Yujuico VS
Yujuico VS
Respondents Lilian S. Soriano and the estate of Leandro A Soriano jr. filed for their answer, stating that
they were duly authorized by Lisam to mortgage the subject property and that the proceeds of the loan
Facts: were all for the benefit of Lisam and that the documents presented were signed by Lolita Soriano.
This case involves the Stockholders of STRADEC, a domestic corp which executed Respondent PCIB filed a Motion to Dismiss on 3 grounds; lack of legal capacity to sue , failure to state
cause of action , and litis pendencia . Respondent PCIB’s co-defendants filed a Motion to suspend action.
pledge agreements where they pledge certain amount of stocks in favor of URAMI (R).
The RTC then issued a resolution dismissing the complaint. Petitioners filed for a MR. During the pendency
These pledges served as securities to the loan obtained by STRADEC and one of the of the resolution on said MR , petitioners filed a Motion to Admit amended Complaint , amending
stockholders who so pledged his shares was Yujuico. paragraph 13of the original complaint.
Later, STRADEC failed to comply with its obligations and so it received a notice
informing them the auction sale of the stocks pledged and the notice was sent by a certain RTC denied BOTH MR and Motion to Admit Amended Complaint .The trial court held that no new
Atty. Nethercott. argument had been raised by petitioners in their motion for reconsideration to address the fact of
Petitioner filed before the RTC Pasig an injunction complaint to enjoin the sale and plaintiffs' failure to allege in the complaint that petitioner Lolita A. Soriano made demands upon the Board
one of the issues raised is Atty. Nethercott’s lack of authority to represent URAMI. of Directors of Lisam Enterprises, Inc. to take steps to protect the interest of the corporation against the
RTC: did not act on the complaint and the public auction pushed through. fraudulent acts of the Spouses Soriano and PCIB. The trial court further ruled that the Amended Complaint
It issued a writ of Prelim. Injunction preventing URAMI from selling the stocks. can no longer be admitted, because the same absolutely changed petitioners' cause of action.
URAMI, in its answer admitted that the auction was void and that it never authorised Atty.
Nethercott to cause the sale thereof. . Whether RTC should have granted the Motion to Admit Amended Complaint.
Petitioner then filed a motion for summary judgment since there’s no longer any
genuine issue left by reason of URAMI’s admission. amendments are generally favored, it would have been more fitting for the trial court to extend such
liberality towards petitioners by admitting the amended complaint which was filed before the order
URAMI, changed counsel and subsequently filed an amended answer and claimed
dismissing the original complaint became final and executory. It is quite apparent that since trial proper
that the auction sale was valid and that it duly authorised Atty Nethercott to initiate such sale had not yet even begun, allowing the amendment would not have caused anydelay. Moreover, doing so
on its behalf. would have served the higher interest of justice as this would provide the best opportunity for the issues
Issue: among all parties to be thoroughly threshed out and the rights of all parties finally determined. Hence, the
Whether or not the amended answer may be allowed even if it was filed more than Court overrules the trial court's denial of the motion to admit the amended complaint, and orders the
a year after the original answer has been submitted admission of the same.
HELD:
Yes. as long as it does not appear that the motion for leave was made with bad faith or with
intent to delay the proceedings, courts are justified to grant leave and allow the filing of an amended TIU VS. PHIL. BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS 596 SCRA 432
pleading. Once a court grants leave to file an amended pleading, the same becomes binding and will not
be disturbed on appeal unless it appears that the court had abused its discretion. PBCOM filed a complaint for collection against herein petitioners-representatives of Asian Water
Resources, Inc. (AWRI) due to the latter’s failure to pay loans after several demands made by PBCOM.
The mere fact that URAMI filed its motion for leave years after the original answer is also not reason
enough in itself to discredit the amended answer as a sheer dilatory measure. Pursuant to said loans, a duly notarized Surety Agreement was executed by AWRI’s Directors, before the
controversy arose.
even if it wanted to, URAMI really could not have filed a motion for leave to file amended answer sooner
than it already had because of the issuance of a temporary restraining order that effectively suspended REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORP. VS. CA
the proceedings in Civil Case No. 70027 for more than a year.
Petitioner (Remington Industrial Sales Corp) filed complaint for sum of money and damages arising from
we note that it only took URAMI a little over three months after the lifting of the temporary restraining breach of contract against Industrial Steels with Ferro Trading GMBH as principal defendant, and
order to replace its previous counsel of record in Civil Case No. 70027 and to file its amended answer. respondent British Steel as alternative defendants. ISL and BS separately moved for dismissal for failure to
state a cause of action. RTC denied the motions and the MR. ISL filed answer.
British Steel separately filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before CA claiming that complainant
LISAM ENTERPRISES VS. BANCO DE ORO failed to show that it had commited any act or ommission violating Remington’s rights. Complaint only
stated that BS and Ferro were just mere suppliers of goods for ISL.
Lisam Enterprises filed an action before the RTC against respondents for annulment of mortgage with
prayer for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction with damages. Remington then sought to amend the complaint by incorporating additional FACTS to have a cause of
action against BS by using Sec 2, Rule 10, stating that it can amend its complaint as a matter of right
1
because respondent (BS) has not yet filed a responsive pleading. The RTC also granted Capalad’s motion to expunge all pleadings filed by his counsel. Capalad was dropped
as defendant, and his complaint was admitted and consolidated with the complaints of Del Castillo and
RTC RULING: Amended Complaint is noted and other proceedings were held in abeyance until CA decides Urdaneta City.
on the petition for certiorari and prohibition of BS.
Aggrieved, APP and APPCDC filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, which was dismissed. APP and
CA RULING: Granted BS writ of certiorari, ordered judge to dismiss without prejudice the Complaint APPCDC’s subsequent MR was likewise denied.
against BS. MR was also dienied.
Issues:
1. WON CA erred in ordering the dismissal of the complaint agasint BS for lack of cause of action
under the original complaint even if it was already amended as a matter of right, and sufficient . WON the CA erred in denying reconsideration of its April 15, 2003 Resolution despite APP and
causes of action are averred in the amended complaint.
APPCDCs subsequent compliance.
2. WON CA erred in holding if Remington wants to pursue its case against BS, it has to refile . (2) WON the RTC erred and commited grave abuse of discretion in allowing respondents
complaint, pre-empting the right of the lower court to rule on amended complaint.
Capalad and Urdaneta City to switch from being defendants to becoming complainants.
