Bloomberry Resorts & Hotels v. Asistio
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels, Inc. (petitioner), operator of Solaire Resort and Casino, filed a criminal complaint for Estafa against its employee, Josedelio Eliz A.M. Asistio, and a guest, Anthony Noveno Clavito (collectively, respondents). The charge stemmed from an alleged scheme of "past-posting" or "late-betting" in a baccarat game, where respondents purportedly conspired to ensure a win for Clavito, causing damage to petitioner amounting to P220,000.00. Respondent Asistio remained at large, while respondent Clavito was arrested, posted bail, and subsequently jumped bail, leading to the confiscation of his bond and the issuance of an arrest warrant. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City, in Criminal Case No. 2016-0232, acquitted respondent Clavito, finding that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and lacked evidence of the alleged fraudulent scheme. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA, in a Resolution dated July 13, 2018, dismissed the petition as against respondent Clavito, citing its failure to acquire jurisdiction over his person due to unserved court processes. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated November 28, 2018. Petitioner then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing its Petition for Certiorari on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of respondent Clavito. Petitioner contends that the appellate court's dismissal was improper and that the issue of jurisdiction should not have precluded a resolution on the merits of the alleged grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The Supreme Court, however, affirmed the CA's Resolutions, holding that jurisdiction over the person of a respondent in a certiorari case under Rule 46 is acquired through service of court processes or voluntary appearance, and that the CA correctly dismissed the case when service was unsuccessful and the respondent did not appear.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of respondent Clavito. Whether petitioner was deprived of due process by the CA's dismissal of the case against respondent Clavito.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Resolutions dated July 13, 2018, and November 28, 2018, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 152867 are affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction over the person of respondent Clavito: The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's ruling that it correctly dismissed the petition as against respondent Clavito due to lack of jurisdiction over his person. Jurisdiction over the person of a respondent in a Rule 46 certiorari case is acquired either by service of the court's order or resolution indicating its initial action on the petition or by the respondent's voluntary submission to such jurisdiction. The CA's minute Resolution dated October 24, 2017, was returned unserved, and despite petitioner's compliance in providing the last known address, further attempts at service were unsuccessful, including the eventual notation of respondent Clavito's death. The Court reiterated the principle from Guy v. Court of Appeals that respondents are not deemed within the court's jurisdiction until after service on them of the dismissal order or resolution, or their voluntary appearance. Since no valid service was made and respondent Clavito did not voluntarily submit to the CA's jurisdiction, the appellate court correctly concluded that it failed to acquire jurisdiction over his person. On the issue of due process: The Supreme Court held that petitioner's right to due process was not violated. The CA provided petitioner with an opportunity to participate in the proceedings by directing it to provide the current address of respondent Clavito. Petitioner complied with this directive. However, the failure to serve the resolution was due to circumstances beyond the CA's control, and the dismissal was based on a procedural ground (lack of jurisdiction over the person) rather than a substantive determination of the merits of the petition. The Court emphasized that when a party is afforded an opportunity to participate but fails to do so, they cannot complain of deprivation of due process, as they are deemed to have waived their right to be heard. In this case, the petitioner was not deprived of its right to be heard by the CA; rather, the CA correctly applied the rules on jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals acquires jurisdiction over the person of a respondent in a petition for certiorari under Rule 46 by the service of its order or resolution indicating its initial action on the petition or by the respondent's voluntary submission to such jurisdiction. Failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of a respondent warrants the dismissal of the petition as against that respondent.