Cezar v. Specified Materials
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Specified Materials Corporation filed a collection case against petitioner Virgilio P. Cezar for unpaid construction materials amounting to P1,860,000.00, with a stipulation of 3% monthly interest for delayed payments. Petitioner acknowledged the obligation but requested verification of materials used and deliveries made. During a meeting, petitioner allegedly admitted to owing around P648,750.00 for unconsidered 1995 deliveries and promised to verify his documents, but subsequently failed to attend further meetings. Procedural History: Summons was served on petitioner via substituted service through an employee, Mr. Arsenio Robles. Petitioner failed to file an answer, leading to his declaration in default. Private respondent amended its complaint to P2,005,000.00, which was admitted. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered judgment in favor of the private respondent. Petitioner filed a Motion to Set Aside Decision, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to defective substituted service, which was denied. His Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals was dismissed for failure to attach an affidavit of merit. A Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court was also denied. Subsequently, private respondent filed a Motion for Execution, which the RTC granted. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the RTC Decision for lack of jurisdiction over his person due to the allegedly defective substituted service of summons.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner by virtue of the substituted service of summons. Whether the defect in the substituted service of summons was cured by petitioner's subsequent actions.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirmed the RTC Decision, and lifted the temporary restraining order. It held that while the substituted service of summons was defective, the defect was cured by petitioner's voluntary appearance in court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction acquired through substituted service of summons: The Court reiterated that the service of summons is crucial for acquiring jurisdiction over the defendant's person. While personal service is preferred, substituted service is permissible under Section 7 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court when personal service cannot be effected within a reasonable time. However, strict compliance with the rules for substituted service is mandatory, and the impossibility of prompt personal service must be stated in the proof of service. The sheriff's return in this case was defective for failing to state the efforts made to serve the summons personally and the impossibility thereof, thus the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions did not lie. On whether the defect in substituted service was cured by voluntary appearance: Despite the defective substituted service, the Court found that jurisdiction was validly acquired because the defect was cured by petitioner's voluntary appearance. The records showed that after the private respondent moved for execution, the petitioner filed a Motion for Re-setting of Hearing. The Court cited jurisprudence holding that an appearance, in whatever form, without expressly objecting to the court's jurisdiction over the person, constitutes a submission to the court's jurisdiction. Petitioner's act of filing a motion for re-setting of hearing, without specifically objecting to the court's jurisdiction, effectively waived the defect in the substituted service of summons and conferred jurisdiction upon the trial court.
Main Doctrine
A defective substituted service of summons is cured by the defendant's voluntary appearance in court, even if such appearance is merely by filing a motion for re-setting of hearing, as long as there is no express objection to the court's jurisdiction over his person.