View full case

PEDRO T. SANTOS v. PNOC EXPLORATION CORPORATION

FACTS:

The case involves a civil case filed by respondent PNOC Exploration Corporation against petitioner Pedro T. Santos, Jr., seeking to collect the unpaid balance of a car loan. The respondent attempted to personally serve the summons to the petitioner but failed, so the trial court allowed service of summons by publication. The respondent published the summons in a newspaper and submitted the required affidavits. Petitioner failed to file his answer, leading the trial court to grant the respondent's motion for ex parte reception of evidence. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging non-compliance with the rules of court and denial of due process, which the trial court denied. Petitioner appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the trial court's orders and dismissed petitioner's petition. Petitioner raised issues of lack of jurisdiction, failure to furnish copies of orders and processes, and preference for technicality over justice and equity. The Court ruled that service by publication was proper and applicable to any action, whether in personam or in rem.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner due to improper service of summons.

  2. Whether the trial court failed to furnish the petitioner with copies of its orders and processes, including the September 11, 2003 order.

  3. Whether the trial court erred in upholding technicality over equity and justice.

RULING:

  1. The petition lacks merit. The court held that since the petitioner could not be personally served with summons despite diligent efforts to locate his whereabouts, the respondent was allowed to effect service of summons upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation. Thus, the petitioner was properly served with summons by publication.

  2. The court did not explicitly address this issue in the partial digest.

  3. The court did not explicitly address this issue in the partial digest.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The distinction between an action in rem and an action in personam is no longer significant under the present rule on service of summons. Service by publication may be availed of in any action where the defendant's whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry.