Palma v. Galvez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Leah Palma filed an action for damages against the Philippine Heart Center, Dr. Danilo Giron, and Dr. Bernadette O. Cruz for alleged professional fault, negligence, and omission, including the removal and loss of her right ovary and tissues. Petitioner later sought to amend her complaint to include additional defendants, including private respondent Psyche Elena Agudo, who were nurses at the Philippine Heart Center. Summons were issued to the additional defendants. Procedural History: Alias summons was served on private respondent through her husband, Alfredo Agudo, as she was out of the country. Private respondent's counsel filed notices of appearance and motions for extension of time to file an answer. Subsequently, private respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) had not acquired jurisdiction over her person due to improper service of summons, as she was out of the country and service should have been by publication under Section 16, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner opposed the motion, asserting the validity of substituted service. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss, finding that service on the husband was not valid when the defendant was out of the country and that service should have been by publication. The RTC denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the RTC's Orders, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that substituted service was invalid, that Section 16, Rule 14 exclusively mandated extraterritorial service, and in not ruling that private respondent voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction by filing motions for extension of time to file an answer.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari is the proper remedy. Whether the petition was properly verified. Whether there was a valid service of summons on the private respondent. Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of the private respondent. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case against the private respondent.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Orders dated May 7, 2004 and July 21, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 24, are SET ASIDE. Private respondent is DIRECTED to file her Answer within the reglementary period from receipt of this decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy when a tribunal acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. The RTC's Order granting the motion to dismiss was a final order terminating proceedings against private respondent, but since the case involved multiple defendants and the main action was still pending, an appeal under Rule 41 was not applicable. Therefore, certiorari was appropriate to address the alleged injurious effects of the RTC's act. On the verification of the petition: The Court found the private respondent's allegation regarding the improper verification to be devoid of merit. The purpose of verification is to assure the court that the allegations are made in good faith. Although the verification was dated earlier than the petition, the Court accepted petitioner's explanation that the draft petition and verification were sent to her abroad for signature. Moreover, the Court noted that when the issue raised is purely of law, as in this case, the verification requirement is not an absolute necessity. On the validity of service of summons: The Court disagreed with the RTC's finding that service of summons on a resident defendant temporarily out of the country must be exclusively by publication. Citing Montefalcon v. Vasquez and Montalban v. Maximo, the Court clarified that Section 16, Rule 14, which uses the words "may" and "also," is not mandatory. Other methods of service, including substituted service under Section 7, Rule 14, may be availed of. The Court emphasized that a "residence" refers to the place where the defendant is living at the time of service, even if temporarily abroad, and service can be validly made by leaving copies with a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein, such as the defendant's spouse. On the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the private respondent: The Court ruled that the RTC had acquired jurisdiction over the private respondent not only through the valid substituted service but also through her voluntary appearance. By filing two motions for extension of time to file an answer without making a special appearance to question the service of summons, private respondent, through her counsel, invoked the RTC's jurisdiction and sought affirmative relief. The Court reiterated its ruling that filing motions seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction, estopping the party from later asserting otherwise. On the RTC's grave abuse of discretion: Based on the foregoing, the Court concluded that the RTC committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Orders dismissing the case against private respondent. The RTC's restrictive interpretation of the rules on service of summons and its failure to recognize the voluntary submission to jurisdiction were deemed erroneous.
Main Doctrine
Substituted service of summons on a resident defendant temporarily out of the country is valid and confers jurisdiction, and filing motions for extension of time to file an answer constitutes voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction.