MA. IMELDA M. MANOTOC v. CA, GR NO.

130974, 2006-08-16

FACTS:

Petitioner is the defendant in Civil Case

Agapita Trajano, pro se, and on behalf of the Estate of Archimedes Trajano v. Imelda
"Imee" R. Marcos-Manotoc for Filing, Recognition and/or Enforcement of Foreign
Judgment.

For wrongful death of deceased Archimedes Trajano committed by military intelligence

officials of the Philippines allegedly under the command... and/or influence of defendant
Manotoc,... the trial court issued a Summons at Alexandra Condominium Corporation or
Alexandra Homes, E2 Room 104, at No. 29 Meralco Avenue, Pasig City.

the Summons and a copy of the Complaint were allegedly served upon (Mr.) Macky de
la Cruz, an alleged caretaker... petitioner failed to file her Answer, the trial court
declared... her in default... petitioner, by special appearance of counsel, filed a Motion to
Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the trial court over her person due to an
invalid substituted service of summons.

The address of defendant indicated in the Complaint (Alexandra Homes) was not her
dwelling, residence, or regular place of business

The party (de la Cruz), who was found in the unit, was neither a... representative,
employee, nor a resident of the place;

The procedure prescribed by the Rules on personal and substituted service of

summons was ignored; (4) defendant was a resident of Singapore; and (5) whatever
judgment rendered in this case would be ineffective and futile.

The trial court rejected Manotoc's Motion to Dismiss on the strength of its findings that
her residence, for purposes of the Complaint, was Alexandra Homes based on the
documentary evidence of respondent Trajano.

Trial court relied on the presumption that the sheriff's substituted service was made in
the regular performance of official duty, and such presumption stood in the absence of
proof to the contrary.

Manotoc filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Court of Appeals (CA).
CA rendered the assailed Decision, dismissing the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition.
Thus, according to the CA, the trial court had acquired jurisdiction over petitioner as
there was a valid substituted service pursuant to Section 8, Rule 14 of the old Revised
Rules of Court.
petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the CA

ISSUES:

 COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN RENDERING THE

DECISION AND RESOLUTION
 THAT THE TRIAL COURT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON
OF THE PETITIONER THROUGH A SUBSTITUTED
 SERVICE OF SUMMONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 8, RULE 14 OF
THE REVISED RULES OF COURT.

RULING:

We GRANT the petition.

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."

In an action strictly in personam, personal service on the defendant is the preferred

mode of service, that is, by handing a copy of the summons to the... defendant in
person. If defendant, for excusable reasons, cannot be served with the summons within
a reasonable period, then substituted service can be resorted to. While substituted
service of summons is permitted, "it is extraordinary in character and in derogation of
the... usual method of service." Hence, it must faithfully and strictly comply with the
prescribed requirements and circumstances authorized by the rules. Indeed,
"compliance with the rules regarding the service of summons is as much important as
the issue of... due process as of jurisdiction."

SEC. 8. Substituted service. If the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time
as provided in the preceding section [personal service on defendant], 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.

Requirements for Substituted Service... break down this section into the following
requirements to effect a valid substituted service:

The party relying on substituted service or the sheriff must show that defendant cannot
be served promptly or there is impossibility of prompt service. Section 8, Rule 14
provides that the plaintiff or the sheriff is given a "reasonable time" to serve... the
summons to the defendant in person,... Reasonable time" is defined as "so much time
as is necessary under the circumstances for a reasonably prudent and diligent man to
do, conveniently, what the contract or duty requires that should be... done, having a
regard for the rights and possibility of loss, if any, to the other party."

(1) Impossibility of Prompt Personal Service

To the plaintiff, "reasonable time" means no more than seven (7) days since an
expeditious processing of a complaint is what a plaintiff wants. To the sheriff,
"reasonable time" means 15 to 30 days because at the end of the month, it is a practice
for the branch clerk of court to require the sheriff to submit a return of the summons
assigned to the sheriff for service.

