Robinson v. Miralles
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Celita Miralles filed a complaint for sum of money against petitioner Remelita Robinson, alleging that petitioner borrowed US$20,054.00, evidenced by a Memorandum of Agreement executed on January 12, 2000. The respondent sought payment of the unpaid obligation, plus stipulated interest, moral damages, attorney's fees, and costs of suit. Procedural History: Respondent filed the complaint on August 25, 2000. Despite attempts at personal service, summons could not be served on petitioner at her initial address. An alias summons was issued to a new address, but service was again unsuccessful due to the refusal of the subdivision's security guard to allow the sheriff entry. Consequently, summons was served by leaving a copy with the security guard. Petitioner failed to file an answer, leading to her being declared in default on February 28, 2003. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the respondent on June 20, 2003. A writ of execution was issued, and petitioner subsequently filed a petition for relief from judgment, which was denied by the Regional Trial Court on February 11, 2004, and again upon reconsideration on May 11, 2004. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review on certiorari of the trial court's resolutions denying her petition for relief. The core of her argument is that the substituted service of summons was invalid because it was served upon a security guard who is not a person of suitable age and discretion residing with her, nor is he authorized to receive such service. She contends that the trial court thus never acquired jurisdiction over her person, rendering all subsequent proceedings and the judgment void. The sole issue presented to the Supreme Court is whether the trial court correctly ruled that substituted service of summons upon the petitioner was validly effected.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court correctly ruled that a substituted service of summons upon petitioner has been validly effected. Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Orders of the RTC, Branch 274, Parañaque City, in Civil Case No. 00-0372 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of substituted service of summons: The Court held that summons is the means by which a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of a defendant. Any judgment rendered without valid service of summons, absent a waiver, is void. Personal service is preferred, but substituted service is allowed under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure if personal service cannot be effected within a reasonable time for justifiable causes. For substituted service to be valid, personal service must be impossible, efforts must have been made to locate the party, and the summons must have been served upon a person of suitable age and discretion residing in the party's residence or a competent person in charge of the party's office. The Court emphasized that while statutory requirements for substituted service must be followed strictly, an overly strict application of the rules is frowned upon, and the spirit of the rules should govern. In this case, the sheriff's return indicated that he was refused entry into the subdivision twice by the security guard, who cited petitioner's instructions not to allow anyone to proceed to her house when she was not around. This clearly established the impossibility of personal service. On the acquisition of jurisdiction: The Court noted that petitioner did not controvert the sheriff's declaration nor deny receiving the summons through the security guard. Considering her explicit instructions to the security guard, the Court found that she must bear the consequences. Therefore, the Court agreed with the trial court that summons was properly served upon petitioner, and jurisdiction was acquired over her person. The Court reiterated that the statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully, and fully, but also cautioned against an overly strict application of the rules, stating that it is the spirit, rather than the letter, of the procedural rules that governs. The sheriff's actions, in leaving the summons with the security guard after being denied entry and being informed of the defendant's restrictive instructions, were deemed a reasonable attempt to comply with the spirit of the rule on substituted service when personal service was rendered impossible by the defendant's own actions.
Main Doctrine
Substituted service of summons is valid when personal service is impossible and the summons is left with a person of suitable age and discretion residing in the defendant's residence, even if that person is a security guard, especially when the defendant's own instructions to the security guard prevented personal service.