G.R. No. 163287; April 27, 2007
Orion Security Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Kalfam Enterprises, Inc., Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Orion Security Corporation filed a complaint for collection of sum of money against respondent Kalfam Enterprises, Inc. The sheriff attempted to serve the summons and complaint at respondent’s office. The secretary of the manager allegedly refused to acknowledge receipt, so the documents were merely left at the office. The trial court denied petitioner’s motion to declare respondent in default, finding no proper service. An alias summons was issued, and the process server again left the documents at the office, this time with a security guard who also refused acknowledgment. Respondent was then declared in default, and after ex parte proceedings, a default judgment was rendered ordering respondent to pay the claimed amount.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the default order, specifically alleging that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over its person due to invalid service of summons. The trial court denied this motion and proceeded to render judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that the summons was not validly served. It remanded the case for proper service of summons.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the respondent either through valid substituted service of summons or through respondent’s voluntary appearance.

RULING

No, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over a defendant is acquired either through valid service of summons or voluntary appearance and submission to the court’s authority. For substituted service on a corporation to be valid, service must be made on persons enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, such as the president, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel. Substituted service is only permissible if personal service cannot be effected within a reasonable time, and the person receiving the summons must be of sufficient discretion and have such a relation of confidence with the defendant to ensure receipt. Here, service was attempted on a secretary and a security guard. The security guard was not among the enumerated officers, and petitioner failed to demonstrate that this guard had a relation of confidence with the corporation ensuring actual receipt of the summons. Therefore, the substituted service was invalid.
Furthermore, respondent did not voluntarily appear. A party who makes a special appearance specifically to challenge the court’s jurisdiction based on invalid service of summons is not deemed to have submitted to the court’s authority. The records show that respondent, in its pleadings, consistently questioned the trial court’s jurisdiction precisely on the ground of improper service. This constituted a special appearance, not a voluntary submission. Consequently, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over respondent, rendering its default judgment void. The Court of Appeals’ decision to remand the case for valid service was affirmed.