G.R. No. 183182; September 1, 2010
Gentle Supreme Philippines, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Ricardo F. Consulta, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Gentle Supreme Philippines, Inc. (GSP) filed a collection case against Consar Trading Corporation (CTC) and its officers, including respondent Ricardo Consulta. The sheriff attempted to serve summons at CTC’s office, the stated address for Consulta. Failing to find any authorized officer, the sheriff left copies of the summons and complaint with Agnes Canave, whom the sheriff’s return identified as the secretary of co-defendant Sarayba and an authorized representative of both Sarayba and Consulta. None of the defendants filed an answer, leading the trial court to declare them in default, hear the case ex parte, and render a judgment holding them solidarily liable.
Respondent Consulta later filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA), claiming he only learned of the case upon receiving a notice of execution sale. He argued the service of summons was invalid, as Canave was merely Sarayba’s secretary and not a person of such confidence to him that would ensure notice. The CA ruled the service improper, ordering a remand for valid service. GSP elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that summons was not properly served on respondent Consulta, thereby depriving the trial court of jurisdiction over his person and rendering its judgment void.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the trial court’s judgment, ruling that summons was validly served on Consulta. The Court emphasized the prima facie presumption of regularity accorded to the sheriff’s return, which stated that Canave was an authorized representative of Consulta. Consulta failed to present clear and convincing evidence to rebut this presumption or to prove that Canave was not competent to receive the summons.
The Court held that valid substituted service was effected at Consulta’s regular place of business. It is not necessary for the person receiving the summons to be specifically authorized; it is sufficient that she appears to be in charge of the office. As a secretary at the corporate office, Canave was a competent person in charge thereof. The Court further noted that Consulta himself admitted in his petition that CTC was apprised of the action through Canave, undermining his claim of improper service. Consequently, the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over Consulta, and the default judgment against him stands.