G.R. No. 204753 March 27, 2019
UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, Petitioner vs. SPS. ALISON ANG-SY and GUILLERMO SY, RENATO ANG, NENA ANG, RICKY ANG, and DERICK CHESTER SY, Respondents

FACTS

Petitioner United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) filed a Complaint for sum of money and damages against respondents and several corporations. The RTC granted UCPB’s application for a writ of preliminary attachment. Summonses were served on December 4, 2006. For the corporate defendants, service was made upon a “Property Supply Custodian (OIC).” For the individual respondents, the sheriff attempted service at their given address but, finding them absent, left the summons with a person of sufficient age and discretion residing at the same address.
Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons due to improper service of summons. They argued that service on the corporate custodian was invalid as she was not among the persons enumerated by the rules to receive summons for a corporation. They also contended that substituted service on the individuals was improper because the sheriff did not first exert diligent efforts to effect personal service. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss. Respondents then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents due to valid service of summons.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s ruling that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the respondents due to defective service of summons. Jurisdiction over a defendant is acquired either by valid service of summons or voluntary appearance. The service in this case was fatally flawed on both counts.
For the corporate defendants, service of summons must be made upon its president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, in-house counsel, or any of its directors. The list is exclusive. Service upon a mere “Property Supply Custodian,” who is not shown to hold any of the statutorily enumerated positions, is invalid and does not bind the corporation.
For the individual respondents, the rules mandate that substituted service is allowed only if, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be personally served within a reasonable time. The sheriff’s return failed to demonstrate the requisite earnest efforts to locate the respondents personally. It did not specify the details of the attempts to serve, such as the dates and times of attempted personal service. Mere general averments of unavailability are insufficient. Consequently, the substituted service was invalid. Since the service of summons was improper, the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the respondents, rendering its orders void. The Court also held that the respondents did not voluntarily submit to the court’s jurisdiction by filing their Motion to Dismiss, as the motion was precisely to challenge jurisdiction and did not seek any affirmative relief on the merits.