GR 139283; (November, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139283; November 15, 2000
ALLEN LEROY HAMILTON, petitioner, vs. DAVID LEVY and FE QUITANGON, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Allen Leroy Hamilton filed a complaint for sum of money and damages with a prayer for preliminary attachment against respondents David Levy and Fe Quitangon before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City. The trial court issued a writ of preliminary attachment, and the sheriff levied on an aircraft allegedly owned by respondent Levy. Summons and the writ were served at the Subic Bay Freeport Zone address stated in the complaint, through secretaries of W.E.L. Phils., Inc. Respondents failed to file an answer, prompting the trial court to declare them in default. Petitioner then presented evidence ex parte.
Subsequently, respondents, through counsel, filed a Special Appearance to Question the Jurisdiction of the trial court, arguing improper service of summons. When this was not acted upon, they filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the petition, ordering the dismissal of the civil case without prejudice, finding that summons was not validly served and thus the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the Petition for Certiorari and ordering the dismissal of the case on the ground of invalid service of summons.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision. The Court held that the service of summons upon respondents was invalid. Summons was served at a given business address through secretaries, but there was no adequate proof in the sheriff’s return demonstrating that personal service was impossible or detailing the earnest efforts made to locate the respondents personally before resorting to substituted service. Substituted service, being in derogation of the usual method, requires strict compliance with the rules, including a specific showing of the impossibility of prompt personal service.
Consequently, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents due to the defective service. All proceedings undertaken by the trial court, including the declaration of default and the ex parte reception of evidence, were therefore null and void. The Court also found no merit in petitioner’s procedural objections to the certiorari petition. The filing of the petition was not barred by laches or the 60-day period, as the reglementary period did not commence from the receipt of the void order of default. Furthermore, a motion for reconsideration was unnecessary as the trial court’s act of proceeding without jurisdiction was patently illegal. Respondents’ Supplemental Manifestation informing the trial court of a related replevin case did not constitute voluntary appearance.