Manuel v. Ong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Ramon Ong filed a complaint for accion reivindicatoria against Spouses Benedict and Sandra Manuel, alleging they constructed improvements on his property through force, intimidation, strategy, threats, and stealth. Summons was issued on February 3, 2010. Sheriff Joselito Sales attempted personal service on February 12, 2010, but the Spouses Manuel requested service be made at another time due to the critical illness of Sandra Manuel's mother. A second attempt on March 16, 2010, resulted in petitioner Sandra Manuel refusing to sign and receive the summons and complaint, prompting the sheriff to tender them to her and advise her to file an answer within fifteen (15) days. Procedural History: The Spouses Manuel failed to file an answer within the prescribed period. Ong filed a motion to declare them in default, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted on June 28, 2010. The RTC subsequently granted Ong's motion for ex parte presentation of evidence. On September 13, 2010, the Spouses Manuel filed a motion to lift the order of default, claiming they did not reside at the address where service was attempted and that the summons was served on other individuals. They attached their answer to this motion. The RTC denied their motion on November 30, 2010, citing the motion's lack of oath and failure to show fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. Their motion for reconsideration was also denied on February 16, 2011. The Spouses Manuel filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed their petition on June 28, 2012, and denied their motion for reconsideration on December 19, 2012. The Petition: The Spouses Manuel filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, seeking to reverse the CA's decision and resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the Spouses Manuel. Whether the Spouses Manuel are entitled to relief from the order of default.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The June 28, 2012 decision and the December 19, 2012 resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the Regional Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the Spouses Manuel: The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction over the persons of the Spouses Manuel was validly acquired through personal service of summons by tender. Rule 14, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly allows for tendering the summons to the defendant if they refuse to receive and sign for it. The Court emphasized that personal service is determined by the person of the defendant, not the locus of service. The Spouses Manuel's claim that they did not reside at the address where service was made was found to be self-serving and contradicted by barangay clearances they themselves attached to a pleading, which indicated their residence in Bacong Loacan, Itogon, Benguet. The sheriff's return, enjoying the presumption of regularity, was taken as an accurate recital of events, and the sheriff was presumed to have exercised ordinary care and diligence in serving summons upon the proper persons. Therefore, valid personal service was made, and jurisdiction was acquired. On Whether the Spouses Manuel are entitled to relief from the order of default: The Supreme Court ruled that the Spouses Manuel were not entitled to relief from the order of default. Having been validly served with summons, they were obligated to file their answer within fifteen (15) days from March 16, 2010, as per Rule 11, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Their failure to do so justified the declaration of default. Furthermore, their motion to lift the order of default was procedurally infirm. It was not made under oath, as required by Rule 9, Section 3(b), and it was not accompanied by an affidavit of merit setting forth facts constituting a meritorious defense and showing that the failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. Such a motion is considered pro-forma and unworthy of consideration. Additionally, they violated Rule 15, Section 4 by setting their motion for hearing on the same date they filed it, failing to provide the required three-day notice to the adverse party. While courts are generally liberal in setting aside orders of default, this liberality is tempered by the defendant's own fault and obstinate refusal to comply with court processes, which was evident in this case.
Main Doctrine
Valid personal service of summons, even by tender, is sufficient to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. A motion to lift an order of default must be under oath and accompanied by an affidavit of merit, absent which it is considered pro-forma and unworthy of consideration, unless the motion is grounded on the court's lack of jurisdiction over the defendant.