View full case

REPUBLIC v. GLASGOW CREDIT

FACTS:

The Republic of the Philippines filed a complaint for civil forfeiture against Glasgow Credit and Collection Services, Inc. (Glasgow) and Citystate Savings Bank, Inc. (CSBI) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 47. The complaint pertained to bank deposits maintained by Glasgow in an account at CSBI, allegedly related to unlawful activities. The RTC issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) and later granted a writ of preliminary injunction. Due to Glasgow's unserved address, the Republic filed a motion for an alias summons and sought leave of court to serve summons by publication, which was not addressed by the court. The case was archived due to the Republic's failure to serve the alias summons, but the Republic filed a motion to reinstate the case and resolve the pending motion for leave to serve summons by publication. The RTC ordered the reinstatement of the case without resolving the motion for leave to serve summons by publication. The alias summons was returned unserved as Glasgow had moved its office without leaving a forwarding address. The Republic filed a manifestation and ex parte motion to resolve the motion for leave to serve summons by publication, while Glasgow filed a motion to dismiss. The RTC dismissed the case and ordered CSBI to release the funds to Glasgow. The Republic filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which issued a temporary restraining order. The main issue is whether the complaint for civil forfeiture was correctly dismissed on grounds of improper venue, insufficiency of the complaint, and failure to prosecute. The Supreme Court holds that the complaint was filed in the proper venue. Additionally, the case involves the question of whether the court could render a valid judgment based on the facts alleged in the complaint, specifically considering Section 4, Title II of the R.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the complaint for civil forfeiture was correctly dismissed on grounds of improper venue.

  2. Whether the complaint was insufficient in form and substance.

  3. Whether there was a failure to prosecute on the part of the Republic.

RULING:

  1. Improper Venue The complaint was filed in the proper venue. The court found that the venue for civil forfeiture cases is any RTC of the judicial region where the monetary instrument, property, or proceeds are located. Since Pasig City, where the account in question is located, is within the National Capital Judicial Region (NCJR), the filing in RTC Manila is appropriate.

  2. Insufficiency in Form and Substance The complaint was sufficient in form and substance. The court held that the Republic's complaint substantially complied with the procedural requirements set forth under the Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture and RA 9160. The allegations in the complaint adequately described the monetary instrument and grounds for forfeiture.

  3. Failure to Prosecute There was no failure to prosecute. The court found that the Republic diligently pursued the case despite challenges in serving summons to Glasgow. The delay was attributed to factors beyond the Republic's control, such as Glasgow's unknown whereabouts.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Venue in Civil Forfeiture Cases Under Section 3, Title II of the Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture, the venue is any RTC within the judicial region where the monetary instrument or property is located.

  2. Sufficiency of Complaint In determining the sufficiency of a complaint for forfeiture, the focus is on the allegations made and whether they constitute a cause of action, not the veracity of the allegations.

  3. Grounds for Civil Forfeiture RA 9160, as amended, and its implementing rules require that there be a suspicious transaction report or a covered transaction report deemed suspicious, and the court must have issued a seizure order for the property.

  4. No Need for Prior Criminal Conviction A criminal conviction for an unlawful activity is not a prerequisite for the institution of a civil forfeiture proceeding.

  5. Diligence in Prosecution The real test for failure to prosecute is whether the plaintiff can be held accountable for not proceeding with reasonable promptitude, absent any scheme to delay the case.

  6. Service by Publication In actions in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not necessary provided that the court has control over the res, and service of summons may be made by publication if the defendant's whereabouts are unknown.