GR 170281; (January, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170281 ; January 18, 2008
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL, petitioner, vs. GLASGOW CREDIT AND COLLECTION SERVICES, INC. and CITYSTATE SAVINGS BANK, INC., respondents.
FACTS
The Republic, through the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), filed a civil forfeiture complaint against Glasgow Credit and Collection Services, Inc. (Glasgow) and Citystate Savings Bank, Inc. (CSBI) before the RTC of Manila, seeking the forfeiture of a bank deposit allegedly related to unlawful activities under RA 9160. The trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction. Summons to Glasgow was returned unserved as it could no longer be found at its address. The Republic moved for leave to serve summons by publication, but the trial court did not resolve this motion, instead directing service of alias summons, which was also returned unserved. Glasgow filed a motion to dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction over its person, prematurity of the complaint, and failure to prosecute.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC correctly dismissed the civil forfeiture complaint on the grounds of improper venue, insufficiency in form and substance, and failure to prosecute.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the RTC’s dismissal. On venue, the Court held the RTC of Manila was a proper venue as the National Capital Judicial Region is a single judicial region; thus, Manila and Pasig (where CSBI was located) are within the same region. The RTC erred in dismissing motu proprio on this ground, especially since Glasgow never raised it. On the sufficiency of the complaint, the Court ruled that a civil forfeiture case under the Anti-Money Laundering Act is an action quasi in rem, proceeding against the property itself. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not required, and a prior criminal conviction is not a precondition. The complaint sufficiently alleged ultimate facts constituting a cause of action by detailing the suspected unlawful activity and the nexus to the bank account. On failure to prosecute, the delay was attributable to the trial court’s inaction on the Republic’s pending motion for leave to serve summons by publication, a permissible mode of service given Glasgow’s undisputed inability to be located. The Republic diligently pursued its case, and the trial court should have resolved the motion instead of dismissing the complaint. The case was remanded for further proceedings.