Interlink Movie Houses v. Expressions Stationery Shop
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Interlink Movie Houses, Inc. (Interlink), represented by its president, Edmer Y. Lim, filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against respondents Expressions Stationery Shop, Inc. (Expressions) and its president, Joseph Lim Bon Huan. Interlink sought to recover unpaid rentals and damages stemming from an alleged breach of a lease contract by Expressions. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 167, Pasig City, initially denied Interlink's motion to declare the respondents in default due to defective service of summons. Following a second attempt at service, which the respondents again challenged as defective, the RTC granted Interlink's motion to declare the respondents in default and allowed ex parte presentation of evidence. The RTC subsequently rendered a decision in favor of Interlink. The respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed and set aside the RTC's decision, ruling that the trial court had not acquired jurisdiction over the respondents due to invalid service of summons and instructing the issuance of alias summonses. Interlink then filed the present petition for review on certiorari. The Petition: This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, filed by Interlink Movie Houses, Inc. and Edmer Y. Lim. They seek to reverse and set aside the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, which nullified the Regional Trial Court's decision. The petitioners argue that the appellate court erred in ruling that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents, contending that the service of summons was either valid or that the respondents voluntarily submitted to the trial court's jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellate court erred when it ruled that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents. Whether the service of summons on Amee Ochotorina, a secretary of the president, constituted valid service on the juridical entity, including whether it could be considered valid substituted service. Whether the respondents' omnibus motion, filed on special appearance, constituted voluntary submission to the trial court's jurisdiction.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents: The Court held that jurisdiction over a defendant is acquired either through valid service of summons or voluntary appearance. In in personam actions, personal or substituted service of summons is required. For a domestic private juridical entity, service must be made on its president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel, as this enumeration is exclusive. Service on any other person is invalid. In this case, the second service of summons was made on Amee Ochotorina, who was merely a secretary to the president and not among the enumerated officers. Therefore, the service was void, and the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Expressions. On the validity of the second service of summons as substituted service: Even if treated as substituted service upon the president, it was still invalid. Substituted service is allowed only when personal service cannot be effected within a reasonable time, and requires at least three attempts on different dates, with the sheriff citing reasons for the failure of personal service. Sheriff Muriel's return showed only one attempt on May 11, 2009, which was insufficient to establish the impossibility of prompt personal service. Furthermore, the sheriff failed to cite reasons why personal service proved ineffectual, merely stating that Ochotorina assured him the summons would be brought to Bon Huan's attention. This falls short of the required diligence. On whether the respondents voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court: The Court clarified that while filing a motion for affirmative relief generally constitutes voluntary submission to jurisdiction, this is tempered by the concept of conditional appearance or special appearance. The respondents, through their omnibus motion, expressly stated they were filing on special appearance and unequivocally objected to the RTC's jurisdiction due to invalid service of summons. This special appearance, challenging jurisdiction based on defective service, does not constitute voluntary submission to the court's authority. Therefore, the respondents did not waive their right to question the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Main Doctrine
The Court reiterated that for a trial court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of a defendant in a civil case, there must be a valid service of summons or a voluntary appearance. Service of summons on a juridical entity must be made on its president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel, and service on any other person is invalid. Resort to substituted service requires a showing of impossibility of personal service, evidenced by at least three attempts on different dates, and the sheriff must cite reasons for the failure of personal service. A special appearance to challenge jurisdiction based on defective service of summons does not constitute voluntary submission to the court's authority.