SPS.
DOMINGO M. BELEN and G.R.
No. 175334
DOMINGA P. BELEN, herein
represented by their
attorney- Present:
in-fact NERY B. AVECILLA,
Petitioners, QUISUMBING,
J.,
Chairperson,
CARPIO-MORALES,
TINGA,
-
versus - NAZARIO, and
VELASCO,
JR., JJ.
HON. PABLO R. CHAVEZ,
Presiding Promulgated:
Judge, RTC-Branch 87,
Rosario,
Batangas and all other
persons acting March 26, 2008
under his orders and SPS. SILVESTRE
N. PACLEB and PATRICIA A.
PACLEB,
represented herein by their
attorney-in-
fact JOSELITO RIOVEROS,
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga,
J.:
This is a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the
Decision[1]
and Resolution[2] of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 88731. The appellate court’s decision
dismissed the petition for certiorari which sought to nullify the orders of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Rosario, Batangas, Branch 87, denying herein
petitioners’ motion to quash writ of execution and their motion for
reconsideration. The Court of Appeals’ resolution denied petitioners’ motion
for reconsideration of the decision.
The instant petition originated from
the action for the enforcement of a foreign judgment against herein
petitioners, spouses Domingo and Dominga Belen, filed by private respondent spouses
Silvestre and Patricia Pacleb, represented by their attorney-in-fact, Joselito
Rioveros, before the RTC of Rosario, Batangas.
The complaint alleged that private respondents secured a judgment by
default in Case No. NC021205 rendered by a certain Judge John W. Green of the
Superior Court of the State of
On
In view of petitioners’ failure to attend the scheduled pre-trial
conference, the RTC ordered the ex parte presentation of evidence for
private respondents before the branch clerk of court. On
For failure to present a copy of the alleged judgment of dismissal, the
RTC denied the motion to dismiss in an Order dated
For their part, private respondents filed a motion for the amendment of
the complaint. The amended complaint attached to the motion averred that
private respondents were constrained to withdraw their complaint against
petitioners from the P2,810,234.50.
The answer to the amended complaint raised the defenses of lack of cause
of action, res judicata and lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
and over the persons of the defendants since the amended complaint had raised
an entirely new cause of action which should have been ventilated in another
complaint.
Petitioners and Atty. Alcantara failed to appear at the rescheduled
pre-trial conference. Thus, the RTC declared petitioners in default and allowed
private respondents to present evidence ex parte. On
On 5 August 2003, the RTC rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of
which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing, the defendants are hereby directed to pay the plaintiffs the
following, to wit:
a)
The amount of P656,688.00
(equivalent to $27,362.00) in an exchange ratio of One (1) dollar is to P24.00
Philippine Currency;
b)
Plus 30% of P656,688.00
which is P197,006.40;
c)
Plus P1,576,051.20
(30% for eight (8) years, 1995-2003); and
d)
Plus 12% per
annum as interest of the principal obligation (P656,688.00) from 1995 to
2003;
SO ORDERED.[3]
A copy of the RTC decision intended for Atty. Alcantara was returned with
the notation “Addressee Deceased.” A copy of the RTC decision was then sent to
the purported address of petitioners in San Gregorio, Alaminos, Laguna and was
received by a certain Leopoldo Avecilla on 14 August 2003. Meanwhile,
immediately after the promulgation of the RTC decision, private respondents
filed an ex-parte motion for
preliminary attachment which the RTC granted in its Order dated 15 September
2003.
On 24 November 2003, private respondents sought the execution of the RTC
decision. In its Order dated 10 December 2003, the RTC directed the issuance of
a writ of execution. Upon the issuance of a writ of execution, the real
properties belonging to petitioners were levied upon and the public auction
scheduled on 15 January 2004.
On 16 December 2003, Atty. Carmelo B. Culvera entered his appearance as
counsel for petitioners. On 22 December 2003, Atty. Culvera filed a Motion to
Quash Writ of Execution (With Prayer to Defer Further Actions). On 6 January
2004, he filed a Notice of Appeal from the RTC Decision averring that he
received a copy thereof only on 29 December 2003.
In an Order dated 7 July 2004, the RTC denied the motion seeking the
quashal of the writ of execution.[4]
Subsequently, the RTC denied Atty. Culvera’s motion for reconsideration of said
order.
