GR L 66782; (December, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-66782 December 20, 1984
ELIODORO PONIO and WECONS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Eliodoro Ponio and Wecons Construction Services, Inc. were sued for a sum of money in the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. They failed to file their answer within the reglementary period, were declared in default, and a judgment was rendered against them after ex-parte proceedings. The petitioners filed a motion to lift the order of default and to set aside the decision, with a prayer to admit their answer. This motion was denied by the trial court, and the denial was sustained by the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC).
The petitioners contended before the IAC that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over them due to invalid service of summons. The IAC agreed with this substantive point, explicitly holding that the substituted service upon petitioner Ponio was invalid, as personal service was not shown to be impossible within a reasonable time. It also ruled that service upon the corporate petitioner was invalid, as summons was not served upon any of the officers enumerated under the Rules of Court.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to lift the order of default, which motion was grounded on lack of jurisdiction due to invalid service of summons, even though it was not accompanied by an affidavit of merit.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the decisions of the lower courts. The legal logic is clear: jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either by valid service of summons or voluntary appearance. The IAC correctly found the service of summons upon both petitioners to be invalid. Consequently, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners.
Given this fundamental jurisdictional defect, the order of default, the judgment by default, and all subsequent proceedings were void ab initio. When a motion to lift an order of default is based on the court’s lack of jurisdiction—the very root of the proceedings—the requirement for an accompanying affidavit of merit becomes unnecessary and inessential. An affidavit of merit is required to show a meritorious defense when seeking relief from a judgment on grounds within the court’s jurisdiction, such as excusable negligence. It is not a prerequisite when challenging the court’s fundamental authority to act. Therefore, the IAC erred in affirming the denial of the motion based solely on the absence of an affidavit. The Supreme Court ordered the trial court to admit the petitioners’ answer.