View full case

LEAH PALMA v. DANILO P. GALVEZ

FACTS:

The petitioner filed a complaint against the private respondent for the annulment of a contract. The trial court granted the respondent's motion to dismiss, prompting the petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to question the trial court's order of denial.

The respondent argued that the petition should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The respondent maintained that the proper remedy was to file an appeal with the Higher Court as provided by law. Additionally, the respondent claimed that the petition for certiorari lacked merit as the petitioner failed to prove grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. The respondent further argued that the petition was insufficient in form and substance and was filed out of time.

The petitioner, on the other hand, asserted that the trial court had committed grave abuse of discretion by dismissing the complaint without proper basis. The petitioner argued that the trial court erred in denying the motion for reconsideration, as the grounds stated were sufficient to warrant a reversal of the dismissal order. The petitioner also contended that the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period and complied with all the requirements of the law.

The Court held that the petitioner correctly resorted to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to question the trial court's order. It ruled that the petitioner was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing the petition as it involved purely legal questions. The Court further emphasized that the sufficiency of the grounds stated in the petition for certiorari was not a matter that could be resolved at the initial stage. It stated that certiorari should not be used as a substitute for appeal, but it is available when there is capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment or when grave abuse of discretion is evident.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the RTC Order granting the motion to dismiss is a final order.

  2. Whether the petition was properly verified.

  3. Whether there was a valid service of summons on the private respondent.

  4. Whether the service of summons through substituted service is valid when the defendant is temporarily out of the country.

  5. Whether the defendant's husband, who received the summons, is a person of suitable age and discretion to receive the summons on the defendant's behalf.

RULING:

  1. The RTC Order granting the motion to dismiss is a final order falling within Exception (g) of the Rule, as the case involves multiple defendants, and the complaint for damages against these defendants is still pending. Therefore, the remedy of a special civil action for certiorari is proper.

  2. The petition was properly verified, as it is not an absolute necessity when the material facts alleged are a matter of record and the questions raised are mainly of law.

  3. Substituted service of summons is the normal method of service for residents temporarily absent from the Philippines, which will confer jurisdiction on the court over such defendants. Other modes of service, such as personal service outside the country and service by publication, may also be resorted to with leave of court.

  4. Yes, the service of summons through substituted service is valid when the defendant is temporarily out of the country. The Supreme Court held that a dwelling, house, or residence refers to the place where the person named in the summons is living at the time when the service is made, even though he may be temporarily out of the country at the time. Therefore, the service of the summons intended for the defendant must be left with a person of suitable age and discretion residing in the defendant's house. In this case, the defendant was temporarily out of the country and the summons and complaint were validly served on her through substituted service.

  5. Yes, the defendant's husband, who received the summons, is a person of suitable age and discretion to receive the summons on the defendant's behalf. The Supreme Court stated that Section 7 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court designates the persons with whom copies of the process may be left, assuming that a relation of confidence exists between the person with whom the copy is left and the defendant, and that such person will deliver the process to the defendant or give him notice thereof. In this case, the Sheriff's Return stated that the defendant was out of the country and the service of summons was made at her residence with her husband, who acknowledged receipt thereof. The husband was presumed to be a person of suitable age and discretion residing in that place, and thus competent to receive the summons on the defendant's behalf.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An order denying a motion for relief from judgment may be subject to a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 when there is no appeal or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in law.

  • Verification of a petition is required to secure an assurance that the allegations have been made in good faith and are true and correct, but it is not necessary when the material facts alleged are a matter of record and the questions raised are mainly of law.

  • In civil cases, the trial court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant through service of summons or the defendant's voluntary appearance and submission to the court's authority. Service of summons on a resident defendant temporarily out of the Philippines may be done through substituted service, personal service outside the country with leave of court, service by publication with leave of court, or any other manner the court deems sufficient.

  • A dwelling, house, or residence refers to the place where the person named in the summons is living at the time when the service is made, even though he may be temporarily out of the country at the time.

  • The service of summons on a defendant who is temporarily out of the country may be effected through substituted service, provided a person of suitable age and discretion residing in the defendant's house is served with the summons.

  • Compliance with the rules regarding the service of summons is as important as the issue of due process as that of jurisdiction.

  • The filing of motions seeking affirmative relief, such as to admit answer or for additional time to file answer, is considered a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.

  • A defendant who voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court through the filing of motions seeking affirmative relief is estopped from asserting otherwise.