G.R. No. 243604. July 03, 2023
BLOOMBERRY RESORTS AND HOTELS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. JOSEDELIO ELIZ MENESES ASISTIO AND ANTHONY NOVENO CLAVITO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels, Inc., operator of Solaire Resort and Casino, filed a criminal case for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 3(b) of the Revised Penal Code against respondents Josedelio Eliz Meneses Asistio (a dealer/employee) and Anthony Noveno Clavito (a guest/patron). The charge stemmed from an alleged “past-posting” or “late-betting” scheme at a baccarat game on September 6, 2015, causing alleged damage of ₱220,000.00 to the petitioner. Respondent Asistio remained at large. Respondent Clavito was arrested, posted bail, pleaded not guilty, but later jumped bail, leading to the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and confiscation of his bond. After the prosecution presented its evidence, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted respondent Clavito in an Order dated July 19, 2017, finding the prosecution’s evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC’s Order and alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial judge. The CA, in a minute Resolution dated October 24, 2017, directed the respondents to file their comment. However, the copy sent to respondent Clavito at his provided address (Phase 5-A B18 L21, Package 1, Bagong Silang, Caloocan City) was returned with the notation “RTS Moved Out.” The CA, in a subsequent Resolution dated February 22, 2018, directed petitioner to furnish the current address of respondent Clavito. Petitioner complied, manifesting that the last known address was the same and that Clavito had jumped bail. The CA, in the first assailed Resolution dated July 13, 2018, dismissed the Petition for Certiorari as against respondent Clavito only, ruling that due to the unserved October 24, 2017 Resolution, it failed to acquire jurisdiction over his person. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in the second assailed Resolution dated November 28, 2018. The CA deemed the petition submitted for decision as to the remaining parties. Petitioner elevated the case via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of respondent Clavito.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of respondent Clavito. The Supreme Court affirmed the assailed Resolutions in toto.
The Court held that jurisdiction over the person of the respondent in original actions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and quo warranto filed before the Court of Appeals is acquired either by the voluntary appearance of the respondent or through service of the court’s order or resolution indicating that the respondent is required to file a comment. This is governed by Section 4, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. In this case, the CA’s October 24, 2017 Resolution, which directed respondents to file their comment, was not validly served upon respondent Clavito as it was returned with the notation “RTS Moved Out.” Despite being given the opportunity, petitioner could only provide the same last known address. Consequently, the CA did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of respondent Clavito. The dismissal of the petition as against him was therefore proper. The Court noted that subsequent information indicated respondent Clavito was deceased, but this did not alter the jurisdictional basis for the CA’s dismissal.