THIRD DIVISION
SANSIO PHILIPPINES, INC.,
Petitioner,
- versus -
SPOUSES ALICIA AND LEODEGARIO MOGOL, JR.,
Respondents.
|
G.R. No. 177007
Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA, and
PERALTA, JJ.
Promulgated:
July 14,
2009
|
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -x
D E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Challenged in this Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are
the Decision[2] dated 21
November 2006 and the Resolution[3] dated 12
March 2007 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 70029. The
assailed Decision reversed and set aside the Order[4] dated 18 January 2002 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 33, in Civil Case No. 01-101267, which
dismissed the Petition for Certiorari,
Prohibition and/or Injunction filed by herein respondent spouses Alicia and
Leodegario Mogol, Jr. against herein petitioner Sansio Philippines, Inc. and
Judge Severino B. de Castro, Jr. of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of
Manila, Branch 25. The
assailed Resolution of the Court of Appeals denied the Motion for
Reconsideration of its earlier Decision.
Petitioner Sansio Philippines, Inc. is a
domestic corporation that is engaged in the business of manufacturing and
selling appliances and other related products.
On 12
July 2000, petitioner filed a Complaint for Sum of Money and Damages[5] against respondent spouses Mogol before
the MeTC of Manila. The
case was docketed as Civil Case No. 167879CV and was raffled to Branch 25 of
said court.
Petitioner stated in the Complaint that respondent spouses Alicia and
Leodegario Mogol, Jr. were the owners and managers of MR Homes Appliances, with
residence at 1218 Daisy St., Employee Village, Lucena City, where summons and other written
legal processes of the court may be served. Petitioner further alleged that on 15 November 1993 and 27
January 1994, respondent spouses Mogol purchased from petitioner
air-conditioning units and fans worth P217,250.00
and P5,521.20,
respectively. Respondent
spouses Mogol apparently issued postdated checks as payment therefor, but said
checks were dishonored, as the account against which the checks were drawn was
closed. Respondent spouses
Mogol made partial payments, leaving a balance of P87,953.12 unpaid. Despite several demands by petitioner,
respondent spouses Mogol failed to settle their obligation. Thus, petitioner prayed that
respondent spouses Mogol be ordered to pay the former, jointly and severally,
the amount of P87,953.12,
with legal interest; as well as attorney’s fees in the sum of twenty-five (25%)
percent of the amount collectible, plus P2,000.00
for every appearance in court; and costs of suit.
On 3
October 2000, at the request of herein petitioner, the process server of the
MeTC of Manila served the summons[6] and the copy of the complaint on
respondent spouses Mogol at the courtroom of the MeTC of Manila, Branch
24. Respondent spouses were in the said premises, as they were waiting for
the scheduled hearing of the criminal cases filed by petitioner against
respondent Alicia Mogol for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Upon being so informed of the summons
and the complaint, respondent spouses Mogol referred the same to their counsel,
who was also present in the courtroom. The
counsel of respondent spouses Mogol took hold of the summons and the copy of
the complaint and read the same.[7] Thereafter, he pointed out to the
process server that the summons and the copy of the complaint should be served
only at the address that was stated in both documents, i.e., at 1218 Daisy St., Employee Village, Lucena City, and not anywhere else. The counsel of respondent
spouses Mogol apparently gave back the summons and the copy of the complaint to
the process server and advised his clients not to obtain a copy and sign for
the same. As the process
server could not convince the respondent spouses Mogol to sign for the
aforementioned documents, he proceeded to leave the premises of the courtroom.
On 4
October 2000, the process server of the MeTC of Manila issued a Return on
Service of Summons,[8] declaring that:
RETURN ON SERVICE OF SUMMONS
This is to certify that on October 3,
2000, the undersigned tried to
serve a copy of the Summons issued by the Court in the above-entitled case
together with a copy of Complaint upon defendant Leodegario Mogol[,] Jr. and
Alicia Mogol doing business
under the name/style of “Mr. Homes Appliance” (sic) at MTC (sic) Branch 24 Ongpin (sic)
(courtroom) as requested by plaintiff counsel, but failed for the reason that
they refused to received (sic) with no valid reason at all.