Thus, petitioners filed a Rule 65 petition before the Court of Appeals,
imputing on the RTC grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of
jurisdiction (1) in rendering its decision although it had not yet acquired
jurisdiction over their persons in view of the improper service of summons; (2)
in considering the decision final and executory although a copy thereof had not
been properly served upon petitioners; (3) in issuing the writ of execution
before the decision had become final and executory and despite private
respondents’ failure to comply with the procedural requirements in filing the
motion for the issuance of the said writ; and (4) in denying petitioners’
motion to quash the writ of execution and notice of appeal despite sufficient
legal bases in support thereof.
On 31 July 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision
dismissing the petition for certiorari. On 3 November 2006, it issued the
assailed Resolution denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Hence, the instant petition, attributing to the Court of Appeals the
following errors:
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
SERIOUS ERRORS [OF] LAW IN RULING THAT THE TRIAL COURT ACTED WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION OR DID NOT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT CONSIDERED THE
APPEARANCE OF THE COUNSEL AS THEIR SUBMISSION TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIAL
COURT ALTHOUGH SUCH APPEARANCE OF THE SAID COUNSEL WAS WITHOUT THEIR EXPRESS
AUTHORITY BUT WAS DONE BY THEIR ALLEGED RELATIVES.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
SERIOUS ERRORS [OF] LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT WAS
DULY SERVED UPON THE PETITIONERS THROUGH THEIR ALLEGED RELATIVES ALTHOUGH THE
RECORDS OF THIS CASE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE SAID PETITIONERS ARE RESIDENTS OF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.[5]
In a Resolution dated 22 January 2007, the Court denied the petition
because it is not accompanied by a valid verification and certification of
non-forum shopping. Petitioners sought reconsideration, which the Court granted
in a Resolution dated 16 April 2007. The Court also ordered the reinstatement
of the petition and the filing of a comment.
The instant petition raises two issues, thus: (1) whether the RTC
acquired jurisdiction over the persons of petitioners through either the proper
service of summons or the appearance of the late Atty. Alcantara on behalf of
petitioners and (2) whether there was a valid service of the copy of the RTC
decision on petitioners.
On one hand, courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the
filing of the complaint. On the other
hand, jurisdiction over the defendants in a civil case is acquired either
through the service of summons upon them or through their voluntary appearance
in court and their submission to its
authority. As a rule, if defendants have not
been
summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over their person, and a judgment
rendered against them is null and void. To be bound by a decision, a party
should first be subject to the court’s jurisdiction.[6]
In Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals,[7]
the Court underscored the necessity of determining first whether the action is in
personam, in rem or quasi in rem because the rules on service
of summons under Rule 14 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines apply
according to the nature of the action.[8]
The Court elaborated, thus:
In an action in personam,
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to
validly try and decide the case. Jurisdiction over the person of a resident
defendant who does not voluntarily appear in court can be acquired by personal
service of summons as provided under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
If he cannot be personally served with summons within a reasonable time,
substituted service may be made in accordance with Section 8 of said Rule. If he is temporarily out of the country, any
of the following modes of service may be resorted to: (1) substituted service
set forth in Section 8; (2) personal service outside the country, with leave of
court; (3) service by publication, also with leave of court; or (4) any other
manner the court may deem sufficient.
However, in an action in
personam wherein the defendant is a non-resident who does not voluntarily
submit himself to the authority of the court, personal service of summons
within the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over her
person. This method of service is possible if
such defendant is physically present in the country. If he is
not found therein, the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot validly try and decide the
case against him. An exception was laid down in Gemperle v. Schenker wherein
a non-resident was served with summons through his wife, who was a resident of
the Philippines and who was his representative and attorney-in-fact in a prior
civil case filed by him; moreover, the second case was a mere offshoot of the
first case.
On the other hand, in a
proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court
provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. Nonetheless,
summons must be served upon the defendant not for the purpose of vesting the
court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due process requirements.
Thus, where the defendant is a non-resident who is not found in the Philippines
and (1) the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff; (2) the action
relates to, or the subject matter of which is property in the Philippines in
which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest; (3) the action seeks the
exclusion of the defendant from any interest in the property located in the
Philippines; or (4) the property of the defendant has been attached in the
Philippines— service of summons may be effected by (a) personal service out of
the country, with leave of court; (b) publication, also with leave of court; or
(c) any other manner the court may deem sufficient.[9]
The action filed against petitioners, prior to the amendment of the
complaint, is for the enforcement of a foreign judgment in a complaint for
breach of contract whereby petitioners were ordered to pay private respondents
the monetary award. It is in the nature of an action in personam because
private respondents are suing to enforce their personal rights under said
judgment.
