NATIONAL PETROLEUM GAS INC., Nena Ang, Mario
Ang, Alison Sy, Guillermo Sy, Nelson Ang, Luisa Ang, GR No. 183370
Renato Ang, Pauline Ang, Ricky Ang, Melinda Ang
v. RCBC, substituted by Philippine Asset Growth One, Inc.
August 17, 2015 Peralta, J.
TOPIC: Summons (Rule 14)
SUMMARY: Resp. RCBC filed complaint against Pet. NP for civil damages
arising from estafa in re: violation of the Trust Receipts Law. NP filed a special
appearance with motion to dismiss (MTD) on the ground of improper service of
summons. RTC denied NP's MTD, ruled that there was valid service of
summons through Abante (liaison officer of NP) bec. she was given the
instruction to do so by Ang (corp. sec. of NP). CA affirmed RTC. SC affirmed
CA, but only as to the service of summons on NP as a corporation. The service
of summons to the individual petitioners (officers and employees) of NP are
invalid because the sheriff's substituted service of summons were not compliant
with the rules laid down in the Manotoc case. HOWEVER, in the end, the SC
still said that the RTC had jurisdiction over the individual petitioners because
they voluntarily submitted to the RTC's jurisdiction by seeking affirmative
reliefs from the RTC.
DOCTRINES:
As to service of summons on corp. - Summons may only be made upon the
exclusive list in Rule 14, Sec. 11. Substantial compliance CANNOT be invoked.
Service of summons upon persons other than those officers in the Rule is void,
defective, and NOT binding to the corporation.
As to service of summons on individual pets. - Manotoc case (see Ratio #6)
clearly stresses that for substituted service of summons to be available, there
must be several attempts by the sheriff to personally serve summons within a
reasonable period. (at least 3 tries, preferrably on 2 diff. dates)
As to voluntary submission to court's jurisdiction - By seeking affirmative
reliefs from the trial court, the individual petitioners are deemed to have
voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of said court. A party cannot invoke the
jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and after
obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same
jurisdiction.
How the case reached the SC
RTC: Denied National Petroleum's (NP) special appearance with motion to
dismiss because of improper service of summons, held that court had
jurisdiction over the case. (However in the same ruling, RTC also denied
RCBC's motion to declare NP in default.)
NP filed Rule 65 with CA.
CA: Affirmed RTC. Denied NP's MR.
NP filed Rule 45 with SC.
SC: Agreed with the CA that there was a valid and effective service of
summons upon NP through its liaison officer, who acted as the agent of the
corporate secretary.
FACTS
1. Respondent RCBC filed against Petitioner National Petroleum (NP) a
Complaint for civil damages arising from estafa in relation to violations of
the Trust Receipts Law with the RTC.
2. RCBC's prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment was granted and issued
after the ex parte hearing.
Sheriff served upon NP a copy of the summons, complaint, and
application for attachment, NP's affidavit and bond, and the order of
writ and attachment.
Sheriff's report stated that the Summons were served to NP at BPI
Building, Rizal Street, Candelaria, Quezon. Summons were received by
Claudia Abante, the Liaison Officer of NP as evidenced by her
signature. Sheriff served copies to other defendants at their addresses,
but they refused to acknowledge the receipt.
Sheriff levied the real properties of NP.
3. NP field a Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss stating that the RTC
did not acquire jurisdiction over the corporation since summons were improperly
served upon Claudia Abante, who was a mere liaison officer and not one of the
corporate officers enumerated in Rule 14, Sec. 11.
Sheriff did not personally approach them at their respective address as
stated in the Complaint; he did not resort to substituted services of
summons and even if he did, there was no strict compliance with Rule
14, Sec. 7.
4. RCBC countered in its Opposition with Motion to Declare Defendants in
Default: There WAS valid service of summons upon NP.
As to the Corporation: Abante received summons upon express
authority and instruction of Corp. Secretary Melinda Ang.
As to individual petitioners: Sheriff's Report said that they were served
"at their given addresses, but they refused to acknowledge receipt
thereof."
Sheriff's Report = prima facie evidence of facts stated and sheriff enjoys
presumption of regularity in the performance of his official functions.
Oaminal v. Castillo: NP already submitted to court's jurisdiction
voluntarily when they prayed for the discharge of the writ of attachment,
which is an affirmative relief apart from the dismissal to the case.
4. NP filed Reply with Comment/Opposition.
1
 Submitted Joint Affidavit and Abante's Affidavit claiming that they
neither personally met with the Sheriff nor were they handed a copy of
court documents; Ang did not give Abante any instructions to receive
the summons; Abante did not receive instructions from Ang = Hence
court lacks jurisdiction.
Oaminal case finds no application since in the present case, they only
filed one motion + the additional relief prayed for (discharge of the writ)
is complementary to and a necessary consequence of a finding that the
court has no jurisdiction over their persons.
5. RCBC filed Rejoinder with Motion to Strike.
Defended court's jurisdiction; Ang and Abante's denials are self-serving
Assuming arguendo that the Sheriff's Return does not state in detail that
the summons were served upon individual petitioners through
substituted service, this DOES NOT conclusively prove that such
service is invalid because it may still be shown through extraneous
evidence.
