G.R. No. 146593; October 26, 2001
UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, petitioner, vs. ROBERTO V. ONGPIN, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) filed a complaint to enforce the surety obligation of respondent Roberto V. Ongpin for the unpaid debts of Philippine Apparel, Inc. (PAI). UCPB simultaneously applied for a writ of preliminary attachment, alleging Ongpin had transferred residence to Hong Kong to defraud creditors, his obligation was unsecured, and PAI failed to disclose substantial Bureau of Customs claims. The trial court granted the writ and issued a notice of garnishment on Ongpin’s shares. Ongpin, through counsel, moved to dismiss and quash the writ, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction over his person as summons had not been served.
The Court of Appeals validated the issuance of the writ but prohibited its implementation until the trial court acquired jurisdiction over Ongpin. UCPB’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, a sheriff attempted to serve summons personally. After being informed at a PILTEL office that Ongpin would not attend a meeting, the sheriff later served the summons on Anne V. Morallo, a PILTEL executive secretary, who claimed authority to receive processes for Ongpin. Following this service, the sheriff implemented the writ of attachment. Ongpin contested this, arguing the service of summons was invalid.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over the person of respondent Ongpin through the substituted service of summons made upon Anne V. Morallo.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the trial court did not validly acquire jurisdiction. For substituted service under Rule 14, Section 7 of the Rules of Court to be valid, there must be a showing that: (1) personal service is impossible within a reasonable time; (2) the person serving the summons exerted diligent and reasonable efforts to effect personal service; and (3) the summons was served on a person of suitable age and discretion residing at the defendant’s residence, or on a competent person in charge of his office or regular place of business. The sheriff’s efforts were insufficient. He did not diligently ascertain Morallo’s authority, as her claim was based merely on advice from a PILTEL lawyer, not on a clear demonstration that she was a competent person in charge of Ongpin’s office. The attempt at personal service at the PILTEL office was also flawed, as it was not Ongpin’s regular place of business but merely a location he might visit for a meeting. Consequently, the substituted service was invalid, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to implement the writ of attachment. The Court emphasized that adherence to jurisdictional rules is paramount, and UCPB must properly serve summons, potentially by publication if Ongpin is a non-resident or his address is unknown after diligent inquiry, before enforcing the writ.