HELD: . HELD:
YES. CA erred in dismissing the complaint because it the amendment made by Remington was done in a (1)Yes, it was thus error for the CA to deny reinstatement of the petition. Indeed, proof of authority to
timely manner and as a matter of right, which was before BS gave its answer in accordance to Sec 2, Rule sign the certificate of non-forum shopping in behalf of a corp. must be attached; otherwise, the petition is
10 of the ROC. The decision of the CA will result into multiple suits. THE AMENDMENT SHOULD BE subject to dismissal. However, it must be pointed out that the SC had considered as substantial
ALLOWED INSTEAD OF IT BEING DISMISSED.
Sec 2, rule 10 - Before the answer, a complaint may be compliance with the procedural requirements the submission in the MR of the authority to sign the
amended as a matter of right. It can amend to introduce a new cause of action or change in theory. During verification and certification, as in this case. Similarly, the SC considered as substantial compliance
this time, rights of defendant have not yet been violated because he hasn’t filed an answer yet. petitioners’ submission in the MR of the certified true copies of the assailed RTC orders. Petitioners also
Considerable leeway is given the plaintiff to amend his complaint once, AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, PRIOR included in the MR their explanation that copies of the petition were personally served on the Lazaro Law
the filing of answer.
Sec 3, rule 10 - After the answer, subtantial amendment of complaint is not allowed Firm, and mailed to the RTC and Atty. Peralta because of distance, as supported by the affidavit of service.
without leave of court. RATIONALE: any material change in the allegations already contained in the
complaint could prejudice the rights of defendant who has alerady set up his defense in the answer.
(2) No, the court may allow amendment of pleadings. Sec. 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court pertinently
provides that if evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues raised by
the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the
ASEAN PACIFIC PLANNERS VS. CITY OF URDANETA
presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be subserved thereby.
Objections need not even arise in this case since the Pre- trial Order already defined as an issue whether
This case stemmed from a Complaint for annulment of contracts with prayer for preliminary the contracts are valid. Thus, what is needed is presentation of the parties’ evidence on the issue. Any
prohibitory injunction and TRO filed by respondent Del Castillo, in his capacity as taxpayer, against evidence of the city for or against the validity of the contracts will be relevant and admissible. Note also
respondents City of Urdaneta and Capalad doing business under the name JJEFWA Builders, and that under Sec. 5, Rule 10, necessary amendments to pleadings may be made to cause them to conform
petitioners APP and APP Construction and Dev’t. Corp to the evidence. In addition, despite Urdaneta City’s judicial admissions, the RTC is still given leeway to
consider other evidence to be presented for said admissions may not necessarily prevail over
Del Castillo alleged that then Urdaneta City Mayor entered into 5 contracts for the preliminary design, documentary evidence, e.g., the contracts assailed. A party’s testimony in open court may also override
construction and management of a 4-storey twin cinema commercial center and hotel amounting to admissions in the Answer.
P250M, funded by a loan from the PNB. For minimal work, the contractor was allegedly paid P95M. Del
Castillo claimed that all the contracts are void because the object is outside the commerce of men, which
is a piece of land belonging to the public domain and which remains devoted to a public purpose as a
public elementary school. He also claimed that the contracts are void because they were all awarded
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS. SISON
solely to the Goco family.
This case involves The iso Han Samar Movt, represented by Fr. Noel Labendia of the Diocese of Calbayog,
In their Answer, APP and APPCDC, and Urdaneta City asserted that the contracts were valid. Respondent
Samar. He filed a letter-complaint accusing Governor Milagrosa T. Tan and other local public officials of
Capalad, through counsel, likewise filed an Answer with compulsory counterclaim and motion to dismiss
the Province of Samar, including respondent Maximo D. Sison, before the Office of the Ombudsman
on the ground that Del Castillo has no legal standing to sue.
relative to the alleged highly anomalous transactions entered into by them amounting to several millions
of pesos. The alleged calamity funds were expended without a State of Calamity having been declared by
After pre-trial, Urdaneta City filed an Omnibus Motion with prayer to (1) withdraw Urdaneta City’s the President; and that purchases for rice, medicines, electric fans, and cement were substantially
Answer; (2) drop Urdaneta City as defendant and be joined as plaintiff; (3) admit Urdaneta City’s overpriced.
complaint; and (4) conduct a new pre-trial, which the RTC granted.
Sison was the Provincial Budget Officer.
2
The Office of the Ombudsman found basis to proceed with the administrative case against the impleaded The petitioners therein thereafter filed three (3) urgent motions to resolve their application for writ of
provincial officials of Samar. In his counter-affidavit, Sison vehemently denied the accusations and preliminary injunction, on March 8, on May 22, and again on June 6, 2012. The Writ of Preliminary
asserted that his function is limited to the issuance of a certification that an appropriation for the Injunction was granted by the CA 14th Division, which not for long was questioned.
requisition exists, that the corresponding amount has been obligated, and that funds are available.
Issue: Whether the Ricaforts have a legal personality to assail the writ of preliminary injunction issued by
He averred that he never participated in the alleged irregularities as shown in the minutes and attendance the CA 14th Division.
sheet of the bidding and that not one of the documentary evidences so far attached in the letter-
complaint bore his signature. Held: NO. A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the
parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other
The Office of the Ombudsman rendered a Decision, finding Sison and several other local officials of the disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be
Province of Samar guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of allowed to intervene in the action.
the service and dismissing him from service. Aggrieved, Sison appealed to the CA via a Petition for Review
under Rule 43. Conversely, a person who is not a party in the main suit cannot be bound by an ancillary writ, such as a
preliminary injunction. Indeed, he cannot be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger.
CA rendered a decision reversing and setting aside the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman against
Sison. Thus, a person not a party to the proceedings in the trial court or in the CA cannot maintain an action for
certiorari in the Supreme Court to have the judgment reviewed. Stated differently, if a petition for
The Office of the Ombudsman filed an Omnibus Motion for Intervention and to Admit Attached Motion certiorari or prohibition is filed by one who was not a party in the lower court, he has no standing to
for Reconsideration, which was subsequently denied by the CA in its assailed resolution. Hence, this question the assailed order.
petition.
We pointed out that they should first have intervened below, and then filed a motion for reconsideration
ISSUE: Whether the Office of the Ombudsman may be allowed to intervene and seek reconsideration of from the questioned CA order.
the adverse decision rendered by the CA?
