Sansio Phil., Inc. v. Spouses Mogol, Jr., G.R. No. 177007, July 14, 2009

Summary: Sansio filed a Complaint for Sum of Money and Damages against Sps Mogol before the MeTC of Manila. At the request of Sansio, the process server of the MeTC of Manila served the summons and the copy of the complaint on Sps Mogol at the courtroom of the MeTC of Manila, Branch 24.

Sps Mogol referred the same to their counsel. The counsel took hold of the summons and the copy of the complaint and read the same. 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 Sps  Mogol gave back the summons and the copy of the complaint to the process server. As the process server could not convince the Sps Mogol to sign for the aforementioned documents, he proceeded to leave the premises of the courtroom.

The process server  issued a Return on Service of Summons, declaring that the Sps refused to receive the summons and the copy of the complaint “with no valid reason at all”; that “The original and duplicate copies of the Summons are hereby respectfully returned, UNSERVED.”

Sansio filed a Motion to Declare [the Sps] in Default.

The MeTC of Manila granted the Motion, and allowed Sansio to present its evidence ex-parte. MeTC ruled that Section 6, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court does not specify where service is to be effected. Service of summons, it added, is made by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, the same may be undertaken wherever the defendant may be found. MeTC also opined that 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 Sps Mogol had not yet been served with summons.

Sps Mogol filed a MR, but the same was denied by the MeTC.

Sps Mogol filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and/or Injunction before the RTC Manila. RTC, however, dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

On appeal, CA reversed the decision of the RTC, and annulled the order of the MeTC. It declared that there was no valid service of summons upon the Mogol spouses. Perforce, the MeTC never acquired jurisdiction over them.

SC, however, reinstated the decision of the RTC. SC reiterated the reasoning of  MeTC, and added that service of summons in the persons of the defendants is generally preferred over substituted service.

Doctrines: 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.

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. 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. 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 partys residence or upon a competent person in charge of the party's office or place of business.

--------------------------------------------

Ponente: CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

A Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45

Facts:

Sansio Philippines, Inc. is a domestic corporation that is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling appliances and other related products.

July 12 2000, Sansio filed a Complaint for Sum of Money and Damages against Sps Mogol before the MeTC of Manila.

Allegations:

- on Nov 15 1993 and 27 Jan 27 1994, Sps Mogol purchased from Sansio air-conditioning units and fans worth P217,250 and P5,521.20, respectively.

- Sps Mogol issued postdated checks as payment therefor, but said checks were dishonored, as the account against which the checks were drawn was closed.

- Sps Mogol made partial payments, leaving a balance of P87,953.12 unpaid.

- Despite several demands, Sps Mogol failed to settle their obligation.

On Oct 3 2000, at the request of Sansio, the process server of the MeTC of Manila served the summons and the copy of the complaint on Sps Mogol at the courtroom of the MeTC of Manila, Branch 24. 

Upon being so informed of the summons and the complaint, Sps Mogol referred the same to their counsel, who was also present in the courtroom. The counsel took hold of the summons and the copy of the complaint and read the same.

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 Sps  Mogol 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 Sps Mogol to sign for the aforementioned documents, he proceeded to leave the premises of the courtroom.

On Oct 4 2000, the process server of the MeTC of Manila issued a Return on Service of Summons, declaring that the Sps refused to receive the summons and the copy of the complaint “with no valid reason at all”; that “The original and duplicate copies of the Summons are hereby respectfully returned, UNSERVED.”

On Dec 6 2000, Sansio filed a Motion to Declare [the Sps] in Default.

- the summons and the copy of the complaint were already validly served upon the Sps 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, Sps Mogol had yet to file any responsive pleading.

- judgment, therefore, must be rendered against the Sps Mogol, and that the relief prayed for in its Complaint be granted.

On Dec 15 2000, Sps Mogol filed an Opposition to the Motion.

-  Section 3, Rule 6 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 Sps 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.

On April 6 2001, the MeTC of Manila granted the Motion to Declare [the Sps] in Default, and allowed Sansio to present its evidence ex-parte.

- Section 6, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court does not specify where service is to be effected. 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 receive 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 is meritorious.

Sps Mogol filed a MR, but the same was denied by the MeTC.

On July 17 2001, Sps Mogol filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and/or Injunction before the RTC Manila.

-  there was no valid service of summons per return of the process server

- MeTC of Manila 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.

On Jan 18 2002, the RTC Manila DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit.

- 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. The primordial consideration was that the service of summons was made in the person of the Sps.

- also, no error in the interpretation of the MeTC Manila that summons had indeed been served on Sps 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 the Sps, and that they refused to receive the same for no valid reason at all.

Sps Mogol filed a Notice of Appeal.

On Nov 21 2006, the CA reversed the RTC decision, and declared the Order of MeTC Manila null and void.

- there was no valid service of summons upon the Mogol spouses. Perforce, the MeTC never acquired jurisdiction over them. It is indubitable that the Mogol spouses never received the summons against them, whether personally or by substituted service. The process server failed to effect personal service of summons against the 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.

- in this case, the process servers 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, it was held that the sheriffs 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.

 - 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.

Sansio filed a MR thereon, but the same was denied by the CA.

Sansio filed the instant Petition for Review.

-------------------------------------------

Sansio's Position:

- 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 Sps Mogol at their residence in Lucena City.

- when the Sps 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, 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.

--------------------------------------------

Issue: WON the service of summons in the courtroom was a valid service of summons

Held: Yes.

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 defendants residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein; or (b) by leaving the copies at defendants 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. The essence of personal service is the handing or tendering of a copy of the summons to the defendant himself, wherever he may be found; that is, wherever he may be, provided he is in the Philippines.

In the instant case, the Court finds that there was already a valid service of summons in the persons of Sps Mogol. To recapitulate, the process server presented the summons and the copy of the complaint to the Sps at the courtroom of the MeTC of Manila, Branch 24. The latter immediately referred the matter to their counsel. 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 Sps 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 the Sps in person. Thus, jurisdiction over the persons of the Sps Mogol was already acquired by the MeTC of Manila, Branch 25. That being said, the subsequent act of the counsel of Sps of returning the summons and the copy of the complaint to the process server was no longer material.

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.

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. 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. 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.

As to the reliance of the CA 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 same is utterly misplaced. A simple reading of the first paragraph of the Return on Service of Summons 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.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is GRANTED. The Decision and the Resolution of the CA are hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The Order of the RTC Manila, Branch 33, is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.