Long Span Builders v. Ampeloquio Realty
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner B. D. Long Span Builders, Inc. and respondent R. S. Ampeloquio Realty Development, Inc. entered into two Agreements for a rip rapping construction project for a total contract price of ₱80 million. Petitioner deposited a cash bond of ₱800,000. Respondent failed to fulfill its obligations, leading to the cancellation of the project. Petitioner demanded the return of the cash bond, but respondent refused. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint for rescission of contract and damages. Summons was served on respondent's staff member, Romel Dolahoy, via substituted service. Respondent failed to file an Answer and was declared in default by the RTC. The RTC rendered a decision rescinding the contracts and ordering respondent to return the cash bond, pay damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The Petition: Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC decision, finding invalid service of summons and thus lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that there was invalid service of summons and that respondent's appeal cured any defect.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that there was invalid service of summons upon respondent. Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the respondent.
Ruling
The Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings upon valid service of summons to the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of invalid service of summons: The Court reiterated that courts acquire jurisdiction over defendants through service of summons or voluntary appearance. Service of summons is a vital ingredient of due process, and if not validly made, any judgment rendered is null and void. Section 11 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure specifies the officers on whom service may be made on a domestic private juridical entity. The Court noted that summons was served via substituted service on a staff member, Romel Dolahoy, on the server's first attempt, without any indication of prior efforts to effect personal service. Furthermore, there was no showing that Dolahoy had a relation of confidence with the respondent that would ensure receipt of the summons. The Court emphasized that substituted service is extraordinary and must be strictly followed, citing Orion Security Corporation v. Kalfam Enterprises, Inc.. The Court also clarified that a defendant declared in default may still appeal the judgment and question the validity of the service of summons without being deemed to have submitted to the court's authority, thus rejecting petitioner's contention that the notice of appeal cured the defect. On the issue of whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction: Based on the invalid service of summons, the Court held that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the respondent. The Court found the petition without merit, affirming the appellate court's reversal of the RTC decision due to the procedural defect in service of process. The case was remanded for proper service of summons to allow the respondent to participate in the proceedings.
Main Doctrine
Service of summons is a vital and indispensable ingredient of due process. If defendants have not been validly summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over their person, and a judgment rendered against them is null and void. Substituted service must strictly comply with statutory requirements, including proof of impossibility of prompt personal service and a relation of confidence between the recipient and the defendant.