The original and duplicate copies of
the Summons are hereby respectfully returned, (sic) UNSERVED.
Manila, Philippines, October 4, 2000.
(signed)
ALFONSO S. VALINO
Process Server (Emphases ours.)
Motion to Declare in Default
On 6
December 2000, petitioner filed a Motion
to Declare [Respondents] in Default.[9] Petitioner
averred that the summons and the copy of the complaint were already validly
served upon the respondent spouses Mogol at the courtroom of the MeTC, Branch
24, which they refused to accept for no valid reason at all. From the date of said service up to
the time of the filing of the above-stated motion, respondent spouses Mogol had
yet to file any responsive pleading. Petitioner,
thus, prayed that judgment be rendered against respondent spouses Mogol, and
that the relief prayed for in its Complaint be granted.
On 15
December 2000, through a special appearance of their counsel, respondent
spouses Mogol filed an Opposition[10] to the Motion
to Declare [Respondents] in Default. They
posited that Section 3, Rule 6[11] of the Rules of Court requires that the
complaint must contain the names and residences of the plaintiff and
defendant. Therefore, the
process server should have taken notice of the allegation of the complaint,
which referred to the address of respondent spouses Mogol wherein court
processes may be served. If
such service, as alleged in the complaint, could not be complied with within a
reasonable time, then and only then may the process server resort to
substituted service. Respondent
spouses Mogol further averred that there was no quarrel as to the requirement
that the respondents must be served summons in person and, if they refused to
receive and sign for it, by tendering it to them. They merely reiterated that the
service should have been effected at the respondent spouses’ residential
address, as stated in the summons and the copy of the
complaint.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion to Declare [Respondents]
in Default dated December 5, 2000 filed by counsel for [petitioner] is
hereby granted. ACCORDINGLY,
[respondents] Leodegario Mogol, Jr. and Alicia Mogol are hereby declared in
default and [petitioner] is hereby allowed to present its evidence ex-parte
(sic) before the Branch Clerk of Court on May
25, 2001 at 8:30 a.m. (Emphasis ours.)
The MeTC of Manila, Branch 25 ruled that Section
6, Rule 14[13] of the Rules of Court does not specify where
service is to be effected. For
obvious reasons, because service of summons is made by handing a copy thereof
to the defendant in person, the same may be undertaken wherever the defendant
may be found. Although the
Return on the Service of Summons indicated that the original and the duplicate
copies thereof were returned “UNSERVED,” the same could not be taken to mean
that respondent spouses Mogol had not yet been served with summons. That allegation in the return was
clearly prompted by the statement in the first paragraph thereof that
respondents spouses Mogol “refused
to received (sic) [the summons and the copy of the complaint] with no valid
reason at all.” Respondent
spouses Mogol were, thus, validly served with summons and a copy of the complaint. For failing to file any responsive
pleading before the lapse of the reglementary period therefor, the Motion to
Declare [Respondents] in Default filed by petitioner was declared to be
meritorious.
Respondent spouses Mogol filed a Motion
for Reconsideration[14] on the above Order, but the same was
denied by the MeTC of Manila, Branch 25, in an Order[15] dated 11
June 2001.
On 17 July 2001, respondent spouses Mogol
filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and/or
Injunction[16] before the RTC of Manila against Judge
Severino B. de Castro, Jr. of the MeTC of Manila, Branch 25 and herein
petitioner. Said petition
was docketed as Civil Case No.
01-101267 and raffled to
Branch 33 thereof.
Respondent spouses Mogol insisted there
was no valid service of summons per return of the process server, which was
binding on the MeTC judge, who did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of
respondent spouses. They
contended that the MeTC of Manila, Branch 25, acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring them in default in
Civil Case No. 167879CV, thereby depriving them of their right to be heard with
due process of law, despite their having a good defense against petitioner’s
complaint. Respondent
spouses Mogol prayed that the Orders dated 6
April 2001 and 11 June 2001 of the MeTC of Manila, Branch 25, be
declared null and void.
