View full case

CARSON REALTY v. RED ROBIN SECURITY AGENCY

FACTS:

Respondent Monina Santos filed a complaint for Sum of Money and Damages against petitioner Carson Realty & Management Corp. with the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC). The summons, together with the complaint and its annexes, was served upon Carson through its "corporate secretary," Precilla S. Serrano. Carson's appointed corporate secretary and legal counsel, Atty. Tomas Roxas, filed an appearance and motion acknowledging the receipt of the summons and requested an extension to file a responsive pleading. Instead of filing a responsive pleading, Atty. Roxas moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging improper service of the summons. Santos countered that Carson, by seeking an extension to file its pleading, voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the RTC. The RTC denied Carson's motion to dismiss and directed the issuance of an alias summons to be served on the corporation. Several attempts were made to serve the alias summons to Carson, but the attempts were unsuccessful. Santos filed a motion to declare Carson in default, which the RTC denied due to improper service of summons. Santos requested for the issuance of another alias summons, which was granted by the RTC. The alias summons was again unsuccessfully served on Carson, prompting Santos to file a second motion to declare Carson in default, which was granted. Carson filed various motions to set aside the order of default, but they were denied by the RTC. Carson filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which denied the petition. Carson now questions in this petition for review whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over it and whether it was properly declared in default.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the substituted service of summons is valid.

  2. Whether the requirements for substituted service of summons have been complied with.

  3. Whether the substituted service of summons is valid.

  4. Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the defendant.

  5. Whether the filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration is considered voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction.

  6. Whether the failure to explicitly object to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant constitutes voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction.

  7. Whether Carson voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the RTC when it filed an appearance and motion seeking additional time to file its responsive pleading.

  8. The issues in this case were not provided in the given text.

RULING:

  1. The substituted service of summons is not valid.

  2. The requirements for substituted service of summons have not been complied with.

  3. The substituted service of summons is valid. The Court held that while the requirements for substituted service of summons should be strictly followed, substantial compliance with the requirements may be accepted in certain circumstances. In this case, the defendant had clearly avoided receiving the summons personally despite diligent efforts by the process server. Thus, the Court upheld the validity of the substituted service of summons.

  4. The RTC acquired jurisdiction over the defendant. Even if the substituted service of summons was deemed invalid, it would have little significance because the RTC had already acquired jurisdiction over the defendant due to its voluntary submission to the court's authority.

  5. Yes, the filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration is considered voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction. However, this is tempered by the concept of conditional appearance, where a party who makes a special appearance to challenge the court's jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority.

  6. Yes, the failure to explicitly object to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant constitutes voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction, especially when a pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and submitted to the court for resolution.

  7. Yes, Carson voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the RTC when it filed an appearance and motion seeking additional time to file its responsive pleading. By seeking the affirmative relief of additional time to file its responsive pleading, Carson effectively voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the RTC.

  8. The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 20, 2015 and the Resolution dated June 8, 2016 in CA­ G.R. SP No. 121983.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In actions in personam, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant through personal or substituted service of summons. However, substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service and personal service of summons is preferred over substituted service.

  • Before substituted service of summons is resorted to, the parties must indicate the impossibility of personal service of summons within a reasonable time, specify the efforts exerted to locate the defendant, and state that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion.

  • For substituted service of summons to be available, there must be several attempts by the sheriff to personally serve the summons within a reasonable period (usually one month), which eventually resulted in failure to prove impossibility of prompt service. "Several attempts" means at least three tries, preferably on at least two different dates.

  • The sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the facts and circumstances surrounding the attempted personal service, including the efforts made to find the defendant and the reasons behind the failure. The form on the Sheriff's Return of Summons on Substituted Service requires a narration of the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the fact of failure.

  • If the substituted service will be effected at defendant's house or residence, it should be left with a person of "suitable age and discretion then residing therein." A person of suitable age and discretion is one who has attained the age of full legal capacity (18 years old) and is considered to have enough discernment to understand the importance of a summons.

  • Substantial compliance with the requirements for substituted service of summons may be accepted in certain circumstances.

  • Courts acquire jurisdiction over defendants in a civil case through the service of summons or their voluntary appearance and submission to the court's authority.

  • Special appearance operates as an exception to the general rule on voluntary appearance.

  • Objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant must be explicitly made in an unequivocal manner.

  • Failure to explicitly object to the court's jurisdiction constitutes voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction, especially when a pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed.

  • A party in default shall be entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings but not to take part in the trial.

  • A party declared in default may file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default upon proper showing that his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence and that he has a meritorious defense.

No legal principles or doctrines were mentioned in the given text.