6. RTC RULING: Denied NP's motion to dismiss, also denied RCBC's motion
to declare NP in default.
Upheld that it had jurisdiction over the persons of NP, required them to
file an Answer
Very essence of service of summons is for the defendants to be aware
of an existing suit against them and for them to file an answer or
responsive pleading thereto.
When NP and individual petitioners were served with summons
through Abante who received the same for and in their behalf as per
Ang's instruction, and when NP filed a responsive pleading in the form
of a Motion to Dismiss = they are deemed to have ultimately received
the summons.
No reason to doubt Sheriff's presumption of regularity; NP did not per
se deny having received the summonses, they are only challenging the
manner it was served. Hence they ultimately received the summonses =
rules on service substantially complied with.
7. CA RULING: Affirmed RTC and denied NP's MR.
Contention of NP will only deserve full credence if it is to be assumed
that Abante received the summons in her official capacity as a liaison
officer.
HOWEVER, this isn't what happened in the present case: Abante
proceeded to receive the summons and accompanying documents only
AFTER receiving instructions from Ang, NP's corporate secretary. It's
clear that Abante, in so receiving the summons, did so in representation
of Ang, who, as corporate secretary, is one of the officers competent
under the Rules to receive summons on behalf of a private juridical
person.
While it may be true that there was no direct, physical handling of the
summons to Ang, it could be interpreted that Ang constructively
received the summons [through Abante's receipt of it]. This is a valid
service of summons. Hence Ang is now prevented from impugning the
RTC's jurisdiction on the ground of invalid service of summons.
Estoppel is an effective bar against any claim of lack of jurisdiction.
CA gave weight to Sheriff's statement that Ang gave instructions to
Abante despite their assertion otherwise.
Presumption of regularity (Rule 131) was favored by CA. To overcome
it, there should be more concrete evidence other than Abante's affidavit,
which is self-serving and insufficient to overturn the presumption.
ISSUES:
1. W/N RTC acquired jurisdiction over NP by service of summons upon its mere
employee (Abante)? YES.
2. W/N RTC acquired jurisdiction over individual petitioners by resorting to
substituted service of summons despite absence of earnest efforts on the part of
the serving officer to serve summons personally? NO.
HELD: NP's petition is DENIED. CA resolution sustaining RTC's Order is
AFFIRMED.
RATIO:
1st Issue: W/N RTC acquired jurisdiction over NP by service of summons upon
its mere employee (Abante)? YES. There is a valid and effective service of
summons upon National Petroleum Corporation, Inc., through its liaison officer
who acted as the agent of the corporate secretary.
1. Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought
against him/her.
2-fold purpose: (a) to acquire jurisdiction over person of defendant &
(b) to notify defendant that an action has commenced against him so that
he may be given an opportunity to be heard of the charges against him
Compliance with the rules re: service of summons is as much an issue of
due process as of jurisdiction.
2. Service of summons on domestic corp., partnership, or other juridical entity is
governed by Rule 14, Sec. 11. Summons may only be made upon the exclusive
2
list in the said rule.1 Substantial compliance CANNOT be invoked. Service of
summons upon persons other than those officers in the Rule is void, defective,
and NOT binding to the corporation.
3. SC cited CA decision in agreeing that there was a valid service of summons
upon NP. (See Fact #7, that is exactly what the SC cited.)
4. NP cannot conveniently rely on the individual sworn statements of the
petitioners and Abante. These statements are not incompatible with the Sheriff's
report, which said that the summons were received by Abante upon the
telephone instruction of Ang, and as evidenced by Abante's signature at the
original copy of the Summons and Writ. Even if Ang didn't talk to the Sheriff, it
doesn't rule out the possibility that she spoke to Abante to receive the documents.
Certificate of service of the Sheriff is prima facie evidence of the facts,
fortified by the presumption of regularity.
2nd Issue: W/N RTC acquired jurisdiction over individual petitioners by
resorting to substituted service of summons despite absence of earnest efforts on
the part of the serving officer to serve summons personally? NO.
5. Rule 14, Secs. 6 and 72 CANNOT be construed to apply simultaneously. They
do NOT provide for alternative modes of service of summons which can be
resorted to on the mere basis of convenience for the parties.
Under our Rules, service of summons in the persons of the defendants is
generally preferred over substituted service.
Substituted service is only resorted to when summons cannot be
promptly served on the defendant in person and after stringent formal
and substantive requirements have been complied with.
1
SECTION 11, RULE 14. Service upon domestic private juridical entity. When
the defendant is a corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of
the Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be made on the president,
managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house
counsel.
2
SECTION 6, RULE 14. Service in person on defendant. Whenever practicable,
the summons shall be served by handling a copy thereof to the defendant in person,
or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him.
SECTION 7, RULE 14. Substituted service. If, for justifiable causes, the
defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding
section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the
defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing
therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendant's office or regular place of business
with some competent person in charge thereof.