For even granting that the issuance of the writ was erroneous, as a matter of public policy a magistrate
HELD: No. It is fundamental that the allowance or disallowance of a Motion to Intervene is addressed to cannot be held administratively liable for every discretionary but erroneous order he issues. The settled
the sound discretion of the court. The permissive tenor of the rules shows the intention to give to the rule is that “a Judge cannot be held to account civilly, criminally or administratively for an erroneous
court the full measure of discretion in permitting or disallowing the intervention decision render
RODRIGUEZ VS. CA
Intervention: Purita Landicho filed before the RTC an Application for Registration of a piece of land.
Facts: Complainants Ethelwoldo Fernandez, and Antonio Henson were elected to the board of directors It has been established that the parcel of land under consideration was formerly several smaller parcels
of NADECOR. owned and possessed by the several people, all of whom executed instruments of conditional sale of their
respective parcels of land in favor of [Landicho], all of them executed jointly a final deed of absolute sale x
In a regular stockholder’s meeting where two groups were vying for control over the company, Calalang, x x which superseded the conditional sale.
De Jesus, Romulo, Ayala, Lazatin, Fernandez, Nitorreda, Engle were Elected. Gatmaitan was also elected as
Corporate Secretary. all of them executed jointly a final deed of absolute sale x x x which superseded the conditional sale.
Ricafort/s, claiming to be stockholders of record, sought to annul the said meeting held. Upon finality, a TCT was issued instead of an OCT
They alleged that they were not given due notice of the said meeting thus they were not present Doronila Resources Dev., Inc. (ADRDI), which was still pending before the RTC of Pasig City as of 2008.
and were not able to exercise their right. RTC agreed with the Ricaforts. ADRDI asserted ownership over the subject property. While still pending in court, ADRDI subsequently
transferred the subject property to Amado Araneta (Araneta) to whom TCT No. 70589 was issued
Four separate Petition for Certiorari were filed by the members of the board with the CA, all with
application for a TRO and/or preliminary injunction. Landicho executed a Deed of Absolute Sales (sic) over the subject property in favor of herein petitioner
Deogenes O. Rodriguez (Rodriguez). Two years later, on June 1, 1998, Landicho died.
The CA denied such applications, but on the same day nevertheless, the 11th division issued a TRO.
Rodriguez filed an Omnibus Motion alleging therein that the Order of of the RTC which confirmed
During the effectivity of the TRO, the old Board of Directors assumed the functions of the new one in Landicho’s title over the subject property has not been executed alleging that no OCT had been ever
order to prevent any hiatus and not to prejudice the corporation. issued by the ROD in Landicho’s name.
3
As Landicho’s successor-in-interest to the subject property, Rodriguez prayed that the Register of Deeds case only to oppose Rodriguez’s Omnibus Motion on the ground that the subject property is already
for Marikina City issue OCT in his name. registered in its name under TCT No. 482970, which originated from Landicho’s TCT No. 167681. And
fourth, after learning of Rodriguez’s Omnibus Motion in Land Reg. Case No. N-5098 via the November 3,
Rodriguez himself submitted TCT of PCCAI but alleged that said certificate of title was fictitious. Thus, the 2006 subpoena issued by the RTC, PCCAI was reasonably expected to oppose the same. Such action was
RTC issued a subpoena commanding PCCAI to appear at the hearing of Land Reg. Case and to bring its TCT the most opportune and expedient remedy available to PCCAI to prevent the RTC from ordering the
with its tax dec. issuance of a decree of registration and OCT in Rodriguez’s name.
PCCAI filed before the RTC a Verified Motion for Leave to Intervene justified its intervention by arguing For this reason, the RTC should have allowed the intervention of PCCAI.
that it was an indispensable party in the case, having substantial legal interest therein as the registered
owner of the subject property under TCT PCCAI ANONUEVO VS. INTESTATE ESTATE OF JALANDONI
It also likewise pointed out that Rodriguez himself submitted a copy of TCT No. 482970, only alleging that This case involves Jalandoni who died intestate.
said certificate was fictitious. PCCAI averred that Rodriguez maliciously failed to allege in his Omnibus
Motion that TCT No. 482970 remains valid and subsisting, there being no direct action or final court His brother Bernardino filed petition for issuance of letters of administration with Court of First Instance
decree for its cancellation of Negros Occidental to commence the judicial settlement of the estate. May Anonuevo and their siblings
introduced themselves as children of Sylvia Desantis, who is the daughter of Isabel Blee, who at the time
of Rodolfo’s death is the legal spouse of the letter. Thus, isable is entitled to a share in estate of Rodolfo.
The RTC favorably acted on Rodriguez’s Omnibus Motion in an Order Petitioners pray that they be allowed to intervene on behalf in the intestate proceedings because Sylvia
and Isabel have already passed away. Respondents opposed because the evidences showed by the
ISSUE: Whether or not the motion to intervene filed by PCCAI is proper even though it was filed after Petitioners revealed that Isabel has a subsisting marriage with John Desantis at time she was purportedly
rendition of judgment by the trial court. married to Rodolfo. Thus, marriage with Rodolfo was void ab initio.
HELD: The intestate court issued an order allowing petitioners to take part in settlement proceedings. CA sided
with the respondents with regard to the marriage of Isabel with John Desantis.
SECTION 2. Time to intervene. – The motion to intervene may be filed at any time before
rendition of judgment by the trial court. A copy of the pleading- nintervention shall be attached to the ISSUE: Whether CA erred when it nullified the orders of intestate court allowing Petitioners to intervene in
motion and served on the original parties. settlement proceedings
Although Rule 19 is explicit on the period when a motion to intervene may be filed, the Court allowed RULING: NO
exceptions in several cases
A court’s power to allow or deny intervention, albeit discretionary in nature, is circumscribed by the basic
This rule, however, is not inflexible. Interventions have been allowed even beyond the period prescribed demand of sound judicial procedure that only a person with interest in an action or proceeding may be
in the Rule, when demanded by the higher interest of justice. Interventions have also been granted to allowed to intervene. Otherwise stated, a court has no authority to allow a person, who has no interest in
afford indispensable parties, who have not been impleaded, the right to be heard even after a decision an action or proceeding, to intervene therein.
has been rendered by the trial court, when the petition for review of the judgment has already been
submitted for decision before the Supreme Court, and even where the assailed order has already become Petitioners and their siblings failed to offer sufficient evidence to establish that Isabel was the legal spouse
final and executory. of Rodolfo. The very evidence of the petitioners and their siblings negates their claim that Isabel has
interest in Rodolfo’s estate. The birth certificate of Sylvia precisely serves as the competent evidence of
It is permitted to avoid grave injustice and injury and to settle once and for all the substantive marriage between Isabel and John Desantis.
issues raised by the parties.
