Spouses Laus v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Consuelo P. Torres filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money against petitioners Spouses Pepito and Loreto Laus (Loreto was impleaded as Loredo Alfaro-Laus and Pepito as John Doe) for an unpaid balance of P55,000.00 on a promissory note. Procedural History: Deputy Sheriff Romero S. Cruz attempted to serve summons on petitioners at their residence. Failing to serve personally after waiting ten minutes, he resorted to substituted service through Josephine Areola, who claimed to be the maid. The sheriff's return did not indicate impossibility of personal service nor the efforts made. Petitioners did not file an answer and were declared in default by the RTC. Subsequently, a judgment by default was rendered against them. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction due to defective service of summons, which was denied by the RTC. A writ of execution was issued, and petitioners' properties were levied upon. The RTC denied their motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals dismissed their petition for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction, upholding the RTC's rulings. The Petition: Petitioners seek to annul the RTC's orders declaring them in default and denying their motion to dismiss, as well as the subsequent judgment by default, writ of execution, and auction sale, arguing that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over their persons due to invalid substituted service of summons.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners by virtue of the substituted service of summons. Whether the remedy of certiorari can be availed of to challenge an order of default and a subsequent judgment by default.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals. It declared the RTC's order of default, judgment by default, writ of execution, and all subsequent proceedings null and void. The case was remanded to the court of origin for valid service of summons.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction acquired through substituted service of summons: The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners because the substituted service of summons was invalid. The general rule requires personal service of summons. Substituted service, being in derogation of the common law, must be strictly complied with. The sheriff's return in this case failed to indicate the impossibility of personal service within a reasonable time, did not specify the efforts exerted to locate the petitioners, and did not confirm service on a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein. Deputy Sheriff Cruz resorted to substituted service on his first and only attempt to serve personally, without making earnest efforts to ascertain the petitioners' whereabouts or when they could be reached. He served the summons on Josephine Areola, whose age he did not ascertain, and who was later established to be only 11 to 12 years old, not of suitable age and discretion. Furthermore, summons was not even attempted to be served on petitioner Pepito Laus, who was impleaded as John Doe, rendering the default order and subsequent judgment fatally flawed on this ground alone. Consequently, the order of default, judgment by default, writ of execution, and auction sale were declared null and void. On the availability of certiorari to challenge an order of default and judgment by default: The Supreme Court clarified that while an order denying a motion to dismiss is generally interlocutory and not subject to certiorari, an exception exists when the trial court acts outside its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. In this case, the denial of the motion to dismiss was based solely on the ground that a judgment by default had already been rendered, which is not a valid ground when the motion raises a fundamental issue affecting the validity of the default judgment. Moreover, the Court reiterated that a void judgment can never become final and executory and may be assailed at any time, and an action to declare its nullity does not prescribe. The petitioners' motion to dismiss was filed before they received a copy of the default judgment, thus covering the judgment itself. The Court also found untenable the respondent Court's reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions, as this presumption does not apply when the sheriff's return is patently defective.
Main Doctrine
Substituted service of summons must be strictly complied with. If not validly effected, the court acquires no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, rendering the order of default, judgment by default, writ of execution, and subsequent proceedings null and void. A void judgment can never become final and executory and may be assailed at any time.