Gentle Supreme Philippines v. Consulta
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Gentle Supreme Philippines, Inc. (GSP) filed a collection case with application for a writ of preliminary attachment against Consar Trading Corporation (CTC), its president Ricardo Consulta (Consulta), and its vice-president Norberto Sarayba (Sarayba). GSP alleged that CTC, through Consulta and Sarayba, bought merchandise but failed to pay. Procedural History: Summons was attempted to be served on October 11, 2005. The sheriff left copies of the summons and complaint with Agnes Canave, identified as Sarayba's secretary and an authorized representative of both Sarayba and Consulta, as the sheriff failed to serve them on any authorized officers. None of the defendants filed an answer, leading the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to declare them in default on November 18, 2005. The RTC proceeded ex parte, ruled that CTC, Consulta, and Sarayba were solidarily liable for the unpaid merchandise, and later issued a writ of execution. The Petition: On June 9, 2006, Consulta filed a petition for annulment of the RTC decision before the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging he only learned of the case on May 19, 2006, when he received a notice of sale on execution of his property. He claimed improper service of summons because Canave, who received it, was merely Sarayba's secretary and not authorized to receive court documents for him, thus the RTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over his person. The CA ruled that summons was not properly served and remanded the case to the RTC for valid service. GSP's motion for reconsideration was denied.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) correctly ruled that summons had not been properly served on respondent Consulta and whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquired jurisdiction over the person of respondent Consulta. Whether the judgment against respondent Consulta was void due to improper service of summons.
Ruling
The Court REVERSES the Court of Appeals’ Decision and REINSTATES the Regional Trial Court’s Decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of proper service of summons and jurisdiction over the person of respondent Consulta: The Court held that only Consulta brought an action for annulment of the RTC decision, thus the CA should not have ruled on the service of summons on CTC and Sarayba. The right to due process must be personally invoked. Regarding Consulta, the Court found that there was valid substituted service of summons. The sheriff's return, which is prima facie evidence, stated that summons was served on Canave, an authorized representative of both Consulta and Sarayba. Consulta failed to present clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity in the sheriff's performance of duty or to prove that Canave was not competent to receive the summons for him. Furthermore, Consulta himself admitted in his petition that CTC had been apprised of the civil action through Canave, implying Canave had authority to receive court documents for the company and its officers. The Court reiterated that it is not necessary for the person in charge of the defendant's regular place of business to be specifically authorized to receive summons; it is enough that they appear to be in charge. Canave, as a secretary, would have the semblance of authority to accept court documents. The Court also noted that Consulta could not credibly claim ignorance of the suit, given the garnishment of the company's bank accounts, the service of summons on his vice-president, and the company's subsequent offer to settle the judgment. On the issue of whether the judgment against respondent Consulta was void: (Same as above ratio)
Main Doctrine
Substituted service of summons is valid when made at the defendant's regular place of business with a competent person in charge thereof, and the sheriff's return is prima facie evidence of such service absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. A party claiming denial of due process must personally invoke it and specifically allege the circumstances.