G.R. No. 202505 September 6, 2017
EXPRESS PADALA (ITALIA) S.P.A., now BDO REMITTANCE (ITALIA) S.P.A., Petitioner vs. HELEN M. OCAMPO, Respondent

FACTS

Petitioner BDO Remittance filed a criminal complaint against its former employee, respondent Helen Ocampo, before the Court of Turin, Italy, for misappropriation of funds. Ocampo pleaded guilty, and the Italian court convicted and sentenced her in 2005, but granted a suspension of the sentence’s enforcement. In 2008, BDO Remittance filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong for recognition of this foreign judgment and sought an order for the Department of Foreign Affairs to cancel or restrict Ocampo’s passport. The sheriff attempted personal service at Ocampo’s alleged Batangas address but found only her uncle, the caretaker, who informed him that Ocampo resided in Italy. The sheriff then effected substituted service by leaving the summons with the uncle.
Ocampo did not file an answer, leading the RTC to declare her in default. The court granted BDO’s petition ex parte in 2009, recognizing the foreign judgment and ordering the passport restriction. Ocampo’s mother later received a copy and forwarded it to her in Italy. After the appeal period lapsed, Ocampo, through new counsel, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing invalid service of summons and grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over respondent Helen Ocampo through a valid service of summons.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s ruling that the RTC never acquired jurisdiction due to invalid service of summons. The legal logic centers on strict compliance with the hierarchy of modes of service under Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. Personal service is mandatory whenever practicable. If the defendant cannot be personally served within a reasonable time, substituted service (leaving copies with a person of suitable age and discretion at the defendant’s residence) may be resorted to. However, when the defendant’s whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service by publication becomes the required mode, but only upon motion and affidavit.
Here, the sheriff immediately resorted to substituted service upon learning from the caretaker that Ocampo lived abroad. This was erroneous. The defendant’s whereabouts were not merely difficult to serve personally; they were “unknown” within the legal context, as she was residing outside the Philippines. Consequently, the proper mode was service by publication under Section 14, Rule 14, not substituted service under Section 7. Since the petitioner failed to follow the prescribed procedure for service by publication, the service was void. A court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant only upon a valid service of summons or voluntary appearance. Without such valid service, as in this case, all subsequent proceedings of the RTC, including its default order and decision recognizing the foreign judgment, were null and void. The Court thus upheld the CA’s annulment of the RTC decision without needing to delve into the substantive merits of enforcing the foreign criminal judgment.