Thus, one month from the issuance of summons can be considered "reasonable time"
with regard to personal service on the defendant.

For substituted service of summons to be available. there must be several attempts by

the sheriff to personally serve the summons within a reasonable period [of one month]
which eventually resulted in failure to prove impossibility of prompt service. "Several
attempts" means at least three (3) tries, preferably on at least two... different dates. In
addition, the sheriff must cite why such efforts were unsuccessful. It is only then that
impossibility of service can be confirmed or accepted.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the attempted personal service

The efforts made to find the defendant and the reasons behind the failure must be
clearly narrated in detail in the Return. The date and time of the attempts on personal
service, the inquiries made to locate the defendant, the name/s of the occupants of the
alleged residence or house of defendant and all other acts done, though futile, to serve
the summons on defendant must be specified in the Return to justify substituted service.

Specific Details in the Return

A person of suitable age and discretion is one who has attained the age of full legal...
capacity (18 years old) and is considered to have enough discernment to understand
the importance of a summons.

Discretion" is defined as "the ability to make decisions which represent a responsible

choice and for which an understanding of what is lawful, right or wise may be...
presupposed". Thus, to be of sufficient discretion, such person must know how to read
and understand English to comprehend the import of the summons, and fully realize the
need to deliver the summons and complaint to the defendant at the earliest... possible
time for the person to take appropriate action. Thus, the person must have the "relation
of confidence" to the defendant, ensuring that the latter would receive or at least be
notified of the receipt of the summons.

A Person of Suitable Age and Discretion

The sheriff must therefore determine if the person... found in the alleged dwelling or
residence of defendant is of legal age, what the recipient's relationship with the
defendant is, and whether said person comprehends the significance of the receipt of
the summons and his duty to immediately deliver it to the defendant or at... least notify
the defendant of said receipt of summons.

If the substituted service will be done at defendant's office or regular place of business,
then it should be served on a competent person in charge of the place.

The one managing the office or business of defendant, such as the president or
manager; and such individual must have sufficient knowledge to understand the
obligation of the defendant in the summons, its importance, and the prejudicial effects
arising from inaction on the summons.

A meticulous scrutiny of the aforementioned Return readily reveals the absence of

material data on the serious efforts to serve the Summons on petitioner Manotoc in
person. There is no clear valid reason cited in the Return why those efforts proved
inadequate, to reach the... conclusion that personal service has become impossible

A Competent Person in Charge

Besides, apart from the allegation of petitioner's address in the Complaint, it has not
been shown that respondent Trajano or Sheriff Cañ elas, who served such summons,
exerted extraordinary efforts to locate petitione

Invalid Substituted Service in the Case at Bar

Before resorting to substituted service, a plaintiff must demonstrate an effort in good

faith to locate the defendant through more direct means.[32] More so, in the case in
hand, when the alleged petitioner's residence or house is doubtful or has not been
clearly ascertained, it would have been better for personal service to have been
pursued persistently.

There is still a serious nonconformity from the requirement that the summons must be
left with a "person of suitable age and discretion" residing in defendant's house or
residence. Thus, there are two (2) requirements under the Rules: (1) recipient must be a
person of suitable age and discretion; and (2) recipient must reside in the house or
residence of defendant. Both requirements were not met. In this case, the Sheriff's
Return lacks information as to residence, age, and... discretion of Mr. Macky de la Cruz,
aside from the sheriff's general assertion that de la Cruz is the "resident caretaker" of
petitioner as pointed out by a certain Ms. Lyn Jacinto, alleged receptionist and
telephone operator of Alexandra Homes.

Besides, Mr. Macky de la Cruz's refusal to sign the Receipt for the summons is a strong
indication that he did not have the necessary "relation of confidence" with petitioner.

Respondent Trajano failed to demonstrate that there was strict compliance with the
requirements of the then Section 8, Rule 14 (now Section 7, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure).

Trial court perforce must be annulled.

Due to non-compliance with the prerequisites for valid substituted service, the
proceedings held before the trial court perforce must be annulled.