GR 177007; (July, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 177007 ; July 14, 2009
SANSIO PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES ALICIA AND LEODEGARIO MOGOL, JR., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Sansio Philippines, Inc. filed a Complaint for Sum of Money against respondent spouses Mogol before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. The complaint alleged that the spouses, doing business as MR Homes Appliances, purchased appliances and issued dishonored checks, leaving an unpaid balance. The complaint stated the spouses’ address for service of summons as “1218 Daisy St., Employee Village, Lucena City.” Instead of serving summons at this address, the process server, at the request of petitioner’s counsel, attempted service on the respondents at the courtroom of another MeTC branch where they were present for a related criminal case hearing. The respondents’ counsel, upon receiving the documents, pointed out the improper venue and advised his clients not to accept them. The process server then left and filed a Return stating the respondents refused service without valid reason.
Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion to Declare Respondents in Default, which the MeTC granted. The MeTC ruled that the respondents’ refusal to accept the tendered summons in the courtroom constituted valid personal service. The respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which was dismissed. They then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the service of summons upon the respondents at a courtroom, rather than at their residence as stated in the complaint, was valid and effective.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision and ruled that the service of summons was invalid. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory requirements for valid service under the Rules of Court. Service of summons is the means by which a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The governing rule, specifically Section 6, Rule 14, prioritizes personal service “whenever practicable.” This implies service must be made at the defendant’s residence or stated address as alleged in the complaint, not at a random location where they may be found.
Here, the complaint explicitly provided the respondents’ address in Lucena City. There was no showing that service at this address was impracticable or had previously failed. The process server made no attempt to serve summons there before resorting to service at the courtroom. The Court emphasized that the choice to serve summons at the courtroom, merely because the respondents were present, was a shortcut that disregarded the rules. The respondents’ refusal to accept the summons under those circumstances was justified, as the service was improperly executed. Consequently, the MeTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents, rendering the order declaring them in default null and void. The case was remanded to the MeTC for proper service of summons and further proceedings.