Facts
Petitioner Leah Palma filed an action for damages against the Philippine Heart Center and several medical personnel, including private respondent Psyche Elena Agudo, a resident nurse, alleging professional negligence for the unauthorized removal of her right ovary. Alias summons was served upon Agudo through substituted service at her residence, accepted and signed by her husband, Alfredo Agudo, because the process server’s return stated Agudo was “out of the country”. Agudo’s counsel filed a Notice of Appearance and two subsequent Motions for Extension of Time to File Answer, confirming that Agudo was abroad (in Ireland) and that the draft answer needed her clarification/verification. Thereafter, Agudo filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing the RTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over her person because, as a resident temporarily out of the country, service should have been exclusively by extraterritorial service (publication or personal service abroad) pursuant to Section 16, Rule 14, and that substituted service was invalid. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the motion, leading Palma to file a Petition for Certiorari.
Issues
- Whether substituted service of summons upon a defendant who is a resident of the Philippines but temporarily out of the country is valid.
- Whether Section 16, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court limits the mode of service of summons upon a defendant-resident who is temporarily outside the country exclusively to extraterritorial service under Section 15 of the same Rule.
- Whether the private respondent voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the RTC when her counsel filed two motions for extension of time to file an Answer.
Ruling
“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Orders dated May 7, 2004 and July 21, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 24, are hereby SET ASIDE. Private respondent is DIRECTED to file her Answer within the reglementary period from receipt of this decision. SO ORDERED.”
Essential Elements of Jurisprudence
- Service Modes for Resident Temporarily Absent (Rule 14, Sec. 16): Section 16, Rule 14, which governs service upon residents temporarily out of the Philippines, is not mandatory because it uses the words “may” and “also“. Therefore, other methods of service allowed under the Rules may be resorted to, including substituted service (Section 7), personal service outside the country (with leave of court), service by publication (with leave of court), or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient.
- Substituted Service as the Normal Method: Substituted service of summons under Section 7, Rule 14, is the normal method of service that confers jurisdiction on the court over a resident defendant who is temporarily absent from the Philippines in a suit in personam.
- Validity of Substituted Service (Rule 14, Sec. 7): Substituted service is valid if the copies are left at the defendant’s residence with a person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein. A dwelling, house, or residence refers to the place where the person is living at the time service is made, even if the defendant is temporarily out of the country. Service upon the private respondent’s husband (who was presumably of suitable age and discretion) at their residence was valid.
- Acquisition of Jurisdiction: The trial court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant either by the service of summons or by the latter’s voluntary appearance and submission to the authority of the court.
- Voluntary Submission/Affirmative Relief: The filing of motions seeking affirmative relief, such as motions for additional time to file answer, is considered voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court. By invoking the RTC’s jurisdiction to secure affirmative relief (extensions of time), the private respondent voluntarily submitted to the court’s authority and is estopped from later asserting lack of jurisdiction.
Sample Q&A
Question: Dr. Agudo, a Filipino citizen residing in Iloilo, was temporarily in Ireland when a civil suit for damages was filed against her. Summons was served at her home upon her husband, who accepted it. Dr. Agudo’s lawyer subsequently filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer before filing a Motion to Dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction due to improper service. Did the trial court acquire jurisdiction over Dr. Agudo? Explain, citing the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court.
Answer: Yes, the trial court acquired jurisdiction over Dr. Agudo, both through valid substituted service and through voluntary appearance.
- Substituted Service was Valid: Section 16, Rule 14, governing residents temporarily out of the country, is not exclusive. The Supreme Court held that substituted service under Section 7, Rule 14, is the normal method of service for such defendants. Service was validly effected upon Dr. Agudo’s husband at her residence, as he was a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein. The residence remains valid even if the defendant is temporarily absent.
- Voluntary Submission: Jurisdiction was also acquired when Dr. Agudo, through counsel, filed the Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer. The court gains jurisdiction not only by service of summons but also by the defendant’s voluntary appearance and submission. Filing a motion seeking affirmative relief, such as an extension of time to file an answer, constitutes voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction, pursuant to established jurisprudence applying the principle found in Section 20, Rule 14 (Voluntary Appearance).
PalmaVsGalvez #GRNo165273 #SubstitutedService #ServiceOfSummons #Rule14 #JurisdictionOverThePerson #VoluntarySubmission #VoluntaryAppearance #ResidentTemporarilyAbsent #AffirmativeRelief #ExtraterritorialService #RemedialLaw #CivilProcedure #TortsAndDamages #MedicalMalpractice #PhilippineLaw #SupremeCourtPH #JurisprudencePH #CaseDigest #LawStudentPH #BarExamsPH #PhilippineLawyer #LawPH #LegalPH #LawyerPH #Atty #LawFirmPH #LawSchool #LegalUpdatePH #LawStudents #StudyLaw #LawIsLife
Leave a Reply