The inability of the petitioners and their siblings to present evidence to prove that Isabel’s prior marriage
the allowance or disallowance of a motion for intervention rests on the sound discretion of the court after was dissolved results in a failure to establish that she has interest in the estate of Rodolfo. Clearly, an
consideration of the appropriate circumstances. intervention by the petitioners and their siblings in the settlement proceedings cannot be justified.
The particular circumstances of this case similarly justify the relaxation of the rules of procedure on YAO VS. PERELLO
intervention. First, the interests of both PCCAI and Rodriguez in the subject property arose only after the
CFI Decision dated November 16, 1965 in Land Reg. Case No. N-5098 became final and executory. Second, ALBERTO G. PINLAC VS. COURT OF APPEALS
as previously discussed herein, both PCCAI and Rodriguez trace their titles back to Landicho. Hence, the
intervention of PCCAI could not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of Landicho who Petitioners herein are World War II veterans, their dependents and successors-in-interest.
prayed for the execution of the November 16, 1965 Decision of the CFI. PCCAI moved to intervene in the
4
Together, they filed a class suit primarily for Quieting of Title before the RTC. In particular, petitioners invoked by the Republic to protect its properties.
claimed that the real property, which has an aggregate area of 502 hectares, were part of forest lands
belonging to the government; that they and their predecessors-in-interest have occupied said property
continuously, adversely, and exclusively for more than thirty (30) years; and that they have accordingly
filed applications for land titling in their respective names with the appropriate government agency.
CHIPONGIAN vs BENITEZ-LIRIO
One of those so impleaded as a party-respondent was the Vil-Ma Maloles Subdivision (hereinafter, Vil-
The late Vicente Benitez was married to Isabel Chipongian, the petitioner’s sister. Isabel had predeceased
Ma). The individual lot owners of the said subdivision, however, were not specifically named. Since
Vicente. The couple had no offspring. After the death of Isabel, Vicente and petitioner executed an
personal service of summons could not be effected on Vil-Ma and some of the other named respondents,
extrajudicial settlement respecting the estate of Isabel, whereby the latte waived all his rights to the
petitioners moved for leave of court to serve summons by publication which was granted. Accordingly,
estate of Isabel in favor of Vicente. According to petitioner, however, Vicente executed an affidavit on the
the summons was published in the "Metropolitan Newsweek", a periodical edited and published in the
same date whereby he affirmed that the waiver did not extend to the paraphernal properties of Isabel.
City of Caloocan and Malolos, Bulacan.
Upon the death of Vicente, Victoria Benitez (Victoria), a sister of Vicente, and Feodor Benitez Aguilar
(Feodor), a nephew of Vicente, initiated proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Vicente in the
RTC. In its order dated May 13, 1994, the RTC appointed Feodor the administrator of Vicente’s estate.
Some of the named respondents filed their respective responsive pleadings, while the others, including
Vil-Ma, failed to answer, and were thus declared in default.
The petitioner intervened in the Special Proceedings. He sought the partial revocation of the May 13,
1994 order in order to exclude the parapherna properties of Isabel from inclusion in the estate of Vicente.
Exactly one (1) year and fifty-seven (57) days after the above-quoted judgement by default was rendered He cited the affidavit of Vicente in support of the partial revocation.
They assailed the default judgement which nullified all their titles, arguing that the court a quo had no The RTC granted the Motion, and admitted the complaint-in-intervention of the petitioner.
jurisdiction over them and their respective titled properties. They also alleged that they only came to
know of the adverse judgement when petitioners sought the execution of the judgement by attempting to
The RTC rendered judgment dismissing the complaint-in-intervention, holding that petitioner was
dispossess some of the titled owners of the lots and making formal demands for them to vacate their
negligent in asserting his right within a reasonable time which warrants the presumption that he had
respective properties.
either abandoned it or declined to assert it but also cast doubt on the validity of his claim.
the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Land Registration Authority (LRA), thru the Office of
RULING: Yes. Intervention is “a remedy by which a third party, not originally impleaded in the
the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a motion for intervention and a Petition-In-Intervention praying that
proceedings, becomes a litigant therein to enable him, her or it to protect or preserve a right or interest
judgment be rendered declaring:
which may be affected by such proceedings. If an intervention makes a third party litigant in the main
proceedings, his pleading-in- intervention should form part of the main case.
“1) That OCT No. 333 is a valid and existing title in line with the decisions this Honorable Court had already
rendered;
Accordingly, when petitioner intervened in the Special Proceeding, his complaint-in-intervention, once
admitted by the RTC, became part of the main case, rendering any final disposition thereof subject to the
That the land occupied by petitioners is not forest land rules specifically applicable to special proceedings, including Rule 109 of the Rules, which deals with
appeals in special proceedings.
Issue: Whether or not the intervention of the Republic of the Philippines is proper in this case.
VALMONTE VS. CA
Held:
Lourdes Valmonte is a foreign resident. Lourdes Valmonte is married to Alfredo Valmonte who is
Yes. The rule on intervention, like all other rules of procedure is intended to make the powers of the Court a member of the Philippine Bar and practices his profession in the Philippines.
fully and completely available for justice. It is aimed to facilitate a comprehensive adjudication of rival
claims overriding technicalities on the timeliness of the filing thereof. Indeed, in exceptional cases, the Lourdes’ sister, Rosita Dimankanta, filed an action for the partition of real property and accounting of
Court has allowed intervention notwithstanding the rendition of judgment by the trial court. In one case, rentals against Lourdes and Alfredo.
intervention was allowed even when the petition for review of the assailed judgment was already
submitted for decision in the Supreme Court.
She alleged that while Lourdes and Alfredo are spouses, of legal age and at present, residents of 90222
Carkeek Drive, South Seattle, Washington, U.S.A., but, for purposes of the complaint, may be served with
the intervention of the Republic is necessary to protect public interest as well as government properties summons at Gedisco Center, Unit 304, 1564 A. Mabini St., Ermita, Manila where defendant Alfredo D.
located and projects undertaken on Lot No. 3. The Constitutional mandate that no person shall be Valmonte as defendant Lourdes Arreola Valmontes spouse holds office and where he can be found.