Applying the foregoing rules on the service of summons to the instant
case, in an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court
is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case through personal
service or, if this is not possible and he cannot be personally served,
substituted service as provided in Rule 14, Sections 6-7.[10]
In an action strictly in personam, personal service on the
defendant is the preferred mode of service, that is, by handing a copy of the
summons to the defendant in person. If the defendant, for justifiable reasons,
cannot be served with the summons within a reasonable period, then substituted
service can be resorted to. While substituted service of summons is permitted,
“it is extraordinary in character and in derogation of the usual method of
service.”[11]
If defendant cannot be served with summons because he is temporarily
abroad, but otherwise he is a Philippine resident, service of summons may, by
leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines under Rule 14, Section 15.
In all of these cases, it should be noted, defendant must be a resident of the
Philippines, otherwise an action in personam cannot be brought because
jurisdiction over his person is essential to make a binding decision.[12]
However, the records of the case reveal that herein petitioners have been
permanent residents of California, U.S.A. since the filing of the action up to
the present. From the time Atty. Alcantara filed an answer purportedly at the
instance of petitioners’ relatives, it has been consistently maintained that
petitioners were not physically present in the Philippines. In the answer,
Atty. Alcantara had already averred that petitioners were residents of
California, U.S.A. and that he was appearing only upon the instance of
petitioners’ relatives.[13]
In addition, private respondents’ attorney-in-fact, Joselito Rioveros,
testified during the ex parte presentation of evidence that he knew
petitioners to be former residents of Alaminos, Laguna but are now
living in California, U.S.A.[14]
That being the case, the service of summons on petitioners’ purported address
in San Gregorio, Alaminos, Laguna was defective and did not serve to vest in
court jurisdiction over their persons.
Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the
appearance of Atty. Alcantara and his filing of numerous pleadings were
sufficient to vest jurisdiction over the persons of petitioners. Through
certain acts, Atty. Alcantara was impliedly authorized by petitioners to appear
on their behalf. For instance, in support of the motion to dismiss the
complaint, Atty. Alcantara attached thereto a duly authenticated copy of the
judgment of dismissal and a photocopy
of the
identification page of petitioner Domingo Belen’s U.S. passport. These
documents could have been supplied only by petitioners, indicating that they
have consented to the appearance of Atty. Alcantara on their behalf. In sum,
petitioners voluntarily submitted themselves through Atty. Alcantara to the
jurisdiction of the RTC.
We now come to the question of whether the service of a copy of the RTC
decision on a certain Teodoro Abecilla is the proper reckoning point in
determining when the RTC decision became final and executory.
The Court of Appeals arrived at its conclusion on the premise that
Teodoro Abecilla acted as petitioners’ agent when he received a copy of the RTC
decision. For their part, private respondents contend that the service of a
copy of the RTC decision on Atty. Alcantara, notwithstanding his demise, is valid.
On the other hand, petitioners reiterate that they are residents of California,
U.S.A. and thus, the service of the RTC decision of a residence which is not
theirs is not proper.
As a general rule, when a party is represented by counsel of record, service
of orders and notices must be made upon said attorney and notice to the client
and to any other lawyer, not the counsel of record, is not notice in law. The
exception to this rule is when service upon the party himself has been ordered
by the court.[15] In
cases where service was made on the counsel of record at his given address,
notice sent to petitioner itself is not even necessary.[16]
The following provisions under Rule 13 of the Rules of Court define the
proper modes of service of judgments:
SEC. 2. Filing and service,
defined.—x x x
Service is the act of
providing a party with a copy of the pleading or paper concerned. x x x
SEC. 5. Modes of service.—Service
of pleadings, motions, notices, orders, judgments and other papers shall be
made either personally or by mail.
SEC. 9. Service of
judgments, final orders or resolutions. —Judgments, final orders or
resolutions shall be served either personally or by registered mail. When a
party summoned by publication has failed to appear in the action, judgments,
final orders or resolutions against him shall be served upon him also by
publication at the expense of the prevailing party.
SEC. 6. Personal service.
—Service of the papers may be made by delivering personally a copy to the party
or his counsel, or by leaving it in his office with his clerk or with a person
having charge thereof. If no person is found in his office, or his office is
not known, or he has no office, then by leaving the copy, between the hours of
eight in the morning and six in the evening, at the party’s or counsel’s
residence, if known, with a person of sufficient age and discretion then
residing therein.