On 18
January 2002, the RTC of Manila, Branch 33, issued an Order, disposing of the
petition in this wise:
WHEREFORE,
viewed from the foregoing observations and findings, the present petition is
hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.[17]
The RTC of Manila, Branch 33, held that
Section 6, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court does not mandate that summons be
served strictly at the address provided by the plaintiff in the
complaint. Contrarily, said
provision states that the service of summons may be made wherever such is
possible and practicable. Therefore,
it did not matter much that the summons and the copy of the complaint in this
case were served inside the courtroom of the MeTC of Manila, Branch 24, instead
of the address at 1218 Daisy St., Employee Village, Lucena City. The primordial consideration was that
the service of summons was made in the person of the respondent spouses Mogol
in Civil Case No. 167879CV. Lastly,
the RTC of Manila, Branch 33, did not find any error in the interpretation of
the MeTC of Manila, Branch 25, that summons had indeed been served on
respondent spouses Mogol. On
the face of the Return on Service of Summons, it was unmistakable that the
summons and the copy of the complaint were served on respondent spouses, and
that they refused to receive the same for no valid reason at all.
Respondent spouses Mogol filed a Notice of Appeal[18] on the above-mentioned Order of the RTC of
Manila, Branch 33, which was given due course. The appeal was docketed in the Court
of Appeals as CA-G.R. SP No. 70029.
On 21
November 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 70029, the relevant
portions of which read:
We find the appeal meritorious.
After a careful perusal of the
records, We hold that there was no valid service of summons upon the
[respondent] Mogol spouses in Civil Case No. 167879. Perforce, the MeTC [Branch 25] never
acquired jurisdiction over them. We
explain.
x x x x
In this case, it is indubitable that
the [respondent] Mogol spouses, as defendants in Civil Case No. 167879, never
received the summons against them, whether personally or by substituted
service. As stated
earlier, the process server failed to effect personal service of summons
against the [respondent] Mogol spouses at the courtroom of the MeTC of Manila,
Branch 24, because the latter refused to receive it, arguing that the same
should be served at their residence, and not anywhere else.
Concomitant
to the trial court’s duty to bring the defendant within its jurisdiction by the
proper service of summons is its duty to apprise the plaintiff, as in the case
of [petitioner] Sansio, whether or not the said summons was actually served
upon the defendant. The
proof of service of summons (or the lack of it) alluded to by the rules is
found in Sec. 4, Rule 14 of the Revised
Rules of Court, to wit:
SECTION 4. Return.
– When the service has been completed, the server shall, within five (5) days
therefrom, serve a copy of the return, personally or by registered mail, to the
plaintiff’s counsel, and shall return the summons to the clerk who issued it,
accompanied by proof of service.
In this case, the process server’s Return of Service of Summons states, in clear and unequivocal
terms, that:
The original and duplicate copies of the Summons are hereby
returned, UNSERVED.
In
the case of Spouses Madrigal
v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No.
129955, 26 November 1999], it was
held that the sheriff’s certificate of service of summons is prima facie
evidence of the facts therein set out. In
the absence of contrary evidence, a presumption exists that a sheriff has
regularly performed his official duties. To overcome the presumption arising
from the sheriff’s certificate, the evidence must be clear and
convincing. In the
instant case, no proof of irregularity in the process server’s return was shown
by Sansio. A perusal of the
said return readily shows that the summons was unserved upon the Mogol spouses. From the foregoing, We hold that the
Mogol spouses were never in actual receipt of the summons in Civil Case
167879. Perforce, the trial
court did not acquire jurisdiction over them.
In
one case, the Supreme Court ruled that the refusal of a defendant to receive
the summons is a technicality resorted to in an apparent attempt to frustrate
the ends of justice. It is
precisely for this reason that the rules provide a remedy that, in case the
defendant refuses to receive and
sign for it, [the same is served] by tendering it to him. Moreover, even if tender of summons
upon the defendant proves futile, the trial court may further resort to
substituted service of summons, as provided under Sec. 7, Rule 14 of the
Revised Rules of Court.
