G.R. No. 170943, September 23, 2008
Pedro T. Santos, Jr. vs. PNOC Exploration Corporation

FACTS

Respondent PNOC Exploration Corporation filed a complaint for a sum of money against petitioner Pedro T. Santos, Jr. before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to collect an unpaid car loan balance. Personal service of summons failed as petitioner could not be located at his last known address. Upon respondent’s motion, the trial court granted leave to effect service of summons by publication in a newspaper of general circulation. Respondent complied, submitting the required affidavit of publication and an affidavit of service stating that a copy was also sent by registered mail to petitioner’s last known address.
Petitioner failed to answer, prompting the RTC to grant respondent’s motion to present evidence ex parte. Petitioner later filed an “Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and to Admit Attached Answer,” arguing that the affidavit of service was defective for not being executed by the clerk of court and that he was denied due process. The RTC denied his motion, ruling that the rules were complied with and that his answer was filed out of time. The RTC subsequently rendered a decision against petitioner. The Court of Appeals sustained the RTC’s orders, leading to this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner through service of summons by publication.

RULING

Yes, the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction. Petitioner’s contention that service by publication under Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court applies only to actions in rem is incorrect. The old rule was indeed limited to in rem actions due to its silence on the matter. However, the present rule explicitly applies “[i]n any action where the defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry.” This clear language expands the application to any action, whether in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. Since petitioner’s whereabouts were unknown despite diligent inquiry, service by publication was proper.
Furthermore, the affidavit of complementary service by registered mail attached to the proof of publication need not be executed by the clerk of court. Section 19, Rule 14 only requires an affidavit showing the deposit of a copy in the post office. The rule does not specify who must execute it. Therefore, the affidavit executed by respondent’s employee was sufficient. The trial court correctly denied petitioner’s motions, as jurisdiction was properly acquired and due process was observed through the publication and complementary service.