SEC. 7. Service by mail.
—Service by registered mail shall be made by depositing the copy in the post
office, in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or his counsel at
his office, if known, otherwise at his residence, if known, with postage fully
pre-paid, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the
sender after ten (10) days if undelivered. If no registry service is available
in the locality of either the sender or the addressee, service may be done by
ordinary mail.
SEC. 8. Substituted service.
—If service of pleadings, motions, notices, resolutions, orders and other
papers cannot be made under the two preceding sections, the office and place of
residence of the party or his counsel being unknown, service may be made by
delivering the copy to the clerk of court, with proof of failure of both
personal service and service by mail. The service is complete at the time of
such delivery.
In the instant case, a copy of the RTC decision was sent first to Atty.
Alcantara, petitioners’ counsel of record. However, the same was returned
unserved in view of the demise of Atty. Alcantara. Thus, a copy was
subsequently sent to petitioners’ “last known address in San Gregorio,
Alaminos, Laguna,” which was received by a certain Leopoldo Avecilla.
Undoubtedly, upon the death of Atty. Alcantara, the lawyer-client
relationship between him and petitioners has ceased, thus, the service of the
RTC decision on him is ineffective and did not bind petitioners.
The subsequent service on petitioners’ purported “last known address” by
registered mail is also defective because it does not comply with the
requisites under the aforequoted Section 7 of Rule 13 on service by registered
mail. Section 7 of Rule 13 contemplates service at the present address of
the party and not at any other address of the party. Service at the party’s
former address or his last known address or any address other than his present
address does not qualify as substantial compliance with the requirements of
Section 7, Rule 13. Therefore, service by registered mail presupposes that the
present address of the party is known and if the person who receives the same
is not the addressee, he must be duly authorized by the former to receive the
paper on behalf of the party.
Since the filing of the complaint, petitioners could not be physically
found in the country because they had already become permanent residents of
California, U.S.A. It has been established during the trial that petitioners
are former residents of Alaminos, Laguna, contrary to the averment in
the complaint that they reside and may be served with court processes thereat.
The service of the RTC decision at their former address in Alaminos, Laguna is
defective and does not bind petitioners.
On many occasions,[17]
the Court has strictly construed the requirements of the proper service of
papers and judgments. Both in Heirs of Delos Santos v. Del Rosario[18]
and Tuazon v. Molina,[19]
the service of the trial court’s decision at an adjacent office and the receipt
thereof by a person not authorized by the counsel of record was held
ineffective. Likewise, the service of the decision made at the ground floor
instead of at the 9th floor of a building in the address on record
of petitioners’ counsel, was held invalid in PLDT v. NLRC.[20]
In these cases, there
was no constructive service of the decision even if
the service
was made at the offices adjacent to the address on record of the parties’
counsels and even if the copies eventually found their way to persons duly
authorized to receive them.
In view of the foregoing, the running of the fifteen-day period for
appeal did not commence upon the service of the RTC decision at the address on
record of Atty. Alcantara or at the Laguna address. It is deemed served on
petitioners only upon its receipt by Atty. Culvera on 29 December 2003.
Therefore, the filing of the Notice of Appeal on 06 January 2004 is within the
reglementary period and should be given due course.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED and
the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 88731 are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the orders dated 7 July 2004 and 2
February 2005 of the Regional Trial Court of Rosario. Batangas, Branch 87 are
SET ASIDE. The RTC is also ordered to GIVE DUE COURSE to the Notice of Appeal
filed by Atty. Culvera on 06 January 2004 . Costs against private respondents.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1]Rollo, p. 16; dated 31 July 2006 and penned by J. Normandie B. Pizarro and concurred in by JJ. Josefina Guevara-Salonga, Chairman of the Seventeenth Division, and Aurora Santiago-Lagman.
[6]Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Sps. Evangelista and LTS Corp., G.R. No. 146553, 27 November 2002, 393 SCRA 187.
[7]357 Phil. 536 (1998).
[16]GCP-Manny Transport Services, Inc. v. Principe, G.R. No. 141484, 11 November 2005, 474 SCRA 555.
[17]See also Adamson Ozanan Educational Institution, Inc. v. Adamson University Faculty and Employees Association, G. R. No. 86819, 9 November 1989, 179 SCRA 279; BPI-Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 94925, 22 April 1991, 196 SCRA 242.