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law can certainly be invoked by the Republic
which is an indispensable party to the case at bar. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, while
Lourdes Valmonte through a letter, referred Rosita’s counsel to her husband as the party to whom all
the provision is intended as a protection of individuals against arbitrary action of the State, it may also be
communications intended for her should be sent. Service of summons was then made upon petitioner
5
Alfredo at his office in Manila. Alfredo D. Valmonte accepted his summons, but not the one for Lourdes, defendant must answer.
on the ground that he was not authorized to accept the process on her behalf. Then, the summons of
Lourdes were not served upon her. In such cases, what gives the court jurisdiction in an action in rem or quasi in rem is that it has jurisdiction
over the res, i.e. the personal status of the plaintiff who is domiciled in the Philippines or the property
On one hand, Alfredo Valmonte file his answer with counterclaim, and on the other hand, Lourdes litigated or attached. Service of summons in the manner provided in 17 is not for the purpose of vesting it
Valmonte did not file her answer. This prompted Rosita to file a motion to declare Lourdes in default. with jurisdiction but for complying with the requirements of fair play or due process, so that he will be
Thereafter, Alfredo made a special appearance in behalf of his wife and opposed the motion filed by informed of the pendency of the action against him and the possibility that property in the Philippines
Rosita. belonging to him or in which he has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff
and he can thereby take steps to protect his interest if he is so minded.
The RTC denied Rosita’s Motion to Declare Lourdes in default, then the latter moved for a
reconsideration, which was again denied by the RTC. Rosita then filed with the CA a petition for certiorari, As petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte is a nonresident who is not found in the Philippines, service of
Mandamus and Prohibition. Accordingly, the CA declared Lourdes in Default. summons on her must be in accordance with Rule 14, 17. Such service, to be effective outside the
Philippines, must be made either
(1) by personal service;
ISSUE: Whether Lourdes Valmonte was validly served with summons.
(2) by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may
HELD: No.
To provide perspective, it will be helpful to determine first the nature of the action filed order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court should be sent by registered mail to
against petitioners Lourdes A. Valmonte and Alfredo D. Valmonte by private respondent, whether it is an the last known address of the defendant; or
(3) in any other manner which the court may deem
action in personam, in rem or quasi in rem. This is because the rules on service of summons embodied in sufficient.
Rule 14 apply according to whether an action is one or the other of these actions.
In an action in personam, personal service of summons or, if this is not possible and he cannot be
personally served, substituted service, as provided in Rule 14, 7-8 is essential for the acquisition by the MANOTOC VS. CA 499 SCRA 21
court of jurisdiction over the person of a defendant who does not voluntarily submit himself to the
authority of the court. If defendant cannot be served with summons because he is temporarily abroad, TOPIC: Substituted service of summon.
but otherwise he is a Philippine resident, service of summons may, by leave of court, be made by
publication. Otherwise stated, a resident defendant in an action in personam, who cannot be personally
FACTS: Agapita Trajano sought the enforcement of a foreign judgment rendered by the US District Court
served with summons, may be summoned either by means of substituted service in accordance with Rule
of Hawaii against Ma. Imelda Manotoc (Imee Marcos) for the wrongful death of Archimedes Trajano
14, 8 or by publication as provided in 17 and 18 of the same Rule.
committed by military intelligence in the Philippines allegedly working for Manotoc. RTC issued summons
for Manotoc addressed at Alexandra Homes, Pasig. It was served on a Macky dela Cruz described as a
In all of these cases, it should be noted, defendant must be a resident of the Philippines, otherwise an caretaker of her unit. Manotoc failed to file her answer and was declared in default.
action in personam cannot be brought because jurisdiction over his person is essential to make a binding
decision.
Manotoc filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over her person, stating that she is
not a resident of the said condo and that she does not hold office there, and dela Cruz is not her
In all of these cases, it should be noted, defendant must be a resident of the Philippines, otherwise an representative or employee. Thus no valid service was made. Further, she states that she is a resident of
action in personam cannot be brought because jurisdiction over his person is essential to make a binding Singapore.
decision.
RTC denied the motion and the subsequent MR. Manotoc filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition
On the other hand, if the action is in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is with the CA, that was denied. MR was also denied.
not essential for giving the court jurisdiction so long as the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. If the
defendant is a nonresident and he is not found in the country, summons may be served extraterritorially
ISSUE: Whether there was valid substituted service.
in accordance with Rule 14, 17, which provides:
RULING: No. In actions strictly ‘in perosnam’ jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is mandatory
Extraterritorial service. – When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines and the
and can be complied with valid service of summons. If defendant cannot be served, for excusable reason,
action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is, property within
within a reasonable time, substituted service can be resorted to. It is extraordinary in character and a
the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in which
derogation of the usual method of service thus rules for such must be faithfully complied with.
the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest therein, or
the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be
effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under Section 7; or by publication in a newspaper of The requirements of valid substituted service if there is impossibility of prompt personal service which is
general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the 15-30 days for the sheriff are:
summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the
defendant, or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall 1) By leaving copies of summons at defendant’s residence with a person of suitable age and discretion
specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice, within which the residing therein or by leaving copies at the defendant’s office or regular place of business with some
6
competent person in charge. conditional appearance entered to question the regularity of the service of summons, but an appearance
submitting to the jurisdiction of the court by acknowledging the receipt of the alias summons and praying
2) The sheriff must narrate in specific details how service in person became impossible. for additional time to file responsive pleading.
3) The attempt must be extraordinary and at least 3 times. The person of suitable age and discretion must Consequently, petitioner having acknowledged the receipt of the summons and also having invoked the
be at least 18 years old, able to read the summons written in English, and must be with confidential jurisdiction of the RTC to secure affirmative relief in its motion for additional time, petitioner effectively
relation to defendant. A competent person in charge can be the president or manager. submitted
The substituted service was invalid because the sheriff did not comply with the requirements. Dela Cruz voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the RTC. It is estopped now from asserting otherwise, even before this
was not a representative of Manotoc. Therefore, since there was no valid service of summons, there was Court. The RTC therefore properly took cognizance of the case against Dole Philippines, Inc., and we agree
no jurisdiction acquired. that the trial and the appellate courts committed no error of law when Dole’s contentions were overruled.
