Carson Realty v. Santos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Monina C. Santos filed a Complaint for Sum of Money and Damages against petitioner Carson Realty & Management Corp. (Carson). Summons was initially served on Precilla S. Serrano, identified as Carson's corporate secretary, but who turned out to be a staff assistant. Carson, through its counsel Atty. Tomas Z. Roxas, Jr., filed an Appearance and Motion acknowledging receipt of the summons and praying for an extension to file a responsive pleading. The RTC granted the extension. Instead of filing a responsive pleading, Atty. Roxas filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging improper service of summons. Procedural History: The RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss and ordered the issuance of an alias summons. Subsequent attempts to serve alias summonses, including through substituted service on Lorie Fernandez, a receptionist, were made, but Carson's officers were unavailable, and Fernandez refused to acknowledge receipt. Carson's counsel maintained that the service was improper. Santos filed motions to declare Carson in default, which the RTC initially denied due to improper service but later granted after the third alias summons was served via substituted service on Fernandez, leading to Carson being declared in default and allowed to present evidence ex-parte. Carson's motions to set aside the default order and for reconsideration were denied. Carson filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), imputing grave abuse of discretion to the RTC for its orders. The Petition: The CA denied Carson's petition, ruling that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over Carson due to its voluntary appearance (requesting an extension to file a pleading) and, alternatively, due to valid substituted service of the alias summons. Carson filed the present petition for review, arguing that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction due to improper service of summons and thus improperly declared it in default.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over Carson. Whether Carson was properly declared in default.
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the RTC had acquired jurisdiction over Carson, and consequently, Carson was properly declared in default.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over Carson: The Supreme Court held that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over Carson through two (2) grounds. Firstly, Carson voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the RTC when it filed, through its counsel Atty. Roxas, an Appearance and Motion acknowledging receipt of the summons and seeking an extension of time to file a responsive pleading. This act of seeking an affirmative relief, without making a special or conditional appearance to question jurisdiction, constitutes a voluntary submission to the court's authority, as established in jurisprudence like Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Spouses Dy. Secondly, even if the substituted service of the alias summons was considered invalid, the Court found that the substituted service of the alias summons dated September 9, 2008, was substantially compliant with the requirements for valid substituted service. The Officer's Return detailed multiple attempts to personally serve the summons on Carson's officers, demonstrating the impossibility of prompt personal service. The service was ultimately made on Lorie Fernandez, a receptionist, due to the unavailability of corporate officers, and the Court noted the deliberate plan of Carson's officers to avoid receiving the summons, which is a legal maneuver in derogation of the rules on summons. The Court emphasized that the spirit of the procedural rules, not just their letter, should govern, citing Macasaet v. Co, Jr., and Sagana v. Francisco, where substantial compliance and avoidance of service justified substituted service. On Whether Carson was properly declared in default: The Supreme Court ruled that Carson was properly declared in default. The Court reiterated that jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired through service of summons or voluntary appearance. Carson's voluntary submission to the RTC's jurisdiction, as established by its motion for an extension to file a responsive pleading, meant that it was obligated to file such a pleading within the allowed time. Carson's failure to file a responsive pleading after its motion for extension was granted, and instead filing a motion to dismiss, meant it failed to answer within the time allowed. This failure, coupled with its voluntary submission to jurisdiction, provided a lawful ground for the RTC to declare it in default, even if the RTC's initial basis for the default order (the substituted service of the second alias summons) was later questioned. The Court cited Atiko Trans, Inc. and Cheng Lie Navigation Co., Ltd. v. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc., where a default order was upheld despite invalid service of summons because the defendant had already submitted to the court's jurisdiction by filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief. Therefore, the erroneous basis cited in the default order did not render the pronouncement invalid, as a lawful ground for default existed.
Main Doctrine
A corporation's voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction, evidenced by seeking affirmative relief such as an extension to file a responsive pleading, is sufficient to acquire jurisdiction over its person, irrespective of the validity of the subsequent service of summons. Furthermore, substituted service of summons may be considered valid if there are diligent attempts to effect personal service and the person served is a competent employee in charge of the office, even if they refuse to acknowledge receipt, especially when there is evidence of deliberate avoidance by the corporation's officers.