Mapa v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: High Peak Mining Exploration Corporation (High Peak), through its officers, borrowed substantial sums from Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), acting as trustee. These loans were evidenced by promissory notes. High Peak failed to pay the loans. Procedural History: - G.R. No. 79374 (Civil Case No. 142400): LBP filed a complaint against High Peak and its officers, including petitioner Tomas G. Mapa. An amended complaint impleaded Mapa in his personal capacity and as Chairman of High Peak's Board of Directors. Summons was served via substituted service through Susan O. dela Torre, an employee of High Peak. No answer was filed, and defendants were declared in default. The RTC rendered a decision against the defendants. Mapa filed a motion to dismiss and set aside the judgment, arguing defective service of summons. The RTC denied the motion. The Court of Appeals denied Mapa's petition for certiorari, affirming the RTC's finding of valid substituted service. - G.R. No. 82986 (Civil Case No. 82-13465): LBP filed another complaint based on different promissory notes against High Peak and its officers, including Mapa. Summons was served similarly via substituted service through Susan O. dela Torre. Defendants were declared in default, and the RTC rendered a decision. Mapa filed a motion to dismiss and set aside the judgment, raising the same grounds. The RTC initially set aside the decision, finding no valid service of summons on Mapa and High Peak. Upon LBP's motion for reconsideration, the RTC denied it. LBP filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which set aside the RTC's orders, finding grave abuse of discretion. The Petition: In both cases, petitioner Tomas G. Mapa assails the validity of the substituted service of summons upon him, arguing that the sheriff's returns did not show prior attempts at personal service and that Susan O. dela Torre was not a proper person to receive summons under the rules.
Issue(s)
Whether there was a valid substituted service of summons upon the petitioner in Civil Case No. 142400 and Civil Case No. 82-13465. Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner in both cases. Whether the service of summons upon High Peak Mining Exploration Corporation was valid.
Ruling
The Supreme Court partly granted the petitions. It affirmed the Court of Appeals' decisions in both cases concerning the other defendants but set aside the decisions as against the petitioner, Tomas G. Mapa, due to invalid substituted service of summons. A separate trial was ordered against the petitioner in both consolidated cases.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of substituted service of summons upon the petitioner: The Court held that substituted service of summons is an exception to the rule of personal service and must strictly comply with the requirements of Section 8, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. The sheriff's returns in both Civil Case No. 142400 and Civil Case No. 82-13465 were found to be fatally flawed because they did not show that prior attempts at personal service were made and failed, which is a prerequisite for resorting to substituted service. The Court cited Keister vs. Navarro and Busuego vs. Court of Appeals to emphasize that the impossibility of personal service must be demonstrated in the proof of service. Since the petitioner never alleged that he did not receive the summons, the Court considered the possibility of substantial compliance, but the private respondent (LBP) failed to present evidence during the hearings to prove that the summonses were actually delivered to the petitioner by Susan O. dela Torre. Therefore, the Court concluded that neither valid personal nor substituted service of summons was effected on the petitioner. On the jurisdiction over the petitioner: Because there was no valid service of summons, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner in both cases. Actions in personam require jurisdiction over the person, which can be acquired by voluntary appearance or by valid service of summons. Since the petitioner did not voluntarily appear, personal service was imperative, and its absence meant no jurisdiction was acquired over him. On the validity of service of summons upon High Peak Mining Exploration Corporation: The Court found that the service of summons upon High Peak was valid. The sheriff's returns described Susan O. dela Torre as "a person of suitable age and discretion working therein, who claims to be the person authorized to receive processess (sic) of this nature." Under Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, service of summons upon a corporation may be made on its president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors. The Court reasoned that Susan O. dela Torre could be considered an agent of High Peak for purposes of service, and the presumption of regularity of the sheriff's return, which was not rebutted by competent evidence, supported this. The Court also invoked the principle of substantial compliance, as seen in G&G Trading Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, stating that if the summons and complaint were in fact received by the corporation, the purpose of the rule is attained, and speedy justice should prevail over technicality. The Court noted that the RTC erred in setting aside the decision for High Peak as well, as only the petitioner had moved to dismiss and set aside the judgment.
Main Doctrine
Substituted service of summons is valid only if personal service cannot be effected within a reasonable time, and the impossibility of personal service must be shown by stating the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the fact that such efforts failed. The sheriff's return must contain these particulars. However, substantial compliance with the rule on service of summons may be considered if the summons and complaint were in fact received by the defendant or the corporation, thereby attaining the purpose of the rule.