano Street, Intramuros, Manila, to effect the personal service of the summons on the petitioners but they were then out of the office. He returned in the afternoon but petitioners were still out of the office as was informed by Lu-Ann Quijano and Rene Esleta. He decided to resort to substituted service of the summons and in his sheriff's return had explained the reasons.
On October 3, 2000, petitioners moved for the dismissal of the complaint, alleging lack of jurisdiction over their persons because of the invalid and ineffectual substituted service of summons in accordance with Section 6 and Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. They further moved to drop Abante Tonite as a defendant by virtue of its being neither a natural nor a juridical person that could be impleaded as a party in a civil action. However, the RTC denied the motion and directed them to file their answers to the complaint within the remaining period. Substituted service of summonses was validly applied considering that summonses cannot be served within a reasonable time to the persons of all the defendants. Quijano, Secretary of the President and the wife of the defendant, and Esleta, Editorial Assistant of the defendant, were considered competent persons with sufficient discretion to realize the importance of the legal papers served upon them and to relay it to petitioners (Sec. 7, Rule 14, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).
On June 29, 2001, the RTC denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration because substituted service of summons by sheriff considers the nature of the work of the defendants that they are always on field. Regarding the impleading of Abante Tonite as defendant, the RTC held, Abante Tonite possesses attributes of a juridical person thus the doctrine of corporation by estoppel may appropriately apply. Petitioners brought a petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus in the CA which dismissed it, upholding the trial court's finding.
ISSUE:
Whether summons was duly served to acquire jurisdiction over respondents?
HELD:
The SC approved the decision of RTC of Manila City and the CA that substituted service of summons complied with the rules. We are strict in insisting on personal service on the defendant but we do not cling to such strictness when circumstances already justify substituted service instead. It is the spirit of the procedural rules, not their letter, that governs.
The plaintiff in a civil action voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court by the act of filing the initiatory pleading. As to the defendant, the court acquires jurisdiction over his person either by the proper service of the summons, or by a voluntary appearance in the action.
That summons received by their substitutes is sufficient compliance to inform the parties unless substantially show the otherwise. That substituted service of summons can be resorted to with sufficient reasons as when efforts to effect personal service occurred to be futile or impossible within reasonable time.