Stated otherwise, the trial court is not left with any
other remedy in case the defendant refuses to receive and sign for his receipt
of the summons, as in this case. Unfortunately,
however, after the incident at the courtroom of the MeTC of Manila, Branch 24, there was no longer
any further effort on the part of the trial court to serve anew the summons,
together with a copy of the complaint, upon the Mogol spouses. Instead,
the trial court assumed jurisdiction over the Mogol spouses; declared them in
default for failure to file any responsive pleading; and, (sic) allowed Sansio
to present its evidence ex
parte in Civil Case No.
167879.
x
x x x
All
told, it is clearly established that there was indeed no valid service of
summons upon the Mogol spouses in Civil Case No. 167879. Consequently, the MeTC of Manila, Branch 24 did not acquire
jurisdiction over their persons. Perforce,
the order declaring them in default in the said civil case is nugatory and
without effect, as it was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or in excess of jurisdiction.[19] (Emphases
ours.)
Thus, the Court of Appeals decreed:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Order dated January 18, 2002 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 33, in SP
Civil Case No. 01-101267 is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accordingly, the Order dated April 6, 2001 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC)
of Manila, Branch 25, in Civil
Case No. 167879 is declared NULL and VOID. No pronouncement as to costs.[20]
Petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration[21] thereon, but the same was denied by the
Court of Appeals in the assailed Resolution[22] dated 12
March 2007.
Complaint for Sum of Money and Damages
In the interregnum, on 3 August 2001, petitioner presented
its evidence ex parte in the main case. On the basis thereof, on 17 August 2001, the MeTC of Manila,
Branch 25, rendered a Decision, adjudging that petitioner had sufficiently
established its entitlement to the grant of the reliefs prayed for in its
Complaint. The decretal
portion of the Decision states:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, judgment
is hereby rendered in favor of the [petitioner] and against the [respondent
spouses Mogol], ordering the latter to pay the former jointly and severally
the sum of P87,953.12 with
interest thereon at the legal rate from date of demand until the same is fully
paid; the sum equivalent to 25% of the amount due as and by way of attorney’s
fees, and the cost of suit.[23] (Emphasis
ours.)
Respondent spouses Mogol appealed[24] the above Decision to the RTC of
Manila. The appeal was
docketed as Civil Case No.
01-101963 and was raffled to
Branch 50 of the trial court.
On 19
March 2004, the RTC of Manila, Branch 50, promulgated its Decision,[25] affirming in toto the Decision of the MeTC of Manila, Branch
25. The RTC declared that
Section 6, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court clearly reveals 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 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[26] 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.
On 26
April 2007, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review, questioning the
rulings of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 70029 and raising for
resolution the following legal issues:
1. Whether or not the service of summons in the courtroom,
before the hearing, [was] a valid service of summons;
2. Whether or not the clause “tendering it to him” when the
defendant refuses to receive and sign for the summons under Section 6, Rule 14
of the Rules of Court means “leaving a copy of the summons to her or in the
premises where the defendant could get it”;
3. Whether or not summons refused to be received by
[respondent spouses Mogol], upon advice of their counsel, need to be served
anew to them;
4. Whether or not the court is bound by the conclusions of the
Process Server in his Return of Service of Summons; and
5. Whether or not the appeal before the Court of Appeals
denying the Petition for Certiorari,
Prohibition and Injunction has become moot and academic when the [RTC of
Manila, Branch 50] rendered a Decision affirming the Decision of the [MeTC of
Manila, Branch 25], and which Decision of the [RTC of Manila, Branch 50] has
become final and executory.
Contrary to the ruling of the Court of
Appeals, petitioner argues that the service of summons inside the courtroom of
the MeTC of Manila, Branch 24, was already valid. Such was a more practicable and
convenient procedure, as opposed to requesting the process server to serve the
summons and the copy of the complaint upon the respondent spouses Mogol at
their residence in Lucena City. Petitioner further contends that, when
the respondent spouses Mogol declined to receive and sign for the summons,
tendering of the same was sufficient, and the summons need not be served
anew. Section 6, Rule 14 of
the Rules of Court does not state that the personal service of summons fails
because the defendant refuses to receive and sign for it. As regards the Return on Service of
Summons, petitioner claims that the second paragraph thereof was a mere
conclusion of law, which does not
bind the independent conclusion of the courts. Although the second paragraph stated
that the summons was returned UNSERVED, the first paragraph clearly indicated
that, indeed, the summons and the copy of the complaint were already personally
served upon the Mogol spouses. They
merely refused to receive them for no valid reasons. Finally, petitioner asserts that
the assailed Decision dated 21
November 2006 of the Court of
Appeals has already become moot and academic. The Decision dated 19 March 2004 of the RTC of Manila, Branch 50, in Civil Case No. 01-101963, which
affirmed the Decision of the MeTC of Manila, Branch 25, on the merits of the
case has since become final and executory for failure of respondent spouses
Mogol to interpose an appeal of the same before the Court of Appeals.
