Belen v. Chavez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns the enforcement of a foreign judgment rendered by a California court, ordering petitioners, Spouses Domingo and Dominga Belen, to pay private respondents, Spouses Silvestre and Patricia Pacleb, the sum of $56,204.69 for loan repayment and share in profits, plus interest and costs. The original complaint alleged that summons was served at the petitioners' address in Alaminos, Laguna, received by a certain Marcelo M. Belen. Petitioners, however, maintained they were residents of California, USA. Procedural History: The private respondents filed an action for the enforcement of this foreign judgment before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Rosario, Batangas. After initial appearances and filings by counsel for the petitioners, including a motion to dismiss based on an alleged dismissal of the original case by the California court, the RTC denied the motion. The complaint was later amended, and petitioners were declared in default for failing to appear at a rescheduled pre-trial conference, following the death of their counsel, Atty. Reynaldo Alcantara. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of the private respondents, which was later sought to be executed. Petitioners' subsequent motion to quash the writ of execution and their notice of appeal were denied by the RTC. This led to a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which also dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals' decision and resolution were then elevated to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure assails the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. Petitioners argue that the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over their persons due to improper service of summons, as they are residents of California, USA. They also contend that the RTC decision was not validly served upon them, and therefore, the period for appeal had not commenced. The petition further questions the Court of Appeals' ruling that the appearance of their former counsel, Atty. Alcantara, constituted submission to the RTC's jurisdiction, asserting this appearance was made without their express authority. The core issues before the Supreme Court are whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the petitioners and whether the service of the RTC decision was proper.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the persons of petitioners through service of summons or the appearance of Atty. Alcantara. Whether there was a valid service of the copy of the RTC decision on petitioners.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The orders of the RTC denying the motion to quash the writ of execution and the notice of appeal are SET ASIDE. The RTC is ordered to GIVE DUE COURSE to the Notice of Appeal. Costs against private respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction over the persons of petitioners: The Court held that while service of summons on petitioners' purported address in San Gregorio, Alaminos, Laguna was defective because petitioners were permanent residents of California, U.S.A., the appearance of Atty. Alcantara and his filing of numerous pleadings were sufficient to vest jurisdiction over their persons. This was based on the implication that petitioners had authorized Atty. Alcantara, evidenced by documents like Domingo Belen's U.S. passport, which could only have come from them, indicating their consent to his appearance and submission to the RTC's jurisdiction. On the issue of valid service of the RTC decision: The Court ruled that the service of the RTC decision on the deceased Atty. Alcantara was ineffective. Furthermore, the subsequent service by registered mail to petitioners' purported "last known address" in San Gregorio, Alaminos, Laguna was also defective. Service must be made at the party's present address, not a former or last known address, unless the person receiving it is duly authorized. Since petitioners were permanent residents of California and the Laguna address was their former residence, service there did not comply with Section 7 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. Therefore, the reglementary period for appeal did not commence upon these defective services. The Court found that the decision was deemed served on petitioners only upon its receipt by their new counsel, Atty. Culvera, on December 29, 2003. Consequently, the Notice of Appeal filed on January 6, 2004, was within the reglementary period.
Main Doctrine
The appearance of counsel, even if initially unauthorized, can vest jurisdiction over the person if supported by acts implying consent from the client, such as providing documents. However, service of court processes, including decisions, must be made at the party's present address and to a duly authorized representative; service at a former or last known address, or to someone not authorized, is defective and does not commence the reglementary period for appeal.