Express Padala (Italia) S.P.A. v. Ocampo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner BDO Remittance (Italia) S.P.A. (BDO Remittance) hired respondent Helen M. Ocampo as a remittance processor. Ocampo was dismissed for misappropriating €24,035.60 by falsifying invoices. She pleaded guilty to the offense before the Court of Turin, Italy, and was convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment and a €300.00 penalty, with the benefit of suspension of sentence enforcement. Procedural History: BDO Remittance filed a petition for recognition of foreign judgment with the RTC of Mandaluyong City, seeking recognition of the Court of Turin Decision and the cancellation or restriction of Ocampo's Philippine passport. The sheriff attempted substituted service of summons upon Ocampo at her alleged local address by serving it on her uncle, who was merely a caretaker of the house, as Ocampo and her family were already in Italy. Ocampo failed to file an answer, was declared in default, and the RTC rendered a decision in favor of BDO Remittance, recognizing the foreign judgment and ordering the DFA to cancel or restrict Ocampo's passport. Ocampo's mother received a copy of the RTC Decision and forwarded it to Ocampo. Ocampo, through counsel, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in recognizing and enforcing the foreign judgment. The Petition: The CA set aside the RTC Decision, finding that summons was not validly served on Ocampo, thus the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over her person. The CA also found that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in recognizing a foreign judgment of a criminal case and ordering passport restriction. BDO Remittance filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that Ocampo availed of the wrong remedy and that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion. Ocampo countered that the enforcement of the foreign judgment was misleading as her penalty was suspended and her criminal liability had been extinguished.
Issue(s)
Whether service of summons was validly effected upon respondent through substituted service. Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in recognizing and ordering the enforcement of the Court of Turin Decision.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirmed the CA Decision and Resolution, and declared the RTC Decision void for lack of valid service of summons.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of valid service of summons: The Court reiterated the general rule that summons must be served personally on the defendant. When personal service is not practicable, substituted service may be resorted to by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's dwelling house or residence with a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein, or at their office or regular place of business with a competent person in charge. However, substituted service presupposes that the place of service is the defendant's current residence or office. In this case, the sheriff's report and BDO Remittance's own admission indicated that Ocampo no longer resided at the Batangas address and her whereabouts in Italy were uncertain. Therefore, substituted service was improperly resorted to. The Court clarified that when a defendant's whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service of summons must be effected by publication, in accordance with Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires prior resort to personal and substituted service and proof of their ineffectiveness, along with a written motion for leave of court supported by affidavit. The Court found that BDO Remittance’s reliance on Palma v. Galvez was misplaced as that case involved a person temporarily out of the country, whereas Ocampo resided in Italy. The Court emphasized that modes of service of summons must be strictly followed to afford the defendant an opportunity to be heard, as service of summons is a vital component of due process. Since the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over Ocampo's person due to invalid service of summons, the judgment rendered against her is void. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: As the Court found that the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over Ocampo due to the invalid service of summons, the RTC Decision recognizing the foreign judgment and ordering the cancellation or restriction of Ocampo's passport was rendered void. Consequently, it was unnecessary to delve into the issue of grave abuse of discretion in recognizing the foreign judgment, as the primary procedural defect rendered the RTC's actions a nullity. The Court noted that the issue of whether Ocampo's criminal liability had been extinguished, as claimed by Ocampo with supporting documentation from the High Court of Turin, would be a matter for the trial court to consider upon acquiring jurisdiction and giving Ocampo an opportunity to be heard.
Main Doctrine
Substituted service of summons is improper when the defendant no longer resides at the address where service is attempted, and the defendant's whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, necessitating service by publication. Failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant renders any judgment rendered against them void.