We find merit in the petition.
A summons is a writ by which the
defendant is notified of the action brought against him or her. In a civil action, jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of
summons or the defendant's voluntary appearance in court. When the
defendant does not voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction, or when
there is no valid service of summons, any judgment of the court, which has no
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, is null and void.[27] Where
the action is in personam, i.e., one that seeks to impose some responsibility or liability directly
upon the person of the defendant through the judgment of a court,[28] and the defendant
is in the Philippines, the service of summons may be made through personal or
substituted service in the manner provided for in Sections 6 and 7, Rule 14 of
the Rules of Court, which read:
SEC. 6. Service in person on defendant.
– Whenever practicable, the summons shall 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.
SEC. 7. Substituted service. – If, for
justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as
provided in the preceding section, service may be effected (a) by leaving
copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence with some person of suitable
age and discretion then residing therein; or (b) by leaving the copies at
defendant’s office or regular place of business with some competent person in
charge thereof.
It is
well-established that summons upon a respondent or a defendant must be served
by handing a copy thereof to him in person or, if he refuses to receive it, by
tendering it to him. Personal
service of summons most effectively ensures that the notice desired under the
constitutional requirement of due process is accomplished.[29] The essence of personal service is the
handing or tendering of a copy of the summons to the defendant himself,[30] wherever he may be found; that is,
wherever he may be, provided he is in the Philippines.[31]
In the
instant case, the Court finds that there was already a valid service of summons
in the persons of respondent spouses Mogol. To recapitulate, the process server
presented the summons and the copy of the complaint to respondent spouses at
the courtroom of the MeTC of Manila, Branch 24. The latter immediately referred the
matter to their counsel, who was present with them in the aforesaid
courtroom. At the express direction of his clients,
the counsel took the summons and the copy of the complaint, read the same, and
thereby informed himself of the contents of the said documents. Ineluctably, at that point, the act of
the counsel of respondent spouses Mogol of receiving the summons and the copy
of the complaint already constituted receipt on the part of his clients, for
the same was done with the latter’s behest and consent. Already accomplished was the operative
act of “handing” a copy of the summons to respondent spouses in person. Thus, jurisdiction over the
persons of the respondent spouses Mogol was already acquired by the MeTC of
Manila, Branch 25. That
being said, the subsequent act of the counsel of respondent spouses of
returning the summons and the copy of the complaint to the process server was
no longer material.
Furthermore, the instruction of the
counsel for respondent spouses not to obtain a copy of the summons and the copy
of the complaint, under the lame excuse that the same must be served only in
the address stated therein, was a gross mistake. Section 6, Rule 14 of the
Rules of Court does not require that the service of summons on the defendant in
person must be effected only at the latter’s residence as stated in the
summons. On the contrary,
said provision is crystal clear that, whenever practicable, summons shall be
served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant; or if he refuses to receive
and sign for it, by tendering it to him. Nothing more is required. As correctly held by the RTC of
Manila, Branch 50, 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 under the circumstances, and the process server need not wait for
respondent spouses Mogol to reach their given address, i.e., at 1218 Daisy St., Employee Village,
Lucena City, before he could
serve on the latter the summons and the copy of the complaint. Due to the distance of the said
address, service therein would have been more costly and would have entailed a
longer delay on the part of the process server in effecting the service of the
summons.
