Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Secondly, the service in the attempted manner on petitioner was not made
Valmonte v. CA Digest upon prior leave of the trial court as required also in Rule 14, § 17. As provided
in § 19, such leave must be applied for by motion in writing, supported by
G.R. No. 108538 January 22, 1996 affidavit of the plaintiff or some person on his behalf and setting forth the
Ponente: Mendoza, J.: grounds for the application.
Service of Summons 4. Finally, and most importantly, because there was no order granting such
leave, petitioner Lourdes was not given ample time to file her Answer which,
Facts: according to the rules, shall be not less than sixty (60) days after notice.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte was validly served with
summons.
NO.
There was no valid service of summons on Lourdes.
1. The action herein is in the nature of an action quasi in rem. Such an action is
essentially for the purpose of affecting the defendant’s interest in a specific
property and not to render a judgment against him. As petitioner Lourdes A.
Valmonte is a nonresident who is not found in the Philippines, service of
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;
(2) by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for
such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and
order of the court should be sent by registered mail to the last known address
of the defendant; or (3) in any other manner which the court may deem
sufficient.
FACTS:
E.B. Villarosa & Partners is a limited partnership with principal
office address at 102 Juan Luna St., Davao City and with branch offices at
Parañaque and Cagayan de Oro City (CDO). Villarosa and Imperial
Development (ID) executed an Agreement wherein Villarosa agreed to develop
certain parcels of land in CDO belonging to ID into a housing subdivision. ID,
filed a Complaint for Breach of Contract and Damages against Villarosa before
the RTC allegedly for failure of the latter to comply with its contractual
obligation.
Summons, together with the complaint, were served upon Villarosa, through
its Branch Manager Wendell Sabulbero at the address at CDO but the Sheriff’s
Return of Service stated that the summons was duly served "E.B. Villarosa &
Partner thru its Branch Manager at their new office Villa Gonzalo, CDO, and
evidenced by the signature on the face of the original copy of the summons."
Villarosa prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of improper
service of summons and for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant. Villarosa contends that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over its
person since the summons was improperly served upon its employee in its
branch office at CDO who is not one of those persons named in Sec. 11, Rule
14 upon whom service of summons may be made. ID filed a Motion to Declare
Villarosa in Default alleging that Villarosa has failed to file an Answer despite
its receipt allegedly on May 5, 1998 of the summons and the complaint, as
shown in the Sheriff's Return.
HELD: The court agrees with the contention of Villarosa. Earlier cases have
uphold service of summons upon a construction project manager; a
corporation's assistant manager; ordinary clerk of a corporation; private
secretary of corporate executives; retained counsel; officials who had charge
or control of the operations of the corporation, like the assistant general
manager; or the corporation's Chief Finance and Administrative Office. In
these cases, these persons were considered as "agent" within the
contemplation of the old rule.”
“Notably, under the new Rules, service of summons upon an AGENT of the
Quisumbing, J. Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires
that service of summons upon domestic private juridical entity shall
Re: Rules 10-14; Summons; default be made through its president, managing partner, general
manager, corporate secretary, treasurer or in-house counsel.
DOCTRINE
Since service upon private respondent was made through a certain
No substantial compliance in serving summons. Service of summons, to be Ayreen Rejalde, a mere filing clerk in private respondent’s office,
valid, must be received by any of those enumerated under Sec 11, Rule 14. as evidenced by the latter’s employment record, such service
cannot be considered valid. Consequently, the subsequent
Villarosa overturned the doctrine in Millenium case (substantial compliance). proceedings, including the order of default, judgment by default
and its execution, were also invalid because the trial court did not
FACTS acquire jurisdiction over private respondent. Besides, judgments
by default are not favored, especially so when there is a prima facie
Petitioners spouses Efren and Digna Mason owned two parcels of land located showing that the defaulting party has a meritorious defense, which
along EDSA in Pasay City. On March 30, 1993, petitioners and private in this case was grounded on the contract of lease sued upon, said
respondent Columbus Philippines Bus Corporation (hereafter Columbus) the Court of Appeals.
entered into a lease contract, under which Columbus undertook to construct
a building worth P10M at the end of the third year of the lease. Petitioner filed a petition for review.
