Velayo-Fong v. Velayo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, Spouses Raymond and Maria Hedy Velayo, filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against petitioner Erlinda R. Velayo-Fong and her co-defendants. The respondents alleged that the petitioner and her co-defendants falsely accused Raymond of estafa and kidnapping before the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and sought to have the respondents included in the Hold Departure List, which prevented them from leaving the country and paralyzed their business operations. Furthermore, the petitioner and her co-defendants allegedly filed a petition before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that resulted in the freezing of the respondents' funds and further disruption of their business activities. Procedural History: The respondents filed their complaint on August 9, 1993. After initially seeking a writ of preliminary attachment against the petitioner's properties due to her non-residency, the respondents were granted leave by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to serve summons on the petitioner at specific addresses in Pasay City and Makati City. Despite initial failed attempts, the process server reported personal service of summons on the petitioner at the lobby of the Intercontinental Hotel in Makati on September 23, 1993, though she refused to sign for it. Subsequently, the petitioner and her co-defendants were declared in default for failing to file an answer. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of the respondents on June 15, 1994. The petitioner's motion to set aside the order of default was denied by the RTC on May 29, 1995, which was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) on May 14, 2002. The CA denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration on October 1, 2002. The Petition: This case is before the Supreme Court on a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The petitioner seeks to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, arguing that she was not validly served with summons. She contends that as a non-resident, summons should have been served extraterritorially. Additionally, she claims she was prevented from filing a responsive pleading and defending herself due to fraud, accident, or mistake, asserting that the Officer's Return stating personal service is inaccurate and that she merely had papers thrown at her. The petitioner argues that the RTC should have lifted the order of default to give her a day in court and that she possesses valid defenses against the respondents' complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner was not validly served with summons. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not ruling that petitioner was prevented from filing a responsive pleading and defending against respondents' complaint because of fraud, accident, and mistake.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the petitioner was validly served with summons, and her failure to file a responsive pleading was not due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable neglect, nor did she present a meritorious defense.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of service of summons: The Court reiterated that a process server's certificate of service is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. To overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, the evidence must be clear and convincing. Petitioner's bare allegation that the summons was inaccurately served and that papers were merely thrown at her in an elevator lobby was insufficient to overcome this presumption. The action filed by respondents was in personam, requiring personal service of summons within the forum for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Since the RTC found that personal service was effected, and petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the service was deemed valid. On being prevented from filing a responsive pleading due to fraud, accident, or mistake: The Court emphasized that to set aside an order of default, the party must demonstrate both that their failure to file a pleading was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable neglect, and that they possess a valid and meritorious defense. Petitioner's claim of being prevented from filing a pleading was based solely on her unsubstantiated assertion regarding the summons service. Furthermore, her purported meritorious defense, stating that the cases were filed at the instance of her father, was a mere conclusion and not a statement of facts that would controvert the respondents' allegations. Therefore, petitioner failed to meet the required burden of proof for setting aside the order of default.
Main Doctrine
A process server's certificate of service is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, and to overcome the presumption of regularity, clear and convincing evidence is required. Furthermore, to set aside an order of default, the party must show both excusable failure to file a pleading and a meritorious defense.