View full case

SANSIO PHILIPPINES v. SPS. ALICIA

FACTS:

The case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The petition was filed by Sansio Philippines, Inc., a domestic corporation engaged in manufacturing and selling appliances and other related products. The respondent spouses, Alicia and Leodegario Mogol, Jr., are the owners and managers of MR Homes Appliances.

Petitioner Sansio filed a Complaint for Sum of Money and Damages against the respondent spouses before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. It alleged that the respondent spouses purchased air-conditioning units and fans from petitioner but failed to pay the full amount. The respondent spouses issued postdated checks as payment, but these checks were later dishonored due to a closed account. Despite several demands, the respondent spouses still failed to settle their unpaid balance.

The process server of the MeTC of Manila attempted to serve the summons and copy of the complaint to the respondent spouses at the courtroom of the MeTC, but they refused to receive it. The process server then issued a Return on Service of Summons, stating the unsuccessful attempt to serve the documents.

Petitioner later filed a Motion to Declare Respondents in Default, arguing that the summons and the complaint were validly served on the respondent spouses at the MeTC courtroom. Since the respondent spouses did not file a responsive pleading, petitioner requested that judgment be rendered against them.

In opposition to the motion, the respondent spouses argued that the process server should have taken notice of the address stated in the complaint, where court processes should be served. They maintained that personal service was required before resorting to substituted service.

The case involves a dispute over the valid service of summons in Civil Case No. 167879 filed by petitioner Sansio Philippines, Inc. against respondent spouses Leodegario Mogol, Jr. and Alicia Mogol. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, Branch 25, granted the motion to declare the respondents in default after they failed to file a responsive pleading. The MeTC ruled that service of summons can be undertaken wherever the defendant may be found. The respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the MeTC. They then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and/or injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 33, alleging lack of valid service of summons. The RTC dismissed the petition, stating that the service of summons was valid as it was made in the person of the respondents. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 70029), which held that there was no valid service of summons as the respondents never received it personally or through substituted service. The CA ruled that the MeTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the respondents.

In this case, the process server's Return of Service of Summons clearly stated that the summons was unserved. The plaintiff, Sansio, failed to provide any proof of irregularity in the process server's return. Based on the Supreme Court case of Spouses Madrigal v. Court of Appeals, the sheriff's certificate of service of summons is presumed to be regular unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Since there was no evidence to dispute the process server's return, it is held that the Mogol spouses were never served with the summons in Civil Case 167879. Consequently, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over them.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled in a previous case that the refusal of a defendant to receive the summons is a technicality used to frustrate the ends of justice. The rules provide a remedy for this situation, which is to serve the summons by tendering it to the defendant. In this case, the trial court made no further effort to serve the summons on the Mogol spouses after they refused to receive it. Instead, the trial court assumed jurisdiction over them, declared them in default, and allowed Sansio to present its evidence ex parte. The trial court should have resorted to substituted service of summons as provided under Sec. 7, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court. Therefore, it is established that there was no valid service of summons on the Mogol spouses, and the order declaring them in default is void.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the service of summons in the courtroom, before the hearing, was a valid service of summons.

  2. Whether or not the clause "tendering it to him" when the defendant refuses to receive and sign for the summons under Section 6, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court means "leaving a copy of the summons to her or in the premises where the defendant could get it".

  3. Whether or not summons refused to be received by respondent spouses Mogol, upon advice of their counsel, need to be served anew to them.

  4. Whether or not the court is bound by the conclusions of the Process Server in his Return of Service of Summons.

  5. Whether or not the appeal before the Court of Appeals denying the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Injunction has become moot and academic when the RTC of Manila, Branch 50 rendered a Decision affirming the Decision of the MeTC of Manila, Branch 25, and which Decision of the RTC of Manila, Branch 50 has become final and executory.