TOPIC: Service of Summons on Corporations Sec. 11, Rule 14; Voluntary Appearance Sec. 20, Rule 14 GUY VS. GACOTT
FACTS: Private respondent All Season Farm Corporation (ASFC) filed a complaint with the Makati City RTC FACTS:
presided by Hon. Judge Quilala which sought the recovery of a sum of money, accounting and damages
from petitioner Dole Philippines Inc. (Dole) and several of its officers. Sometime on March 3, 1997, Atty. Gacott (Gacott) from Palawan purchased two (2) brand new
transreceivers from Quantech Systems Corporation (QSC) in Manila through its employee Rey
Dole stated that an alias summons was served upon it through Marifa Dela Cruz, a legal assistant Medestomas (Medestomas), amounting to a total of PI 8,000.00. On May 10, 1997, due to major defects,
employed by Dole Pacific General Services, Ltd., separate from Dole. Subsequently, Dole filed a motion to Gacott personally returned the transreceivers to QSC and requested that they be replaced. Medestomas
dismiss the complaint based on the following grounds: (a) the RTC lacked jurisdiction over Dole due to received the returned transreceivers and promised to send him the replacement units within two (2)
improper service of summons; (b) the complaint filed failed to state a cause of action; (c ) ASFC was not weeks from May 10, 1997.
the real party in interest and (d) the officers of Dole cannot be sued in their personal capacities for alleged
acts performed in their official capacities as Dole corporate officers. Time passed and Gacott did not receive the replacement units as promised. QSC informed him that there
were no available units and that it could not refund the purchased price. Despite several demands, both
The RTC denied the motion to dismiss filed by Dole. Thereafter, Dole filed a petition for certiorari with the oral and written, Gacott was never given a replacement or a refund. The demands caused Gacott to incur
CA contending that the alias summons was not properly served. The CA ruled that Dole’s president had expenses in the total amount of P40,936.44. Thus, Gacott filed a complaint for damages. Summons was
known of the service of the alias and summons although he did not personally receive and sign it. served upon QSC and Medestomas, afterwhich they filed their Answer, verified by Medestomas himself
and a certain Elton Ong (Ong). QSC and Medestomas did not present any evidence during the trial.
ISSUE: Whether or not Dole was validly served with summons.
RTC ruled in favor of Atty. Gacott and issued a Writ of Execution. Gacott learned that QSC is a partnership
and not a corporation. He is also discovered that petitioner was appointed as General Manager of QSC. To
RULING: The Court held that summons was validly served. Well-settled is the rule that service of summons
execute the judgment, Gacott instructed the sheriff to proceed with the attachment of one of the motor
on a domestic corporation is restricted, limited and exclusive to the persons enumerated in Section 11,
vehicles of Guy.
Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Service must therefore be made on the president, managing
partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel.
Sheriff attached Guy’s vehicle by virtue of the Notice of Attachment upon Personalty. Thereafter, Guy
filed his Motion to Lift Attachment Upon Personalty, arguing that he was not a judgment debtor and,
In this case, it appears that on April 23, 2003, Marifa Dela Cruz, a legal assistant, received the alias
therefore, his vehicle could not be attached. RTC denied his motion. Not satisfied, Guy moved for
summons. There was no evidence that she was authorized to receive court processes in behalf of the
reconsideration and argued that he was neither impleaded as a defendant nor validly served with
president. Considering that the service of summons was made on a legal assistant, not employed by
summons and, thus, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over his person.
herein petitioner and who is not one of the designated persons under Section 11, Rule 14, the trial court
did not validly acquire jurisdiction over petitioner.
ISSUE: Whether or not the court has acquired jurisdiction over the person of Guy
However, under Section 20 of the same Rule, a defendant's voluntary appearance in the action is
equivalent to service of summons. As held previously by this Court, the filing of motions seeking RULING: NO. Jurisdiction over the person, or jurisdiction in personam - the power of the court to render a
affirmative relief, such as, to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a personal judgment or to subject the parties in a particular action to the judgment and other rulings
default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, are considered voluntary rendered in the action - is an element of due process that is essential in all actions, civil as well as criminal,
submission to the jurisdiction of the court. 23
except in actions in rem or quasi in rem. Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff is acquired by the
mere filing of the complaint in court. As the initiating party, the plaintiff in a civil action voluntarily
Note that on May 5, 2003, petitioner filed an Entry of Appearance with Motion for Time. It was not a submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court. As to the defendant, the court acquires jurisdiction over
7
24 .
his person either by the proper service of the summons, or by his voluntary appearance in the action. was issued
Under Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, when the defendant is a While the Complaint was pending, informal settlers started to encroach on the area of the proposed city
corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of the Philippines with a juridical road.
personality, the service of summons may be made on the president, managing partner, general manager,
corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel. Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements that 27
such provision provides an exclusive enumeration of the persons authorized to receive summons for Sunrise Garden Corporation, thus, filed a Motion and Manifestation on May 16, 2002, praying for the
25 amendment of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction "to include any and all persons or group of persons from
juridical entities. cralawred interfering, preventing or obstructing all of petitioner's contractors, equipment personnel and
representatives in proceeding with the construction of the city road as authorized by Ordinance No. 08-98
The records of this case reveal that QSC was never shown to have been served with the summons through of Antipolo City
any of the enumerated authorized persons to receive such, namely: president, managing partner, general
manager, corporate secretary, treasurer or in-house counsel. Service of summons upon persons other Thereafter, armed guards of K-9 Security Agency, allegedly hired by First Alliance Real Estate
than those officers enumerated in Section 11 is invalid. Even substantial compliance is not sufficient Development, Inc.,blocked Sunrise Garden Corporation's contractor's employees and prevented them
service of summons. The CA was obviously mistaken when it opined that it was immaterial whether the from proceeding with the construction. On November 15, 2002, Sunrise Garden Corporation filed an Ex-
27 parte Motion to require K-9 Security Agency and First Alliance Real Estate Development, Inc. to comply
summons to QSC was served on the theory that it was a corporation.
with the May 22, 2002 Amended Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
Nevertheless, while proper service of summons is necessary to vest the court jurisdiction over the
The trial court granted Sunrise Garden Corporation's Motion and issued an Order dated November 22,
defendant, the same is merely procedural in nature and the lack of or defect in the service of summons
2002
may be cured by the defendant's subsequent voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction through his
filing a responsive pleading such as an answer. In this case, it is not disputed that QSC filed its Answer
despite the defective summons. Thus, jurisdiction over its person was acquired through voluntary requiring K-9 Security Agency to comply with the Amended Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
appearance.
Despite the issuance of the Order to comply, security guards dressed in civilian clothes still allegedly
SUNRICE GARDEN CORP. VS. CA 771 SCRA 616 50
prevented the workers from proceeding to the construction site on November 28, 2002.
FACTS: In 1998, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Antipolo City passed City Ordinance No. 08-98 entitled
On November 29, 2002, Sunrise Garden Corporation filed a Motion to cite Forefront Security Agency and
"An Ordinance Creating a Technical Committee to Conduct a Feasibility Study, Preliminary and Parcellary
58
Survey for the Proposed Construction of a City Road Connecting Four (4) Barangays in Antipolo City. First Alliance Real Estate Development, Inc. in contempt. Sunrise Garden Corporation alleged that First
Alliance Real Estate Development, Inc. was notified and voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the
Sunrise Garden Corporation was an affected landowner. Its property was located in Barangay Cupang, court. Sunrise Garden Corporation also alleged that First Alliance Real Estate Development, Inc. adopted
which Sunrise Garden Corporation planned to develop into a memorial park. K-9 Security Agency's Opposition.
