G.R. No. 140765. January 25, 2001.
GONZALO R. GONZALES, petitioner, vs. STATE PROPERTIES CORPORATION, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent State Properties Corporation filed a verified complaint for Recovery of Property, with an application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or preliminary injunction, against petitioner Gonzalo R. Gonzales and his siblings (heirs of Benito Gonzales) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City. The case was raffled to Branch 253, and summons was served on petitioner. Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion praying for another raffle, arguing that the other defendants did not receive notice of the raffle as required by Administrative Circular No. 20-95. Respondent filed a Motion for Service of Summons by Publication on the other defendants, as their residences could not be ascertained, which the court granted. A subsequent notice for a raffle was issued. Petitioner’s counsel opposed this raffle, again invoking the lack of notice to the other defendants. The presiding judge initially granted the opposition and withheld the raffle. Upon respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration, the judge reversed his order and set the case for regular raffle. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s order, prompting petitioner to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether a case with an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or TRO may be raffled in a multiple-sala court even when some of the adverse parties could not be served notice of the raffle because their whereabouts are unknown.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that the raffle may proceed. Section 4(c), Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (incorporating Administrative Circular No. 20-95) requires that an initiatory pleading with an application for injunctive relief filed in a multiple-sala court shall be raffled only after notice to and in the presence of the adverse party, and such notice shall be preceded or accompanied by service of summons. However, the rule’s second paragraph provides an exception: the requirement of prior or contemporaneous service of summons (and, by necessary implication, the notice of raffle and presence of the adverse party) does not apply when the summons could not be served personally or by substituted service despite diligent efforts, or when the adverse party is a resident temporarily absent or a nonresident. In such instances, the case must be raffled first before the court can act on a motion for leave to serve summons by publication. To require notice to parties whose whereabouts are unknown would lead to an absurdity, as defendants could simply conceal their locations to prevent the raffle and stall the proceedings. The Court further noted that petitioner had been duly served and could not complain on behalf of the other defendants.