Atkins, Kroll & Co. v. Domingo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Atkins, Kroll & Co. filed a complaint against defendant Santiago Domingo, alleging they were joint owners of lots Nos. 38 and 55 in Zamboanga, and that they had been unable to amicably partition the land. The plaintiff prayed for a court-ordered partition. Procedural History: Plaintiff later filed an amended complaint, including lot No. 36 and seeking adjustment of differences regarding rental accounting for the properties. The plaintiff moved for default due to the defendant's failure to appear or file an answer. The court granted the motion for default and rendered a judgment based on the amended complaint, dividing the land and awarding the plaintiff P587.01 for rents. The defendant, upon learning of the decision, filed a motion to set aside the judgment and grant a new trial, claiming he never received a copy of the summons or complaint and had no knowledge of the pending case. The trial court overruled this motion. The Appeal: The defendant appealed the trial court's decision, arguing that the court erred in declaring him in default, in ordering the partition of the property, in sentencing him to pay rents, and in denying his motion for a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in declaring the defendant in default and rendering judgment based on an amended complaint without valid service of the amended complaint and summons upon the defendant. Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to set aside the judgment and grant a new trial.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside and vacated the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case with instructions to serve a copy of the amended complaint on the defendant or his attorney. The Court held that the service of the amended complaint was not valid and did not give the court jurisdiction to render judgment upon it. If the defendant then defaults, judgment may be entered on the amended complaint.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the service of the original complaint and summons was valid, as it was made by leaving a copy with Maximo Domingo, the defendant's son, who was of sufficient age and intelligence. However, the service of the amended complaint was not sufficient to give the court jurisdiction over the defendant as to the new matters alleged therein. The amended complaint was sent by registered mail, which was returned undelivered, and later, a copy was personally delivered by the plaintiff's attorney to the defendant's sixteen-year-old son. The Court found this latter service insufficient because the defendant had not yet appeared in the action. For such reason, the service of the amended complaint made by the attorney for the plaintiff was not valid and did not give the court jurisdiction to render judgment upon the amended complaint. The Court stated that under the facts shown, the amended complaint and summons should have been served upon the defendant with the same formalities as the original complaint and summons. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court found that the defendant's motion to set aside the judgment and grant a new trial should have been granted because the judgment was rendered without valid service of the amended complaint. The defendant's claim that he never received personal service of the summons and complaint, and his subsequent investigation confirming this, supported his assertion of lack of knowledge of the proceedings. The Court acknowledged that had the defendant known of the complaint and hearing, he would have presented proofs. Since the defendant had now entered a formal appearance, service of the amended complaint could be made on him or his attorney in compliance with the rules, allowing the case to be decided on its merits.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court held that a judgment rendered upon an amended complaint, without proper service of the amended complaint and summons upon the defendant, is void for lack of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that while service of the original complaint and summons was valid, the service of the amended complaint upon the defendant's sixteen-year-old son by the plaintiff's attorney was insufficient to grant the court jurisdiction over the defendant concerning the new matters alleged in the amended complaint. Therefore, the judgment based on the amended complaint was set aside.