GR L 30353; (September, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-30353 September 30, 1982
PATRICIO BELLO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EUGENIA UBO and PORFERIO REGIS, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Plaintiff Patricio Bello filed a complaint for recovery of real property with damages against defendants Eugenia Ubo and Porferio Regis. Summons was issued on May 4, 1967. Patrolman Castulo Yobia of the Jaro Police Department served the summons on the defendants on May 15, 1967. The defendants failed to file an answer. Consequently, the trial court declared them in default on July 22, 1967, and subsequently rendered a judgment by default against them on July 31, 1967.
Upon learning of the default judgment, the defendants secured counsel and filed a motion for relief. They alleged that the service of summons was fatally defective because Patrolman Yobia was not authorized by law or the court to serve summons. They further claimed that they never received a copy of the complaint and that only one copy was served for both defendants. The trial court denied their motion, primarily because their initial motion was not accompanied by an affidavit of merit.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants through the service of summons effected by Patrolman Castulo Yobia.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the service of summons was invalid and, consequently, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the defendants. The legal logic is anchored on strict compliance with the Rules of Court regarding who may serve summons. Under Section 5, Rule 14, summons may only be served by the sheriff, other proper court officers, or, for special reasons, by a person specifically authorized by the judge. This enumeration is exclusive.
Patrolman Castulo Yobia was neither a sheriff nor a court officer, and there was no showing that the judge specially authorized him to serve the summons. The Court cited precedent, including Sequito vs. Letrondo and Olar vs. Cuna, which consistently held that service by persons not enumerated in the rule, such as police officers or postmasters, is irregular and invalid. Since jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired only through valid service of summons, the subsequent proceedings, including the order of default and the judgment by default, were null and void. The Court set aside the challenged orders and judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.