G.R. No. L-70661 April 9, 1987
FILMERCO COMMERCIAL CO., INC., SPOUSES JAIME and ANA MARIA MIGUEL, petitioners, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT; HON. TEOFILO GUADIZ, JR., in his official capacity as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 147, Makati Metro Manila; PIOQUINTO VILLAPANA, in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff of the Office of the Provincial Sheriff, National Capital Judicial Region, Makati, Metro Manila; and BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Filmerco Commercial Co., Inc. obtained loans from respondent Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), with petitioners spouses Jaime and Ana Maria Miguel acting as sureties. Upon default, BPI filed a complaint for sum of money. The sheriff’s return indicated that initial summons sent to the petitioners’ given address at 31 Sta. Escolastica Street, Pasay City, was returned unserved as the defendants had vacated the premises. The trial court then issued alias summons. According to a subsequent sheriff’s return, summons for the spouses were served at No. 18 Yuchengco Drive, Alabang, Muntinlupa, through a certain Mrs. Angle Morger, a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein. The summons for the corporation was returned unserved. The petitioners were declared in default, and a decision was rendered against them. They later moved to set aside the judgment, arguing the court never acquired jurisdiction due to invalid service of summons. The trial court and the Intermediate Appellate Court denied their petitions.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners through the substituted service of summons.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the petitioners. For the individual spouses, substituted service under Section 8, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court requires that service be made at the defendant’s dwelling house or residence. The petitioners sufficiently established, through affidavits, that they were not residents of the Alabang address at the time of service and that Mrs. Morger was not authorized to receive summons for them. The sheriff’s return failed to detail the earnest efforts to locate the defendants personally before resorting to substituted service, rendering the substituted service invalid. Consequently, the judgment against the spouses is void. For the corporation, jurisdiction over a domestic corporation is acquired by service upon its officers as enumerated in Section 13, Rule 14. The sheriff’s return explicitly stated the summons for Filmerco “could not be served,” with no attempt at service on any corporate officer shown. Therefore, the court never acquired jurisdiction over the corporation. The Court emphasized that allegations of the petitioners’ deliberate concealment to evade obligations, while possibly true, do not justify upholding a judgment rendered without jurisdiction. The proper recourse for BPI was to ensure valid service or utilize proceedings in rem or quasi in rem. The decision was set aside and the case remanded for proper service of summons and trial.