G.R. No. 126321 October 23, 1997
TOYOTA CUBAO, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and DANILO A. GUEVARRA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Toyota Cubao, Inc. repaired a car owned by private respondent Danilo A. Guevarra. Guevarra paid with BPI Check No. 17819 dated March 12, 1991, which was dishonored for insufficient funds. After Guevarra failed to heed demands to make the check good, Toyota filed a civil case for collection. The trial court issued a summons to Guevarra at his address in Calamba, Laguna. The Process Server’s return stated the summons was served on February 2, 1993, “thru her sister-in-law, GLORIA CABALLES, by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint but refused to sign.” Claiming Guevarra failed to file an answer, Toyota moved to declare him in default. The trial court granted the motion, allowed ex-parte presentation of evidence, and rendered judgment in favor of Toyota on January 6, 1994, ordering Guevarra to pay the repair cost with interest and attorney’s fees. A writ of execution was issued, and Guevarra’s vehicle was levied and sold at public auction on August 7, 1995. Upon personal service of the notice of levy, Guevarra expressed surprise and stated he was unaware of the case. Guevarra then filed a certiorari petition before the Court of Appeals seeking nullification of the ex-parte judgment, claiming defective service of summons. The Court of Appeals annulled the default judgment and subsequent proceedings, holding the substituted service of summons was invalid. Toyota appealed, arguing that the appellate court ignored the rule in Mapa vs. Court of Appeals that the absence in the sheriff’s return of a statement on the impossibility of personal service is not conclusive proof of invalid substituted service, and that the affidavit of the process server (submitted for the first time as an annex to its Reply before the appellate court) proved compliance.

ISSUE

Whether the substituted service of summons on private respondent Danilo A. Guevarra was valid, thereby vesting the trial court with jurisdiction over his person.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and SUSTAINED the Court of Appeals. The substituted service of summons was invalid. Service of summons is jurisdictional, and compliance with the rules must affirmatively appear in the return. Substituted service under Section 8, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court is only allowed if personal service cannot be effected within a reasonable time, and the return must state the impossibility of prompt personal service and the efforts made. Here, the process server’s return failed to state these requisite facts and particulars justifying substituted service. While the Court in Mapa vs. Court of Appeals ruled that the absence of such a statement in the return is not conclusively invalid if proof of prior attempts at personal service is submitted, Toyota failed to present such evidence during the hearings on the motions. The affidavit of the process server was presented for the first time only as an annex to its Reply before the appellate court, and accepting it without a hearing would deny Guevarra due process. The constitutional requirement of due process demands service reasonably expected to give notice. Guevarra was unaware of the proceedings until the levy on execution, indicating a lack of proper service. Consequently, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Guevarra’s person, rendering the default judgment and all subsequent proceedings null and void.