FACTS:

This case involves petitioners who were defendants in a libel suit filed by the respondent. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) denying the petitioners' motion to dismiss. The libel suit originated from an allegedly libelous article published by the petitioners in Abante Tonite. The RTC Sheriff attempted to serve the summons personally to the defendants at their business address but was unsuccessful as the defendants were not present. The Sheriff opted for substituted service and justified his actions in a return. The petitioners claimed that there was a lack of jurisdiction over their persons due to the invalid substituted service. The Sheriff testified that he had made efforts to personally serve the summons but could not locate any of the defendants within a reasonable time. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss and ordered the petitioners to file their answers to the complaint.

Furthermore, the petitioners sought to nullify the RTC's orders denying their motion for reconsideration. The RTC upheld the substituted service of summons, as the sheriff had resorted to this method after multiple failed attempts to personally serve the summonses on the defendants. The court concluded that there was substantial compliance with the rules of court. Additionally, the petitioners questioned the inclusion of Abante Tonite as a defendant, arguing that it was neither a natural nor a juridical person. However, the RTC considered Abante Tonite to fall under the provisions of Article 44 of the New Civil Code as a daily tabloid of general circulation that could affect individuals both natural and juridical. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion or jurisdictional errors committed by the RTC.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petitioners.

2. Whether the inclusion of Abante Tonite as a party in the case was proper.

RULING:

1. The trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petitioners.

   • The Supreme Court explained that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in an action in personam is essential, which can be obtained through proper service of summons or voluntary appearance. The service of summons fulfills the objectives of vesting jurisdiction in the court and affording the defendant the opportunity to be heard. The court noted that the sheriff’s attempts at personal service were justifiably unsuccessful, leading to proper substituted service. The petitioners' actions, such as filing pleadings and availing of discovery modes, indicated their voluntary appearance in the case.

2. The inclusion of Abante Tonite as a party was proper.

   • The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ ruling that categorized Abante Tonite as a corporation by estoppel. Despite not being incorporated, Abante Tonite represented itself to the public as a corporation, thereby subjecting itself to liability as such. This prevented the avoidance of accountability for any damages caused by its publications.

PRINCIPLES:

1. Jurisdiction over the Person (in personam)

   • Jurisdiction in personam is necessary to render a personal judgment against the defendant and is acquired through proper service of summons or voluntary appearance by the defendant.

2. Service of Summons

   • Proper service of summons is crucial to afford due process and is required for personal jurisdiction. If personal service is impracticable, substituted service is permitted under specific conditions.

3. Voluntary Appearance

   • Actions inconsistent with the right to object to personal jurisdiction (e.g., filing pleadings) can constitute voluntary appearance and submission to the court's jurisdiction.

4. Corporation by Estoppel

   • An entity representing itself as a corporation, despite not being incorporated, may be held liable as a corporation by estoppel, ensuring accountability and compliance with public representations.