Umandap v. Sabio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Domingo Estomo filed a complaint for damages against Joel R. Umandap, alleging breach of contract. The core of the dispute revolved around unremitted collections and reimbursement for project completion costs, leading to a substantial monetary award by the trial court. Procedural History: Summons was allegedly served via substituted service on February 3, 1998, to Joseph David at Umandap's office/residence. Umandap failed to file an answer, was declared in default, and subsequently a judgment by default was rendered against him. A writ of execution was issued and garnishment followed. Umandap's motion to set aside the judgment and quash the writ was denied by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on October 2, 1998, and his motion for reconsideration was similarly denied on January 18, 1999. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Umandap's petition for certiorari, upholding the RTC's resolutions. The Petition: Petitioner Joel R. Umandap seeks review via certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. He argues that the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over his person due to invalid substituted service of summons, as the process server's return allegedly failed to demonstrate the impossibility of personal service and identify the recipient as a person of suitable age and discretion. Alternatively, he contends that even if service were valid, the default judgment should have been set aside to allow presentation of his evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the substituted service of summons made on petitioner through Joseph David on February 3, 1998 was valid and regular. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to set aside the default judgment rendered against petitioner, despite the alleged invalid service of summons.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of substituted service of summons: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that the substituted service of summons was valid. The process server's return indicated that personal service was attempted on several occasions but proved futile because the defendant was not around. This necessitated substituted service in accordance with Section 8, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court. The return specified the address where service was made and identified Joseph David as the "receiving of said office," which sufficiently indicated he was a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein or in charge of the office. The Court emphasized that in the absence of contrary evidence, a presumption exists that a sheriff or process server has regularly performed their official duty. Petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome this presumption. His assertion that the process server went to his address only once was deemed unsubstantiated and self-serving. The Court noted that petitioner did not allege that Joseph David was incompetent or not a resident of the premises, thus the presumption that summons was left with a person of sufficient age and discretion stands unrebutted. On the refusal to set aside the default judgment: The Court found the petitioner's argument for liberal construction of the rules to be untenable. Liberal construction may be invoked for excusable formal deficiencies, but not when it subverts the essence of the proceeding or indicates a lack of reasonable attempt at compliance. The Court agreed with the trial court that petitioner resorted to technicalities to frustrate the ends of justice. The process server's return is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, and petitioner failed to overcome this presumption. Furthermore, petitioner received notice of the order declaring him in default and the judgment rendered against him, yet he only filed motions to set aside the judgment and quash the writ of execution after his receivables were garnished. This conduct demonstrated laches, as he failed to seasonably act on lawful orders and protect his rights. The Court concluded that his allegations regarding the regularity of service were feeble attempts to prevent garnishment and deserved no consideration.
Main Doctrine
Substituted service of summons is valid when the process server's return, prima facie, shows that earnest efforts were exerted to serve the summons personally and such attempts failed, and the service was made upon a person of suitable age and discretion residing in the defendant's residence or in charge of the defendant's office. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by a sheriff or process server can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence of irregularity.