G.R. No. L-49008. April 15, 1988
FEDERICO H. TOLENTINO, petitioner, vs. HON. RICARDO D. GALANO, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH 13, and SERVICE WIDE SPECIALISTS, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Service Wide Specialists, Inc. filed a complaint for replevin and damages against petitioner Federico Tolentino before the Court of First Instance of Manila. The complaint, seeking the recovery of a motor vehicle or its value due to alleged unpaid installments under a promissory note and chattel mortgage, was accompanied by supporting documents including the note, mortgage, and an assignment of credit. The court found the complaint sufficient and, upon the filing of a replevin bond, issued a writ of seizure. Deputy Sheriff Emilio Reyes served summons with a copy of the complaint on Tolentino on November 11, 1977, and seized the vehicle on the same date. Tolentino failed to file a counterbond, leading to the vehicle’s delivery to the private respondent.
Due to Tolentino’s failure to file an answer within the reglementary period, the private respondent moved to declare him in default. The court granted the motion and allowed ex-parte presentation of evidence, subsequently rendering a judgment confirming the legality of the seizure and the respondent’s right to the vehicle, and ordering Tolentino to pay certain fees and costs. Tolentino later filed an opposition to the default order and a motion to set aside the decision, alleging he was never properly served with summons and only learned of the case upon receiving the motion for default.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in declaring petitioner in default and in denying his motion to set aside the default judgment, primarily on the grounds of improper service of summons and lack of a meritorious defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the trial court’s orders and decision. The Court found no merit in Tolentino’s claim of improper service. It held that a discrepancy between the sheriff’s return and the private respondent’s motion regarding the date of service did not invalidate the return or prove non-service; such discrepancy was correctly treated by the lower court as a mere typographical error. The Court emphasized the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by a deputy sheriff under Rule 131, Section 5(m) of the Rules of Court, which stands in the absence of convincing contrary evidence. Tolentino’s filing of a falsification charge against the sheriff and a fiscal’s prima facie finding were deemed insufficient to overcome this presumption, especially given the sheriff’s unavailability during the preliminary investigation.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that Tolentino failed to satisfy a crucial requirement for lifting a default order: demonstrating a meritorious defense. His petition did not substantively deny the existence of the debt or his default. His vague allegation that the assignment of credit was “illegal” was unexplained and insufficient. The Court concluded that Tolentino was resorting to procedural technicalities to delay the case and avoid his obligations. Thus, the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding the default judgment.