Failure to comply faithfully, strictly, and fully with all requirements
renders the service of summons INEFFECTIVE.
6. SC cited Manotoc v. CA as to what constitutes a valid substituted service of
summons. (I only put the pertinent parts here as to the case because it's very long huhu)
(As to impossibility of prompt personal service) [...] since the defendant
is expected to try to avoid and evade service of summons, the sheriff
must be resourceful, persevering, canny, and diligent in serving the
process on the defendant. 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 [of one month] which
eventually resulted in failure to rove impossibility of prompt service.
"Several attempts" means at least three (3) tries, preferrably on at least
two different dates. In addition, the sheriff must cite why such efforts
were unsuccessful. It is only then that impossibility of service can be
confirmed or accepted.
(As to competency of the person in charge) If the substituted service will
be done at defendant's office or regular place of business, then it should
be served on a competent person in charge of the place. Thus, the person
on whom the substituted service will be made must be the one managing
the office or business of defendant, such as the president or manager;
and such individual must have sufficient knowledge to understand the
obligation of the defendant in the summons, its importance, and the
prejudicial effects arising from inaction on the summons. Again, these
details must be contained in the Return.
7. In this case: Sheriff did not specify why substituted service was resorted to
other than that he served the copies to the individual petitioners but they refused
to acknowledge the receipt thereof.
Presumption of regularity will NOT apply if it's patent from the sheriff's
return that it is defective. Sheriff must show impracticability or
hopelessness of personal service.
Substituted service will still be considered as regular if other evidence of
the efforts to serve summons was presented (evidence aliunde)
8. SC ruled that RCBC's contention (that the sheriff attempted to serve
summons to the individual petitioners both at the RCBC Plaza Office and at
their individual homes, ultimately serving them through the househelpers of
the individual petitioners3) does not suffice.
3 RCBC's side: Says that the sheriff was always met with the "fact" that the defendants were at
neither place whenever he would attempt to serve summons. Hence, the summons were served
to the individual petitioners by entrusting them to their house helpers. So to require the sheriff
to return several times at the residences of ten petitioners would clearly be unreasonable.
Summons were properly served to the individual petitioners through substituted service
3
 Sheriff hastily and capriciously resorted to substituted service without that [t]he inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of
actually exerting any genuine effort to locate the individual petitioners. jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary
"Reasonable time" to serve the summons personally had NOT yet appearance clearly refers to affirmative defenses, not affirmative reliefs.
elapsed (7 days for plaintiff, 15-30 days for sheriff). In the present case, the individual petitioners prayed, among others, for
Based on Sheriff's report and RCBC's narration, the personal service of the following: (1) discharge of the writ of attachment on their properties;
summons upon NP and individual petitioners, as well as the levy of the (2) denial of the motion to declare them in default; (3) admission of the
personal and real properties of NP et al. were ALL DONE IN ONE Comment/Opposition (to the motion to declare them in default) filed on
DAY. December 19, 2006; and (4) denial of respondents motion to strike off
Manotoc case clearly stresses that for substituted service of summons to from the records (their opposition to the motion to declare them in
be available, there must be several attempts by the sheriff to personally default).
serve summons within a reasonable period. (at least 3 tries, preferrably By seeking affirmative reliefs from the trial court, the individual
on 2 diff. dates) petitioners are deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the
Sheriff and RCBC's reason that it's unreasonable to return several times jurisdiction of said court. A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of
to the residences of the individual petitioners doesn't hold water except a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and after
for Quezon Province, since the cities of Makati and Quezon are part of obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that
NCR. These are accessible either by private or public modes of same jurisdiction.
transportation, hence the distance was NOT insurmountable. Therefore, the CA cannot be considered to have erred in affirming the
9. Service of summons to househelp cannot be taken as valid. Although they trial courts denial of the Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss
are of suitable age and discretion, RCBC and Sheriff did not elaborate that these for alleged improper service of summons.
persons know how to read and understand English to comprehend the import of
the summons, and fully realize the need to deliver the summons and complaint to
the individual petitioners at the earliest possible time for them to take appropriate
action.
There is no way for the Court to conclusively ascertain that the sheriff
ensured, among others, that the persons found in the alleged dwelling or
residence comprehend the significance of the receipt of the summons
and the duty to immediately deliver it to the individual petitioners or at
least notify them of said receipt of summons.
10. No basis to convincingly say individual petitioners evaded personal
service of summons. The foregoing considered, it can be deduced that since
there were no actual efforts exerted and no positive steps undertaken to earnestly
locate the individual petitioners, there is no basis to convincingly say that they
evaded the personal service of summons and merely gave the sheriff a run-
around, thus, justifying substituted service upon them. Despite improper service
of summons upon their persons, the individual petitioners are deemed to have
submitted to the jurisdiction of the court through their voluntary appearance.
11. HOWEVER, the individual petitioners voluntarily submitted to the
Court's jurisdiction. The second sentence of Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules

because there were justifiable causes existing which prevented personal service within a
reasonable period of time.