G.R. No. 79374 and G.R. No. 82986, October 2, 1992.
TOMAS G. MAPA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE MAXIMO A. SAVELLANO, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH LIII, and LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. (G.R. No. 79374)

TOMAS G. MAPA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. (G.R. No. 82986)

FACTS

The cases involve consolidated petitions concerning the validity of substituted service of summons upon petitioner Tomas G. Mapa. The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) filed two complaints for recovery of sums of money based on promissory notes executed by High Peak Mining Exploration Corporation, whose officers included petitioner Mapa as Chairman of the Board. In both complaints, the defendants, including Mapa, were alleged to be served at “Second Floor, First Midland Condominium Bldg., Gamboa St., Legaspi Village Makati, Metro Manila.”
In Civil Case No. 142400 (G.R. No. 79374), the sheriff’s return stated that on November 10, 1982, copies of the summons were served upon the defendants “thru SUSAN O. DELA TORRE, a person of suitable age and discretion working therein, who claims to be the person authorized to received processess of this nature” at the stated address. Mapa was declared in default, and a decision was rendered against him. He moved to set aside the judgment, arguing invalid service of summons, but the trial court and the Court of Appeals denied his petition.
In Civil Case No. 82-13465 (G.R. No. 82986), an identical sheriff’s return was filed for service also made on November 10, 1982, upon the defendants thru Susan O. dela Torre. A default judgment was rendered. Mapa later moved to set it aside, and the trial court granted it, finding no jurisdiction due to defective service. The LBP’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals, however, set aside the trial court’s orders and reinstated the default judgment.

ISSUE

The common issue is the validity of the substituted service of summons upon the petitioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the substituted service of summons was invalid. For a valid substituted service under Section 8, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, two requisites must concur: (1) personal service of summons within a reasonable time is impossible, and (2) the service is made on a person of suitable age and discretion residing in the defendant’s residence, or on a competent person in charge of the defendant’s office or regular place of business. The sheriff’s return failed to show that earnest efforts to serve the summons personally upon Mapa at his residence or office were made. The return did not indicate that the sheriff tried to serve Mapa at his known residence at No. 625 N.S. Amoranto Ave., Quezon City, or that personal service was impossible. Furthermore, service upon Susan O. dela Torre at the condominium unit was invalid because it was not shown to be Mapa’s residence or regular place of business; he held office in his residence. The service also could not be deemed valid service upon the corporation under Section 13, Rule 14, as dela Torre, a mere employee, was not among the officers authorized to receive summons for a corporation.
Consequently, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Mapa. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 08535 (G.R. No. 79374) was reversed and set aside. The trial court’s Orders denying Mapa’s motion were modified, and alias summons were ordered to be served on him. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 13252 (G.R. No. 82986) was affirmed except as to Mapa; the default judgment against him was set aside, and the trial court’s orders were modified accordingly. Separate trials were ordered against Mapa, with the cases consolidated.