Toyota Cubao, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Toyota Cubao, Inc. (Toyota) repaired the car of private respondent Danilo Guevarra for P76,800.47. Guevarra paid with a BPI Check dated March 12, 1991, which was dishonored for being drawn against insufficient funds (DAIF). Toyota demanded payment, and upon Guevarra's failure to comply, Toyota filed a civil case for collection. Procedural History: Summons was issued to Guevarra at his address in Calamba, Laguna. The process server's return indicated service was made on Guevarra's sister-in-law, Gloria Caballes, by leaving a copy, though she refused to sign. Toyota moved to declare Guevarra in default for failure to file an Answer. The trial court deferred action pending proof of service. Upon submission of the registry return card showing receipt of the motion, the trial court granted the motion to declare Guevarra in default and allowed ex-parte presentation of evidence. Toyota presented its evidence, and the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Toyota, ordering Guevarra to pay the principal amount, legal interest, attorney's fees, and costs. A writ of execution was issued, leading to the levy and subsequent public auction of Guevarra's vehicle for P150,000.00. The Petition: Guevarra filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking to nullify the ex-parte judgment, writ of execution, levy, and auction sale. Guevarra argued that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over his person due to defective service of summons. The CA annulled the proceedings, holding that the substituted service was invalid and the trial court's proceedings were nugatory. Toyota appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in ignoring the ruling in Mapa v. Court of Appeals regarding the conclusiveness of the sheriff's return.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in annulling the default judgment and subsequent proceedings due to allegedly defective substituted service of summons. Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, Danilo Guevarra, considering the validity of the substituted service and the evidence presented.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court sustains the Court of Appeals' decision annulling the default judgment, writ of execution, levy, and auction sale.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of substituted service and the Court of Appeals' decision: The Court reiterated that service of summons is jurisdictional, requiring strict compliance with Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. Substituted service is permissible only when personal service is impossible within a reasonable time, and this must be affirmatively shown in the return. While Mapa v. Court of Appeals clarifies that the absence of a statement about the impossibility of personal service is not conclusive, proof of prior attempts must be presented. Here, the process server's return lacked the necessary details justifying substituted service, and the appellate court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider the process server's affidavit presented late, as it would deny due process to Guevarra. On the trial court's jurisdiction and the effect of defective service: Since the substituted service of summons was found to be invalid due to the lack of proper justification in the return and the failure to present sufficient evidence of prior attempts at personal service, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Guevarra. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings, including the default judgment, writ of execution, levy, and auction sale, were deemed void and without legal effect, as they were rendered without jurisdiction and in violation of due process.
Main Doctrine
Substituted service of summons must strictly comply with statutory requirements, and compliance must be affirmatively stated in the return or proven by evidence presented during hearings. Failure to do so renders the proceedings, including default judgments and subsequent executions, void for lack of jurisdiction and violation of due process.