Sunrise Garden Corporation, through Cesar T. Guy, Chair of the Board of Directors, executed an ISSUE: Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction over First Alliance Real Estate Development by
Undertaking where Sunrise Garden Corporation would construct the city road at its own expense, subject virtue of its voluntary appearance to the effect that it may be a subject of the ancillary writ of preliminary
to reimbursement through tax credits. injunction RULING: NO. While Rule 14, Section 20 of the Rules of Court provides that voluntary
appearance is equivalent to service of summons, the same rule also provides that "[t]he inclusion in a
The city road project, thus, became a joint project of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Antipolo, Barangay motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall
Cupang, Barangay Mayamot, and Sunrise Garden Corporation. 213
not be deemed a voluntary appearance."
15 16 In Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Spouses Dy Hong Pi, et al., this court discussed that
Sunrise Garden Corporation's contractor began to position its construction equipment. However,
17 voluntary appearance in court may not always result in submission to the jurisdiction of a court.
armed guards, allegedly hired by Hardrock Aggregates, Inc., prevented Sunrise Garden Corporation's
18 Preliminarily, jurisdiction over the defendant in a civil case is acquired either by the coercive power of
contractor from using an access road to move the construction equipment.
legal processes exerted over his person, or his voluntary appearance in court. As a general proposition,
one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. It is by
On January 24, 2002, Sunrise Garden Corporation filed a Complaint for damages with prayer for reason of this rule that we have had occasion to declare that the filing of motions to admit answer, for
temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction against Hardrock Aggregates, Inc. additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with
motion for reconsideration, is considered voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction. This, however,
On March 19, 2002, the trial court ordered the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, subject to the is tempered by the concept of conditional appearance, such that a party who makes a special appearance
posting of a bond by Sunrise Garden Corporation. On March 22, 2002, the Writ of Preliminary Injunction to challenge, among others, the court's jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to have
8
submitted to its authority. The rule now states “general manager” instead of only “manager”. As held by Justice Regalado, the
aforesaid terms were obviously ambiguous and susceptible of broad and sometimes illogical
Prescinding from the foregoing, it is thus clear that: interpretations, especially the word “agent”. Service of summons upon persons other than those
mentioned in Sec 13 of Rule (old rule) has been held improper. The purpose of which is to render it
reasonably certain that the corporation will receive prompt and proper notice in an action against it or to
. (1) Special appearance operates as an exception to the general rule on voluntary appearance;
insure that the summons be served on a representative so integrated with the corporation that such
person will know what to do with the legal papers served on him. Accordingly, the service of summons
upon the branch manager at its branch in CDO, instead to the general manager at its principal office in
. (2) Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant Davao City is improper.
must be explicitly made, i.e., set forth in an unequivocal manner; and
MASON VS. CA 413 SCRA
. (3) Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court, especially
in instances where a pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and submitted to the
TOPIC: Summons, Default
court for resolution.
FACTS: Spouses Mason owned two parcels along EDSA in Pasay City. Petitioners and private respondent
The appearance of respondent First Alliance Real Estate Development, Inc. and K-9 Security Agency should
Columbus Philippines Bus Corporation entered into a lease contract, under which Columbus undertook to
not be deemed as a voluntary appearance because it was for the purpose of questioning the jurisdiction
construct a building worth ten million pesos (P10,000,000) at the end of the third year of the lease.
of the trial court. The records of this case show that the defense of lack of jurisdiction was raised at the
Private respondent failed to comply with this stipulation, petitioners filed a complaint for rescission of
first instance and repeatedly argued by K-9 Security Agency and respondent First Alliance Real Estate
contract with damages against private respondent before the RTC of Pasay City. Summons was served
Development, Inc. in their pleadings.
upon private respondent through a certain Ayreen Rejalde. While the receiving copy of the summons
described Rejalde as a secretary of Columbus, the sheriff’s return described Rejalde as a secretary to the
E.B. Villarosa corporate president, duly authorized to receive legal processes.
FACTS: E.B. Benito is a limited partnership with principal office at Davao City and with branch offices at Private respondent failed to file its answer or other responsive pleading. The private respondent was
Parañaque City and Cagayan De Oro City. Petitioner and private respondent, Imperial Development declared in default and the petitioners were allowed to present evidence ex-parte.The trial court
Corporation, executed a Deed of Sale with development agreement wherein the former agreed to rendered its decision in favor of the plaintiffs. That decision became final on May 12, 1999. The following
develop certain parcels of land belonging to Imperial. On April 3, 1998, Imperial filed a complaint for day, private respondent filed a motion to lift order of default. The trial court ordered the parties to submit
breach of contract against E.B. Benito before the RTC Makati. Summons, together with the complaint, their respective memoranda. However, without waiting for the same, the trial court on May 26, 1999,
were served upon the defendant, through its BRANCH MANAGER Engy. Sabulbero at Cagayan De Oro City denied the motion to lift order of default since according to the court, the incidents can be resolved based
Branch. E.B. Benito moved to dismiss on the ground of improper service of summons thus, the trial court on the records.
did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of herein petitioner. On the other hand, Imperial contended
that the service is valid alleging that there was a substantial compliance with the rule as it was served
Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Undaunted, private respondent
through its branch manager.
filed a manifestation and motion to lift the writ of execution which was also denied for being dilatory.
RTC: denied the motion to dismiss and held that there was a valid service of summons. Hence, this
Private respondent appealed to the CA, which ruled in its favor.
petition was filed by EB Villarosa contending that the trial court committed GAD amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
The CA held that private respondent was not properly served with summons, thus it cannot be faulted if it
failed to file an Answer. Consequently, the subsequent proceedings, including the order of default,
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner upon service of
judgment by default and its execution, were also invalid because the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction
summons on its Branch Manager.
over private respondent. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but to no avail. Hence, this petition
for review.
RULING: No. Sec 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:
ISSUE/S:
When the defendant is a corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of the
Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be made on the president, managing partner, general
1. Whether there was valid service of summons on private respondent for the trial court to acquire
manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel.
jurisdiction, and 2. Whether private respondent’s motion to lift order of default was in order.