  6. Whether or not there was a valid service of summons on the respondent spouses Mogol.

  7. Whether service of summons was validly made on the respondent spouses Mogol

  8. Whether the service of summons should have been attempted at the address stated in the complaint

  9. Whether or not the service of summons on the respondent spouses was valid, and if they should be declared in default.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals held that there was no valid service of summons upon the respondent spouses Mogol. The trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over them. The order declaring them in default in the civil case is declared null and void. The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the orders of the regional trial court and the metropolitan trial court.

  2. Yes, there was a valid service of summons on the respondent spouses Mogol. The court found that the process server presented the summons and the copy of the complaint to the respondent spouses at the courtroom of the MeTC of Manila, Branch 24. At the direction of their counsel, the respondent spouses' counsel took the summons and the copy of the complaint, read them, and thereby informed himself of their contents. This act constituted receipt on the part of the respondent spouses, as it was done with their behest and consent. Thus, jurisdiction over their persons was already acquired. The subsequent act of the counsel returning the summons and the copy of the complaint to the process server was not material.

  3. Yes, service of summons was validly made on the respondent spouses Mogol. The Court established that there was a valid service of summons in the courtroom of the MeTC of Manila, Branch 24, when their counsel received and read the summons on their behalf. The fact that the summons was returned and the respondent spouses subsequently declined to sign for them did not mean that the service was a failure. A further attempt to serve the summons was not required.

  4. No, the service of summons did not have to be attempted at the address stated in the complaint. Personal service of summons does not mean that service is only possible at the defendant's actual residence. It is enough that the defendant is handed a copy of the summons in person by anyone authorized by law. The use of substituted service is an extraordinary method and should only be resorted to when personal service is impossible. In this case, the court deemed that personal service was validly made in the courtroom and it was not necessary to attempt service at the given address.

  5. The court ruled that the service of summons on the respondent spouses was valid, and they should be declared in default. The respondent spouses were validly served summons and a copy of the complaint against them. Their counsel read the summons and complaint, and they were made aware of the nature of the claim against them. Despite this knowledge, they chose not to obtain a copy of the complaint and pretended that it did not exist. As such, they took a gamble by not filing any responsive pleading, and they lost. Therefore, jurisdiction over their persons was validly acquired by the court.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The refusal of a defendant to receive the summons is a technicality resorted to in an apparent attempt to frustrate the ends of justice. The rules provide a remedy wherein if the defendant refuses to receive and sign for the summons, it may be served by tendering it to him.

  • If the tender of summons upon the defendant proves futile, the trial court may resort to substituted service of summons.

  • If there is no valid service of summons, the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the defendant.

  • The conclusions of the process server in his Return of Service of Summons do not bind the court. The court must independently determine whether there was valid service of summons.

  • An appeal becomes moot and academic when the decision being appealed has become final and executory.

  • A summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him or her. In a civil action, jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant's voluntary appearance in court. When there is no valid service of summons, any judgment of the court, which has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, is null and void.

  • Service of summons may be made through personal or substituted service. Personal service of summons most effectively ensures that the notice desired under the constitutional requirement of due process is accomplished. The essence of personal service is the handing or tendering of a copy of the summons to the defendant himself, wherever he may be found, provided he is in the Philippines.

  • The service of summons must be done in person, and it is not required to be served only at the address stated in the summons. As long as the defendant is handed a copy of the summons and refuses to receive it, or the summons is tendered to the defendant, the service is considered valid.

  • Service of summons should be done personally whenever possible and preferred over substituted service.

  • Substituted service is an extraordinary method and should be justified by clear circumstances.

  • Personal service of summons does not have to be made at the defendant's actual residence. It can be made anywhere as long as the defendant is handed a copy of the summons in person by anyone authorized by law.

  • The certificate of service of the process server is prima facie evidence of the facts as set out therein and enjoys a presumption of regularity. The evidence against it must be clear and convincing to overcome this presumption.

  • Due process requires that service of summons be reasonably expected to give the notice desired, and once it accomplishes that end, the requirement of justice is satisfied and due process is served.

  • Failure to file any responsive pleading in violation of the court's order as stated in the summons may result in the respondent being declared in default.