7107 Islands Publishing v. House Printers
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent The House Printers Corporation filed a complaint for a sum of money and damages against petitioner 7107 Islands Publishing, Inc. before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The respondent alleged that the petitioner failed to pay PHP 1,178,700.00 for magazines purchased in 2005. Summons was served on the petitioner's Chief Accountant, Laarni Milan, as the President and in-house counsel were unavailable. The petitioner moved to dismiss, arguing that the RTC had not acquired jurisdiction over its person due to improper service of summons, as the service was not made on any of the officers enumerated in Rule 14, Section 11 of the Rules of Court. Procedural History: The RTC denied the petitioner's motion to dismiss, finding substantial compliance with the rules on service of summons. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied, with the RTC holding that although the Chief Accountant was not in the enumerated list, the summons and complaint were effectively turned over to the petitioner, thus fulfilling the purpose of the rule. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging these RTC orders. The CA dismissed the petition outright for failure to pay the required docket and legal fees. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration, explaining the circumstances of the attempted payment and reliance on court personnel's advice, was also denied by the CA. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review of the CA's dismissal of its certiorari petition. It argues that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying its motion to dismiss, as jurisdiction was not acquired due to improper service of summons. Furthermore, the petitioner contends that the CA erred in dismissing its petition for certiorari for non-payment of fees, given the alleged refusal of court personnel to accept payment and the petitioner's good faith reliance on their instructions. The petitioner implores the Supreme Court to set aside procedural barriers and give due course to its petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss based on alleged improper service of summons. Whether the CA was justified in dismissing the petition for certiorari due to the petitioner's failure to pay the required docket and legal fees.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Supreme Court directed the RTC to proceed with Civil Case No. Q-06-58473 and ordered the petitioner to file its answer within five (5) days from receipt of the decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of improper service of summons: The Court reiterated that Rule 14, Section 11 of the Rules of Court, which enumerates the persons on whom service of summons may be made upon a domestic private juridical entity, provides an exclusive list. This is based on the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The Court clarified that under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the rule of substantial compliance, as previously applied under the 1964 Rules of Court, is no longer applicable. Citing E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. v. Benito and Sps. Mason v. Court of Appeals, the Court emphasized that strict compliance with Section 11, Rule 14 is required, and service on an officer not included in the enumeration renders the service invalid and the court without jurisdiction over the person of the defendant corporation. Therefore, the petitioner's argument that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying its motion to dismiss on this ground is meritorious. On the issue of dismissal for non-payment of docket fees: Despite the merit of the argument regarding improper service of summons, the Court found that the petitioner failed to pay the required docket fees and other legal fees within the prescribed period for filing the petition for certiorari with the CA. The Court stressed that the payment of docket fees is mandatory and a condition sine qua non for the acquisition of jurisdiction by the court. While the petitioner alleged refusal of payment by court personnel, the Court found that these allegations were unsubstantiated and that the petitioner could have resorted to other means of payment, such as postal money order. The Court held that procedural rules, including the payment of docket fees, are not mere technicalities but essential requirements of due process and cannot be set aside simply because their strict application would prejudice a party's substantive rights, unless there are the most persuasive reasons. In this case, the Court found no such compelling reason to relax the rules, especially considering the need for fairness to both parties. Thus, the CA was justified in dismissing the petition for certiorari.
Main Doctrine
Service of summons on a corporation must strictly comply with the enumeration in Rule 14, Section 11 of the Rules of Court, as this list is exclusive. Substantial compliance is no longer applicable under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to pay docket fees within the prescribed period is a mandatory requirement for the acquisition of jurisdiction.