Macasaet v. Co
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Francisco R. Co, Jr. filed a libel suit against Abante Tonite, its Publisher Allen A. Macasaet, Managing Director Nicolas V. Quijano, Jr., Circulation Manager Isaias Albano, Editors Janet Bay, Jesus R. Galang, and Randy Hagos, and Columnist/Reporter Lily Reyes. The suit, docketed as Civil Case No. 00-97907, alleged damages due to a libelous article published in the June 6, 2000 issue of the tabloid. The case was assigned to Branch 51 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Manila, which issued summons for service upon the defendants at their business address. Procedural History: On September 18, 2000, RTC Sheriff Raul Medina attempted personal service of the summons at the defendants' office but found them unavailable. He made a second attempt in the afternoon, but they were still out. Consequently, he resorted to substituted service, leaving copies of the summons with individuals at the office who were deemed of sufficient age and discretion. The petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to invalid substituted service and that Abante Tonite, not being a natural or juridical person, could not be a party. The RTC denied the motion, finding the substituted service valid and upholding the inclusion of Abante Tonite under the doctrine of corporation by estoppel. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed their petition, affirming the RTC's orders. The CA also denied their motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The petitioners seek review of the CA's decision and resolution, raising two main issues: (1) whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over them, and (2) whether Abante Tonite was correctly included as a party defendant. They argue that the substituted service of summons was invalid because the sheriff did not exhaust all possible means for personal service. They also contend that Abante Tonite, as a newspaper entity, is neither a natural nor a juridical person and thus cannot be sued. The petition is filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the CA's affirmation of the RTC's denial of their motion to dismiss.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners through substituted service of summons. Whether Abante Tonite, not being a juridical person, could be a party defendant in the civil action.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the petitioners and that Abante Tonite could be sued as a defendant under the doctrine of corporation by estoppel.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of substituted service of summons and jurisdiction over the person: The Court reiterated that to warrant substituted service, the serving officer must first attempt personal service. Only after such attempts become futile or impossible within a reasonable time may substituted service be resorted to. In this case, Sheriff Medina made two attempts on the same day to personally serve the summons on the petitioners at their office. Both attempts failed because the petitioners were out, with information from their office indicating they were always unavailable due to their work (Macasaet and Quijano being "always out and not available," and the others "always roving outside and gathering news"). The sheriff's return detailed these efforts and the reasons for their futility. The Court found that these circumstances fully warranted the sheriff's conclusion that further attempts at personal service within a reasonable time would be futile, justifying the resort to substituted service. Furthermore, the petitioners' subsequent actions, such as filing pleadings and availing themselves of discovery modes, evinced their voluntary appearance in the action, thereby waiving any objection to the service of summons. The Court emphasized that the spirit of the procedural rules, not just their letter, should govern, and that substantial compliance, considering the difficulty of personal service due to the nature of the petitioners' jobs, was sufficient. On the inclusion of Abante Tonite as a party defendant: The Court upheld the CA's ruling that Abante Tonite could be sued under the doctrine of corporation by estoppel. The Court noted that the daily tabloid circulated nationwide, suggesting it held itself out as a corporate entity. Even if it were not formally registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, it could be deemed a corporation by estoppel because it possessed attributes of a juridical person and derived profit from its publication. This doctrine prevents an entity that represents itself as a corporation from denying its corporate capacity when sued by a third party who relied on such representation in good faith. The Court agreed with the CA that this principle was applicable to ensure that individuals harmed by publications in Abante Tonite would have recourse, preventing the publication from escaping liability by claiming it was not a juridical person.
Main Doctrine
Substituted service of summons is valid when personal service cannot be effected within a reasonable time, provided that the impossibility of prompt personal service is shown in the sheriff's return, or is waived by the defendant's voluntary appearance or actions evincing submission to the court's jurisdiction. A publication that represents itself as a corporation may be held as such by estoppel.