Tolentino v. Galano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Service Wide Specialists, Inc. filed a complaint for replevin and damages against petitioner Federico H. Tolentino and "John Doe" for the manual delivery of a 1975 VW 102 Brasilia, 2-door Sedan, or its value amounting to P49,189.33 plus interest and fees. The action was based on a promissory note, chattel mortgage, assignment of credit, and statement of account executed by Tolentino. The private respondent posted a replevin bond, and the lower court issued a writ of seizure. Procedural History: On November 11, 1977, Deputy Sheriff Emilio Reyes served summons and seized the vehicle. Due to Tolentino's failure to file a counterbond, the vehicle was delivered to the private respondent. The private respondent filed a motion to declare Tolentino in default for failure to file an answer. The motion was granted, and the court set the presentation of evidence ex-parte. Tolentino filed an opposition, alleging he was not served summons and only became aware of the case on January 6, 1978, upon receiving the motion to declare him in default. This opposition was denied. The court rendered a decision on January 25, 1978, confirming the seizure and delivery of the vehicle, ordering Tolentino to pay bonding fees and expenses, and costs. The Petition: Tolentino filed motions to set aside the order of default and the decision, reiterating his claim of lack of summons and alleging that his opposition was filed with the wrong court branch. He also denied knowledge of the assignment of credit. These motions were denied. He then filed a petition with the Supreme Court, contending that the lower court lacked jurisdiction due to improper service of summons, citing discrepancies in dates between the sheriff's return and the private respondent's motion, and a falsification charge filed against the deputy sheriff. He also argued that the assignment of credit was illegal.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court had jurisdiction over the case due to alleged improper service of summons. Whether the sheriff's return was dubious and falsified. Whether the petitioner failed to show a meritorious defense to warrant setting aside the order of default and the decision.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The questioned order and decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and improper service of summons: The Supreme Court held that a discrepancy between the sheriff's return and the private respondent's motion regarding the date of service of summons does not automatically render the sheriff's return dubious. The lower court correctly upheld the sheriff's return, considering the discrepancy in the private respondent's pleading as a mere typographical error. The Court emphasized the presumption that a public officer regularly performs his official duties. The seizure of the vehicle on the same day as the alleged service of summons indicated that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings. On the alleged dubious and falsified sheriff's return: The Court found the petitioner's argument that the filing of a falsification charge against the deputy sheriff and the fiscal's resolution of a prima facie case were sufficient grounds to invalidate the return to be inadequate. The Court noted that the deputy sheriff was on vacation and that the address provided to the fiscal's office was his office address, which could explain his inability to file a counter-affidavit. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the sheriff was upheld in the absence of contrary evidence. On the failure to show a meritorious defense: The Supreme Court reiterated that a prerequisite for lifting an order of default is the showing of a meritorious defense. The Court found that the petitioner's arguments, including the claim that the assignment of credit was illegal, were unsubstantiated and lacked explanation. He did not deny his obligations nor allege payment. The Court concluded that the petitioner was resorting to technicalities to delay the case and the payment of his obligations.
Main Doctrine
A discrepancy between a sheriff's return and a party's pleading regarding the date of service of summons does not automatically render the return dubious, especially when the court considers it a typographical error. Furthermore, a motion to lift an order of default requires a showing of a meritorious defense, which was absent in this case.