G.R. No. 129955 November 26, 1999
SPOUSES MARIANO MADRIGAL AND JULIETA MADRIGAL, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE, BR. 139, RTC, CITY OF MAKATI & SPOUSES JOSEPH AND JOSEFINA AQUINO, respondents.

FACTS

Spouses Joseph and Josefina Aquino filed a Complaint for recovery of possession with damages against Mariano Madrigal and Intercity Properties, Inc. before the RTC of Makati. Initial attempts to serve summons on Mariano failed. Consequently, upon motion, an alias summons was issued. The deputized process server reported several attempts at personal service at Mariano’s residence during reasonable hours, all of which were unsuccessful as Mariano could not be found. On December 20, 1993, the server effected substituted service by leaving copies of the summons and complaint with Mariano’s wife, Julieta Madrigal, a person of suitable age and discretion who acknowledged receipt. The Officer’s Return detailed these efforts. Mariano failed to file an answer, leading the trial court to declare him in default and render a judgment by default. Mariano moved to lift the order of default, arguing invalid service of summons and lack of jurisdiction over his person because he was not personally served. The trial court denied his motion.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the substituted service of summons on Mariano Madrigal through his wife was valid, thereby vesting the trial court with jurisdiction over his person.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the substituted service was valid and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision dismissing the petition. The legal logic centers on strict compliance with Rule 14, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, which permits substituted service only if, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time. The Court emphasized that the impossibility of prompt personal service must be clearly shown in the proof of service. Here, the Officer’s Return specifically stated that the process server made several attempts at reasonable hours to serve Mariano personally at his residence but was unable to do so. Only after these diligent efforts failed did the server leave the summons with Julieta. The Return’s detailed averments constituted prima facie evidence of the facts stated and satisfied the requirement of showing justifiable cause for resorting to substituted service. The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the Return lacked sufficient proof, noting that Administrative Circular No. 59 mandates strict compliance but does not require impossible detail. The stated efforts to locate Mariano personally, coupled with the failure thereof as documented, justified the substituted service. Since the service was valid, the trial court acquired jurisdiction over Mariano. His subsequent default and the judgment rendered were therefore valid. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the lower courts’ refusal to lift the order of default. The other issues raised became moot in light of this jurisdictional finding.