Satisfying fair play

In civil cases, trial courts acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant either by service of summons or the latter’s voluntary appearance and submission to the authority of the court. In personal actions, summons may be made through personal or substituted service. Personal service is preferred over substituted service. For substituted service to be valid, it is necessary that the proof of service should show the following circumstances: personal service within a reasonable time was impossible; efforts were exerted to locate the party; and the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion residing at the party’s residence, or upon a competent person in charge of the party’s office or regular place of business. If the proof of service does not show that effort was exerted in serving the summons personally on the party, or that it was impossible to do so, will a substituted service still be valid? This is the main question resolved in this case of Harry and the spouses Castro.

Harry filed a complaint against the spouses for collection praying, among others, liquidated damages of P 1.5 million and P150,000 attorney’s fees. Summons, together with the complaint, was served by the sheriff on Edith, the secretary of Mrs. Castro at the latter’s office. Thereafter, the spouses filed an urgent motion to declare service of summons improper and legally defective assailing the manner of its service but not denying actual receipt thereof.

Since no answer was filed by the spouses, Harry filed a motion to declare them in default. The spouses forthwith filed an Omnibus motion to admit motion to dismiss and answer with compulsory counterclaim" and then subsequently another motion to dismiss on the premise that the complaint was barred by improper venue and pendency of another case. In said motions, the spouses did not raise the issue of jurisdiction of the court. Later on, they also filed their answer with counterclaim.

Initially, the trial court denied their motion to dismiss but admitted their answer with counterclaim. Then the spouses filed a motion to inhibit" the judge and a motion for reconsideration of the order denying the dismissal of the case and the judge’s inhibition. They also filed a motion to reset the pre- trial.

Resolving all these motions, the trial court finally declared the spouses in default and allowed Harry to present his evidence ex-parte. The judge ruled that the spouses’ pleadings were all filed out of time and then rendered judgment in favor of Harry.

The spouses questioned this decision. They insisted that the substituted service of summons on them was improper so that the trial court had no authority to render said decision.

Were the spouses correct?

No.

It is true that the sheriff’s return failed to state that efforts have been made to personally serve the summons and that it was impossible to do so within a reasonable time. Nonetheless, noting in the records shows that the spouses denied actual receipt of summons through their secretary Edith. In fact they admitted receipt through their secretary. Their actual receipt of the summons and the complaint satisfied the requirement of procedural due process. The constitutional requirement of due process exacts that the service be such as may be reasonably expected to give the notice desired. Once the service provided by the rules reasonably accomplishes that end, the requirement of justice is answered; the traditional notions of fair play are satisfied; due process is served. Besides, the spouses never raised and pursued lack of jurisdiction in their pleadings. They only asked for the dismissal of the case for improper venue and on the ground of litis pendencia.

Assuming that the service of summons was defective, such flaw was cured, and the spouses are deemed to have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the trial court when they filed motions seeking affirmative relief – to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of the default judgment and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration. These motions are considered voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court. Having invoked the trial court’s jurisdiction to secure affirmative relief, the spouses cannot – after failing to obtain the relief prayed for – repudiate the very same authority they have invoked.( Oaminal vs. Spouses Castillo, G.R. 152776, Oct. 8,2003).