Litonjua v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Aurelio Litonjua was the defendant in Civil Case No. 17853 before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. For failure to answer the complaint, he was declared in default, and the plaintiff was allowed to present evidence ex-parte. A decision was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment by Default and/or for New Trial, alleging he was never served with summons and was thus deprived of his day in court. He claimed to have a meritorious defense. The trial court denied the motion. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that there was no valid service of summons upon him, thereby depriving the trial court of jurisdiction over his person and violating his right to due process.
Issue(s)
Whether there was a valid service of summons upon the petitioner as to bring him within the jurisdiction of the trial court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the order of default, judgment by default, and other proceedings in Civil Case No. 17853. The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings and trial on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the service of summons was invalid. Under Rule 14, Section 7, summons must be served by handing a copy to the defendant in person or tendering it if they refuse. Substituted service under Section 8 is only permissible when the defendant cannot be served promptly in person, and the impossibility of such prompt service must be proven by stating the efforts made in the proof of service. In this case, the Sheriff immediately resorted to substituted service upon a cashier who was not authorized to receive it and who had already informed the Sheriff of the petitioner's specific residence in Mandaluyong. The Court distinguished this case from Montalban v. Maximo, noting that Montalban involved a resident temporarily absent from the country, whereas here, the petitioner was simply at home. Since the Sheriff failed to attempt personal service at the residence despite having the address, the court acquired no jurisdiction over the petitioner's person. Consequently, the default judgment was nugatory and without legal effect, as established in Dultra v. Court of First Instance of Agusan and Delta Motor Sales Corporation v. Mangosing.
Main Doctrine
A court acquires no jurisdiction over the person of a defendant in an action in personam if summons is not validly effected, rendering any judgment against him nugatory and without legal effect. Substituted service is permissible only when personal service cannot be promptly effected, and the impossibility of prompt service must be shown by stating the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the failure of such efforts.