Zulueta v. Muñoz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Jose C. Zulueta filed an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 938) against Gregorio Atienza in the Municipal Court of Pasig, Rizal. Atienza was abroad serving in the U.S. Navy. Summons was served on his sister, Rosario Atienza de Guzman. Due to Atienza's default, judgment was rendered ordering him to vacate, pay accrued rentals, and attorney's fees. A copy sent by mail was returned undelivered. A writ of execution was issued, and personal properties were attached. Victoria Lasin Vda. de Atienza, claiming no knowledge of the decision until the writ of execution was served, filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Procedural History: Victoria Lasin Vda. de Atienza filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal (Civil Case No. 8913) seeking to annul the municipal court's decision. A restraining order was issued. Zulueta moved to dissolve it, and the court ordered the dissolution unless a P15,000.00 bond was filed and monthly rentals deposited. Zulueta moved for reconsideration, arguing the judge had no authority as the case was already assigned to another branch. Meanwhile, respondents moved to dismiss the CFI case, arguing Victoria was not the real party in interest. The respondent judge denied the motion to dismiss, allowed amendment to substitute Gregorio Atienza as petitioner, and reduced the bond to P8,000.00. Gregorio Atienza then filed a motion for intervention, which was granted, the bond approved, and the Provincial Sheriff was restrained from carrying out the writ of execution. Rosario Atienza de Guzman filed a third-party claim over the levied personal properties, alleging ownership. The respondent judge ordered the discharge of the levy without necessity of a counterbond. The Petition: Petitioners Zulueta and others filed the present action for certiorari and prohibition, charging the respondent judge with acting without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss, denying the motion to dissolve the restraining order, granting Gregorio Atienza's intervention, restoring possession of the premises to Victoria Vda. de Atienza, and restoring the levied personal properties to Rosario de Guzman.
Issue(s)
Whether the Municipal Court acquired jurisdiction over Gregorio Atienza through the service of summons on his sister while he was abroad. Whether the CFI committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the substitution/intervention of Gregorio Atienza as the real party in interest. Whether a third-party claimant (Rosario) may properly intervene in a Certiorari proceeding to seek the release of levied personal property.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari and prohibition is dismissed. The writs prayed for are denied, and the preliminary injunction heretofore issued is set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the Municipal Court did not properly acquire jurisdiction over Gregorio Atienza. It was an admitted fact that at the time of the service of summons, Gregorio was a resident of the Philippines but was physically located in the United States as a member of the U.S. Navy. Under Section 17, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court, service of summons on a resident who is temporarily out of the country must be made in the manner prescribed for extraterritorial service (personal service or publication). The delivery of summons to his sister was an invalid service. Therefore, the subsequent default judgment and writ of execution were void for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the CFI did not err in refusing to dismiss the case. Although Victoria (the mother) was not the real party in interest, this defect was merely formal and not jurisdictional in nature. The Court reiterated the doctrine in Alonzo v. Villamor, stating that amendments should be allowed to bring the real party in interest into the litigation to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Allowing Gregorio to intervene was the correct procedure to remedy the formal defect in the petition. Insisting on a dismissal and the filing of a new case would merely cause a multiplication of suits and serve no useful purpose except for a resort to technicality. On Issue 3: The Court affirmed the propriety of Rosario Atienza de Guzman's intervention. Under Section 2, Rule 12 of the Revised Rules of Court, a party may intervene if they are so situated as to be adversely affected by the distribution or disposition of property in the custody of the court or its officer. While a separate action against the sheriff is an available remedy, the Rules of Court were modified to also allow intervention to ask that a writ of attachment or levy be quashed. Since the Certiorari case (Civil Case No. 8913) was instituted to annul the very proceedings that led to the levy, Rosario had a clear right to intervene to protect her ownership of the seized chattels. This liberal approach prevents unnecessary litigation and ensures that all related claims are resolved efficiently.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari and prohibition may be filed to assail orders issued by a respondent judge acting without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, particularly concerning the issuance, dissolution, or modification of restraining orders and writs of execution in related cases, and the allowance of intervention by parties claiming interest in the subject matter.