According to petitioners:
Because private respondent failed to comply with this stipulation, the 1. Petitioners contend that while Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997
petitioners on November 13, 1998, filed a complaint for rescission of contract Rules of Civil Procedure clearly specifies the persons authorized to
with damages against private respondent before the RTC of Pasay City. receive summons on behalf of a private juridical entity, said
provision did not abandon or render inapplicable the substantial
compliance rule. Petitioners cite MilleniumIndustrial Commercial
Corporation v. Tan, and maintain that this Court, by referring
Summons was served upon private respondent through a certain to E.B Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. v. Judge Benito, effectively ruled
Ayreen Rejalde. While the receiving copy of the summons that said provision is the statement of the general rule on service
described Rejalde as a secretary of Columbus, the sheriff’s return of summons upon corporation and the substantial compliance
described Rejalde as a secretary to the corporate president, duly rule is the exception.
authorized to receive legal processes.
2. Even though the summons was received by a mere filing clerk in
private respondent’s corporation, there was substantial
compliance with Section 11, Rule 14 because the summons
Private respondent failed to file its answer or other responsive actually reached private respondent. This can be gleaned from
pleading, hence petitioners filed a motion to declare private private respondent’s motion to lift order of default where private
respondent in default. The motion was granted and petitioners respondent did not question the validity of the service of
were allowed to present evidence ex-parte. Thereafter, the case summons but explained in paragraph three thereof that its failure
was submitted for decision. to answer the complaint was due to its impression that the case
would not be pursued by petitioners because the corporation
already made payments to them.
RTC: The trial court rendered its decision in favor of the petitioners declaring
the contract of lease rescinded, terminated and cancelled. That decision 3. According to petitioners, private respondent in effect admitted
became final on May 12, 1999. that it received the summons. Notwithstanding this, private
respondent did not file its answer to the complaint, said the
petitioners. This is tantamount to negligence which the court
cannot tolerate,
1. The following day, private respondent filed a motion to lift
order of default, which was opposed by petitioners. The trial
court denied the motion to lift order of default. According to respondent
2. Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which 1. Private respondent counters that nowhere in the Millenium case
was denied. did this Court expressly state or remotely imply that we have not
abandoned the doctrine of substantial compliance.
3. Undaunted, private respondent filed a manifestation and 2. Private respondent claims that petitioners misquoted the portion
motion to lift the writ of execution. It suffered the same fate of the Millenium decision where this Court cited
as the motion for reconsideration for being dilatory. The the Villarosa case, to make it appear that the Villarosa ruling,
branch sheriff was directed to proceed with the enforcement which provides an interpretation of Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997
of the decision. Rules of Civil Procedure, states the general rule on the service of
summons upon corporations where the substantial compliance
rule is the exception. Private respondent avers that what this
CA: Private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which ruled in its Court discussed in the Millenium case was the rule on service of
favor. The CA held that the trial court erred when it denied private summons under the old Rules of Court prior to the promulgation
respondent’s motion to lift order of default. The appellate court pointed out and effectivity of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
that private respondent was not properly served with summons, thus it
cannot be faulted if it failed to file an Answer.
The Millenium case held that as a general rule, service upon one Neither can herein petitioners invoke our ruling in Millenium to support their
who is not enumerated in Section 13, Rule 14 of the then Rules of position for said case is not on all fours with the instant case. We must stress
Court is invalid, according to private respondent. An exception is that Millenium was decided when the 1964 Rules of Court were still in force
when the summons is actually received by the corporation, which and effect, unlike the instant case which falls under the new rule. Hence, the
means that there was substantial compliance with the case cited by petitioners where we upheld the doctrine of substantial
rule. Private respondent stresses that since the exception compliance must be deemed overturned by Villarosa, which is the later case.
referred to the old rule, it cannot be made to apply to the new
rule, which clearly specifies and limits the persons authorized to 2. Moot and academic. Since there was no valid summons, RTC did
receive the summons in behalf of the corporation. not acquire jurisdiction over respondent. Thus, all subsequent
proceedings held before it, including the order of default, are null
3. Neither can petitioners rely on Millenium to justify their theory and void.
because at the time the complaint in this case was filed with the
trial court, the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure were already in
effect. The case law applicable in the instant case, contends
private respondent, is Villarosa which squarely provides for the
proper interpretation of the new rule on the service of summons
upon domestic corporation,
ISSUES
HELD