Sansio Philippines v. Mogol
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Sansio Philippines, Inc. filed a collection case against respondents, Spouses Alicia and Leodegario Mogol, Jr., for an unpaid balance of P87,953.12 arising from the purchase of air-conditioning units and fans. The respondents had issued postdated checks which were dishonored due to a closed account, and despite partial payments and demands, the balance remained unsettled. Procedural History: The case originated in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, Branch 25, where Sansio Philippines, Inc. filed its complaint. Summons was attempted to be served on the respondents at the MeTC courtroom, but they, through their counsel, refused to accept it, asserting it should be served at their residence. The MeTC declared the respondents in default and allowed Sansio to present evidence ex parte, subsequently rendering a decision in favor of Sansio. The respondents' subsequent Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and/or Injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 33, was dismissed. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC's decision, finding the service of summons invalid and thus the MeTC's order of default and subsequent judgment void. The RTC of Manila, Branch 50, had previously affirmed the MeTC's decision on the merits of the collection case after the respondents appealed that decision. The Petition: Sansio Philippines, Inc. filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the Court of Appeals' decision that declared the service of summons invalid. The petitioner argues that the service of summons in the courtroom was valid and practicable, that the refusal to accept the summons constituted valid service, that the process server's return was not binding on the courts, and that the Court of Appeals' decision was mooted by a subsequent RTC decision on the merits that had become final. The core issue is whether the service of summons, refused by the respondents in the courtroom, was legally sufficient to acquire jurisdiction over them.
Issue(s)
Whether the service of summons inside the courtroom was a valid service of summons. Whether the clause "tendering it to him" when the defendant refuses to receive and sign for the summons under Section 6, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court means "leaving a copy of the summons to her or in the premises where the defendant could get it." Whether summons refused to be received by respondent spouses Mogol, upon advice of their counsel, needed to be served anew. Whether the court is bound by the conclusions of the Process Server in his Return of Service of Summons. Whether the appeal before the Court of Appeals denying the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Injunction had become moot and academic when the RTC of Manila, Branch 50, rendered a Decision affirming the Decision of the MeTC of Manila, Branch 25, and which Decision of the RTC of Manila, Branch 50, had become final and executory.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the Petition for Review on Certiorari, reversed and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and affirmed the Order of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 33. The Court ruled that jurisdiction over the persons of the respondent spouses Mogol was validly acquired by the MeTC, Branch 25.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of service of summons inside the courtroom: The Supreme Court held that the service of summons inside the courtroom was valid. Section 6, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court mandates that whenever practicable, summons shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him. The Court found that the process server presented the summons and complaint to the spouses Mogol in the courtroom. Their counsel, present with them and acting upon their instructions, received and read the documents. This act of the counsel, done with the clients' behest and consent, constituted receipt on their behalf, thus accomplishing the operative act of "handing" a copy of the summons to them in person. Therefore, jurisdiction over their persons was acquired by the MeTC. On the meaning of "tendering it to him": The Supreme Court clarified that "tendering it to him" does not mean leaving a copy of the summons in the premises. The essence of personal service is the handing or tendering of a copy of the summons to the defendant himself, wherever he may be found. The Court reiterated that the spouses Mogol's counsel's refusal to accept the summons, despite being informed of its contents, was a mistake. Section 6, Rule 14 does not require service to be effected only at the defendant's residence. The service inside the courtroom was the most practicable act, avoiding the cost and delay of serving it in Lucena City. On whether summons refused needed to be served anew: The Court ruled that the summons did not need to be served anew. The spouses Mogol's refusal to receive and sign for the summons, after their counsel had read it on their behalf, did not render the service a failure. The act of tendering the summons was sufficient, and neither further efforts for personal service nor substituted service under Section 7, Rule 14 was necessary. To rule otherwise would allow defendants to easily thwart service procedures by simply returning the summons and refusing to sign, even after being aware of the contents. On the binding effect of the Process Server's Return: The Supreme Court held that the court is not strictly bound by the conclusions in the Return of Service of Summons, particularly the second paragraph stating the summons was "UNSERVED." While a sheriff's certificate of service is prima facie evidence, it can be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. In this case, the first paragraph of the Return clearly indicated that the summons and complaint were served and that the respondents refused to receive them. The spouses Mogol did not dispute the facts stated in the first paragraph. The Court considered the second paragraph as a mere conclusion of law that did not bind the independent judgment of the courts, especially when contradicted by the factual circumstances described in the first paragraph. On the mootness of the appeal: The Supreme Court found merit in the argument that the appeal before the Court of Appeals had become moot and academic. While the CA was deliberating on the certiorari petition concerning the default order, the RTC of Manila, Branch 50, had already rendered a Decision on the merits of the case, affirming the MeTC's judgment. This RTC decision became final and executory because the spouses Mogol failed to appeal it. Therefore, the issue of whether the default order was valid became moot because the main case had already been decided on the merits and the decision had attained finality.
Main Doctrine
The refusal of a defendant to receive a summons, even if advised by counsel, constitutes valid personal service if the summons is tendered to them, and the process server's return stating 'unserved' due to refusal does not negate the validity of the service if the circumstances clearly indicate the defendant was aware of the action.