G.R. No. L-46255 October 28, 1977
AURELIO LITONJUA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and TARCELO PENARANDA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Aurelio Litonjua was declared in default in Civil Case No. 17853 for failure to answer the complaint. The trial court rendered a judgment against him, ordering payment of various monetary claims. Litonjua filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment by Default, alleging he learned of the case only upon notification of the decision and was never validly served with summons. He asserted he had a meritorious defense, contending the plaintiff was not his employee but was merely allowed to occupy the premises to prevent squatting. The trial court denied his motion.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. It cited Montalban v. Maximo, ruling that service of summons upon Rodolfo Pamintuan, the cashier at the E & L Building where Litonjua had an office, was valid substituted service. The appellate court held this method was reasonably calculated to give the defendant actual notice. Litonjua elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari, insisting the service was invalid as it deprived him of due process.

ISSUE

Whether or not there was a valid service of summons upon petitioner Aurelio Litonjua to confer jurisdiction on the trial court.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, and set aside the default judgment. The Court held there was no valid substituted service of summons. The legal logic is anchored on strict compliance with the rules for substituted service under the Rules of Court. For substituted service to be valid, two conditions must concur: (1) impossibility of prompt personal service within a reasonable time, and (2) service upon a person of suitable age and discretion residing at the defendant’s dwelling or upon a competent person in charge of his office or regular place of business.
The Court found these conditions were not met. The sheriff did not demonstrate earnest efforts to effect personal service on Litonjua at his known residence before resorting to substituted service. Furthermore, the service attempted on cashier Rodolfo Pamintuan at the E & L Building was invalid. Pamintuan was neither a person of suitable discretion at Litonjua’s dwelling nor a competent person in charge of his office. Crucially, Pamintuan explicitly refused to accept the summons, informing the sheriff he was not authorized. An unaccepted tender of summons does not constitute valid service. The cited case of Montalban v. Maximo was inapplicable, as it involved a resident temporarily abroad, justifying substituted service. Here, Litonjua was a resident within the country, and the attempted service was fatally defective. Consequently, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over Litonjua, rendering the default judgment void for violating his right to due process. The case was remanded to the lower court for trial on the merits.