This provision revised the former Sec 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court which provided that:
RULING:
If the defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines or a partnership duly
1. None. Petitioners contend that while Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure clearly
registered, service may be made on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent or any of its
specifies the persons authorized to receive summons on behalf of a private juridical entity, said provision
directors.
did not abandon or render inapplicable the substantial compliance rule. Petitioners stress that even
9
though the summons was received by a mere filing clerk in private respondent’s corporation, there was figured in a vehicular accident with petitioner Green Star Express, Inc.' s (Green Star) passenger bus,
substantial compliance with Section 11, Rule 14 because the summons actually reached private resulting in the death of the van's driver. Thus, the bus driver, petitioner Fruto Sayson, Jr., was charged
respondent. with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
The designation of persons or officers who are authorized to accept summons for a domestic corporation Thereafter, Green Star sent a demand letter to respondent NissinUniversal Robina Corporation (NURC) for
or partnership is now limited and more clearly specified in Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil the repair of its passenger bus amounting to ₱567, 070.68. NURC denied any liability therefore and argued
Procedure. The rule now states "general manager" instead of only "manager"; "corporate secretary" that the criminal case shall determine the ultimate liabilities of the parties. Thereafter, the criminal case
instead of "secretary"; and "treasurer" instead of "cashier." The phrase "agent, or any of its directors" is was dismissed without prejudice, due to insufficiency of evidence.
conspicuously deleted in the new rule. Had the Rules of Court Revision Committee intended to liberalize
the rule on service of summons, it could have easily done so by clear and concise language. Absent a Sayson and Green Star then filed a complaint for damages against NURC before the R TC of San Pedro,
manifest intent to liberalize the rule, there should be strict compliance with Section 11, Rule 14 of the Laguna. Francis Tinio, one of NURC's employees, was the one who received the summons. On February 6,
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Since service of summons upon private respondent through its filing clerk 2004, NURC filed a Motion to Dismiss claiming lack of jurisdiction due to improper service.
cannot be considered valid, it necessarily follows therefore that the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City did
not acquire jurisdiction over private respondent. Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings held
On May 5, 2004, the RTC issued a Resolution denying NURC's motion to dismiss. It ruled that there was
before it, including the order of default, are null and void.
substantial compliance because there was actual receipt of the summons by NURC. The dispositive
portion of said Resolution thus reads:
3
JOSE VS. BOYON WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, defendant's "Motion to Dismiss" is hereby DENIED.
FACTS: Petitioners lodged a complaint before the RTC for specific performance against respondents to Since its Motion for Reconsideration was denied, NURC elevated the case to the CA via a Petition for
compel them to facilitate the transfer of ownership of a parcel of land subject of a controverted sale. Certiorari. On September 17, 2007, the CA reversed the RTC ruling
Respondent judge, through the acting Branch Clerk of Court issued summons to the [respondents]. As per
return of the summons, substituted service was resorted to by the process server allegedly because ISSUE: Whether or not the summons was properly served on NURC, vesting the trial court with jurisdiction
efforts to serve the summons personally to the [respondents] failed. Petitioners filed before the trial court
an Ex-parte Motion for Leave of Court to Effect Summons by Publication, which was granted. The RULING: It is a well-established rule that the rules on service of summons upon a domestic private juridical
respondent judge, sans a written motion, issued an Order declaring herein [respondents] in default for entity must be strictly complied with. Otherwise, the court cannot be said to have acquired jurisdiction
failure to file their respective answers. As a consequence of the declaration of default, [petitioners] were over the person of the defendant.
allowed to submit their evidence ex-parte. The lower court ruled in favor of petitioners. On appeal, the CA
held that the trial court had no authority to issue the questioned Resolution and Orders. According to the
NURC maintains that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over it as the summons was received by its cost
appellate court, the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over respondents because of the invalid service of
accountant, Francis Tinio.1âwphi1 It argues that under Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Court,
summons upon them.
which provides the rule on service of summons upon a juridical entity, in cases where the defendant is a
domestic corporation like NURC, summons may be served only through its officers.Thus:
ISSUE: WON there was valid service of summons? HELD: NO. In general, trial courts acquire jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant by the service of summons. Where the action is in personam and the
Section 11. Service upon domestic private juridical entity. – When the defendant is a corporation,
defendant is in the Philippines, such service may be done by personal or substituted service, following the
partnership or association organized under the laws of the Philippines with a juridical personality, service
procedures laid out in Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court. As can be gleaned from
may be made on the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-
the rules, personal service of summons is preferred to substituted service. Only if the former cannot be
house counsel.
made promptly can the process server resort to the latter. Moreover, the proof of service of summons
must (a) indicate the impossibility of service of summons within a reasonable time; (b) specify the efforts
exerted to locate the defendant; and (c) state that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient Here, Tinio, a, member of NURC’s accounting staff, received the summons on January 22, 2004. Green star
age and discretion who is residing in the address, or who is in charge of the office or regular place of claims that it was received upon instruction of Junadette Avedillo. The general manager of the
business, of the defendant. It is likewise required that the pertinent FACTS proving these circumstances be corporation. Such fact, however, does not appear in the Sheriff’s Return.13 The Return did not even state
stated in the proof of service or in the officer’s return. The failure to comply faithfully, strictly and fully whether Avedillo was present at the time the summons was received by Tinio, the supposed assistant
with all the foregoing requirements of substituted service renders the service of summons ineffective. In manager. Green Star further avers that the sheriff tendered the summons, but Avedillo simply refused to
the instant case, it appears that the process server hastily and capriciously resorted to substituted service sign and receive the same. She then allegedly instructed Tinio to just receive it in her behalf. However,
of summons without actually exerting any genuine effort to locate respondents. Summons by publication Green Star never presented said sheriff as witness during the hearing of NURC’s motion to dismiss to
in this case was also improper. It must be noted that extraterritorial service of summons or summons by attest to said claim. And while the sheriff executed an affidavit which appears to support such allegation,
publication applies only when the action is in rem or quasi in rem. the same was likewise not presented as evidence. It was only when the case was already before the CA
that said affidavit first surfaced. Since the service of summons was made on a cost accountant, which is
not one of the designated persons under Section 11 of Rule 14, the trial court did not vadily acquire
GREEN STAR EXPRESS VS. NISSIN
jurisdiction over NURC,14 although the corporation may have actually received the summons.15 To rule
otherwise will be an outright circumvention of the rules, aggravating further the delay in the
FACTS: On February 25, 2003, a Mitsubishi L-300 van which Universal Robina Corporation ( URC) owned
10
administration of justice.
11