Much more important than considerations of
practicality, however, is the fact that respondent spouses Mogol based their
case on a wrong appreciation of the above-stated provisions of the Rules of
Court. Respondent spouses
Mogol principally argue that Section
6 of Rule 14 cannot be singled out without construing the same with Section
7. They posit that, in a
civil case, summons must be served upon the defendants personally at the
designated place alleged in the complaint. If the defendants refuse to receive
and sign the summons, then the process server must tender the same to them by
leaving a copy at the residence of the defendants. If the summons cannot be served in
person because of the absence of the defendants at the address stated, then the
same can be served by (1) leaving copies of the summons at the defendants’
residence with some person of suitable age and discretion residing therein, or
(2) leaving the copies at defendants’ office or regular place of business with
some competent person in charge thereof.
Said
arguments must fail, for they have no leg to stand on.
Axiomatically,
Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court cannot 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.[32] 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.[33] 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 party’s residence or
upon a competent person in charge of the party’s office or place of business.[34]
Relevantly,
in Lazaro v. Rural Bank of Francisco Balagtas
(Bulacan), Inc.,[35] very categorical was our statement that
the service of summons to be done personally does not mean that service is
possible only at the defendant’s actual residence. It is enough that the
defendant is handed a copy of the summons in person by anyone authorized by
law. This is distinct from
substituted service under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. As already discussed above, there
was already a valid service of summons in the persons of respondent spouses
Mogol in the courtroom of the MeTC of Manila, Branch 24, when their counsel,
upon their explicit instructions, received and read the same on their
behalf. Contrary to the
ruling of the Court of Appeals, the fact that the summons was returned to the
process server and respondent spouses Mogul subsequently declined to sign for
them did not mean that the service of summons in the persons of respondent
spouses was a failure, such that a further effort was required to serve the
summons anew. A tender of
summons, much less, a substituted service of summons, need no longer be
resorted to in this case.
Indeed, a contrary ruling by this Court
would inevitably give every future defendant to a case the unwarranted means to
easily thwart the cardinal procedures for the service of summons at the simple
expedient of returning the summons and the copy of the complaint to the process
server and refusing to sign for the same even after being already informed of
their contents. This the
Court will never allow.
As to the reliance of the Court of Appeals
on the second paragraph of the Return on Service of Summons stating that the
original and duplicate copies of the Summons were returned “UNSERVED,” the
Court finds the same utterly misplaced. A
simple reading of the first paragraph of the Return on Service of Summons,
which contains the circumstances surrounding the service of the summons on the
persons of the respondent spouses Mogol, manifestly reveals that the summons
and the copy of the complaint were already validly served on the said
respondents. They merely
refused to receive or obtain a copy of the same. The certificate of
service of the process server is prima
facie evidence of the facts
as set out therein. This is
fortified by the presumption of the regularity of performance of official duty. To overcome the presumption of
regularity of official functions in favor of such sheriff’s return, the
evidence against it must be clear and convincing. Sans the requisite quantum of
proof to the contrary, the presumption stands deserving of faith and credit.[36] In the instant case, it is worthwhile to note that the facts stated in the first
paragraph of the Return on
Service of Summons were not at
all disputed by the respondent spouses Mogol.
Although We find lamentable the apparently
erroneous statement made by the process server in the aforesaid second
paragraph – an error that undoubtedly added to the confusion of the parties to
this case – the same was, nonetheless, a mere conclusion of law, which does not
bind the independent judgment of the courts. Indeed, it cannot be said that because
of such a statement, respondent spouses Mogol had the right to rely on said
return informing them that the summons had been unserved, thus justifying their
non-filing of any responsive pleading. To
reiterate, respondent spouses Mogol were validly served summons and a copy of
the complaint against them. At
their explicit instructions, their counsel read the same and thereby learned of
the nature of the claim against them. After
being made aware of the complaint filed against them, they chose not to obtain
a copy thereof and pretended that it did not exist. They, thus, took a gamble in not
filing any responsive pleading thereto. Suffice
it to say, they lost. The
constitutional requirement of due process exacts that the service be such as
may be reasonably expected to give the notice desired. Once the service provided by the rules
reasonably accomplishes that end, the requirement of justice is answered; the
traditional notions of fair play are satisfied and due process is served.[37]
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.
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.
SO ORDERED.
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
|