Santos v. Philippine National Oil Company Exploration Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent PNOC Exploration Corporation (PNOC EC) filed a complaint for a sum of money against petitioner Pedro T. Santos, Jr. to collect P698,502.10, representing the unpaid balance of a car loan advanced to him while he was a member of respondent's board of directors. Personal service of summons failed as petitioner could not be located at his last known address despite diligent efforts. Procedural History: Upon respondent's motion, the trial court allowed service of summons by publication in 'Remate,' a newspaper of general circulation. Respondent submitted an affidavit of publication and an affidavit of service by its employee confirming the mailing of the summons to petitioner's last known address. When petitioner failed to file an answer, the trial court, in an order dated September 11, 2003, allowed the ex-parte presentation of evidence. On October 28, 2003, petitioner filed an 'Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and to Admit Attached Answer,' arguing that the affidavit of service was defective because it was not executed by the clerk of court and that service by publication is inapplicable to actions in personam. The RTC denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals (CA) subsequently dismissed petitioner's petition for certiorari. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, reiterating that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over his person due to improper service of summons. He contended that Section 14, Rule 14 applies only to actions in rem and that the affidavit of service must be prepared by the clerk of court. He further alleged a denial of due process for failure to receive notices of the trial court's orders.
Issue(s)
Whether service of summons by publication under Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court is proper in an action in personam. Whether the affidavit of complementary service by registered mail must be executed by the clerk of court. Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner through voluntary appearance. Whether a defendant whose whereabouts are unknown is entitled to notice of proceedings even if not validly declared in default.
Ruling
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that service by publication is proper. It clarified that while the old 1964 Rules were interpreted to limit publication to actions in rem, the current Section 14, Rule 14 expressly applies to 'any action' where the defendant's whereabouts are unknown. This language is inclusive and encompasses actions in personam, such as a complaint for a sum of money. The Court emphasized that the change in the wording of the rule was intended to address the limitations of the previous procedural framework. On Issue 2: The Court held that Section 19, Rule 14 does not require the clerk of court to execute the affidavit of complementary service. The rule simply requires an affidavit showing the deposit of a copy of the summons and order for publication in the post office. The duty to ensure this complementary service is performed and evidenced by an affidavit rests upon the party who moved for the service by publication, not the court's administrative staff. On Issue 3: Even assuming the service was defective, the Court found that the trial court acquired jurisdiction via petitioner's voluntary appearance. Under Section 20, Rule 14, a defendant's voluntary appearance is equivalent to service of summons. By filing an 'Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and to Admit Attached Answer,' petitioner sought affirmative relief from the court, which constitutes a voluntary submission to its jurisdiction, regardless of his objections to the summons. On Issue 4: Regarding the lack of notice, the Court applied the maxim 'Nemo tenetur ad impossibile' (The law obliges no one to perform an impossibility). Since petitioner's whereabouts were unknown—the very reason for the publication—it was logically impossible and impractical for the trial court to serve him with subsequent notices at an address where he could not be found. Therefore, the failure to furnish him with copies of orders did not constitute a violation of due process under these specific circumstances.
Main Doctrine
The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure expanded the scope of service by publication to encompass 'any action' where the defendant's whereabouts are unknown, effectively removing the previous jurisdictional barrier that limited such service to actions in rem. The rationale is to prevent the frustration of justice by defendants who cannot be located. Moreover, the duty to execute the affidavit of complementary service by registered mail lies with the party resorting to publication, not the clerk of court. Finally, voluntary appearance through the filing of an Omnibus Motion to admit an answer cures any alleged defects in the service of summons.