Facts
Plaintiffs filed a suit in personam for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident against Fr. Gerardo Maximo. At the time the suit was commenced (August 15, 1958), Fr. Maximo, a resident parish priest, was temporarily absent from the Philippines, having left on August 7, 1958. Summons was served on August 15, 1958, at the defendant’s residence (the parish church at Concepcion, Malabon, Rizal) through Fr. Arsenio Bautista, another priest in the same parish. Fr. Maximo returned in October 1958. The lower court declared him in default (September 20, 1958) and rendered a judgment by default on June 8, 1959. Maximo admittedly learned of the judgment on December 20, 1959. More than two years later, on February 20, 1962, and only after an alias writ of execution was issued and his house levied upon, Maximo filed a motion to annul the entire proceedings, arguing that summons was not duly served and the court lacked jurisdiction over his person because he was temporarily abroad.
Issues
- Whether summons in a suit in personam against a resident of the Philippines temporarily absent therefrom may be validly effected by substituted service under Section 8, Rule 14 (formerly Section 8, Rule 7) of the Rules of Court.
- Whether Section 18, Rule 14 (formerly Section 18, Rule 7), which provides for extraterritorial service on residents temporarily out of the Philippines, is the sole and exclusive method of service in such cases.
Ruling
WHEREFORE, the orders appealed from dated March 3, 1962 and March 24, 1962 are hereby affirmed. Costs against defendant-appellant. So ordered.
Essential Elements of Jurisprudence
The Supreme Court established the following controlling doctrine and legal principles:
- Jurisdiction over Absent Residents: In suits in personam, courts retain jurisdiction over domiciliaries of the state even when they are temporarily outside its territorial jurisdiction. The authority of a state over one of its citizens is not terminated by mere absence.
- Validity of Substituted Service (Section 8, Rule 14): Substituted service under Section 8, Rule 14 (formerly Section 8, Rule 7) is considered the normal method of service for a resident defendant, including one who is temporarily absent from the country. The term “defendant” in this provision includes any resident of the country, whether physically present or not.
- Requirements of Due Process: Substituted service on a temporarily absent resident is wholly adequate to meet the requirements of procedural due process. Due process is satisfied if the form of substituted service employed is reasonably calculated to give the absent party actual notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- Irrelevance of Actual Notice: The law presumes that the person of suitable age and discretion upon whom service was made will inform the defendant; therefore, it is immaterial that the defendant does not in fact receive actual notice for the service to be valid. A judgment in personam may result from non-personal service that may not become actual notice.
- Exclusivity of Section 18, Rule 14 (Extraterritorial Service): Section 18, Rule 14 (Residents temporarily out of the Philippines), which uses the word “may,” is not the sole and exclusive method for summoning a temporarily absent resident. Extraterritorial service (under Sections 17 and 18) is typically resorted to only if the defendant’s residence or place of business is unknown or if service cannot be successfully effected there under Section 8.
- Principle of Laches/Waiver: A defendant who supinely sat on the decision and deliberately disregarded its import for over two years after admittedly learning of the judgment, only moving to annul the proceedings when his property was threatened with levy, cannot obtain relief. Public policy demands that judgments become final, and long delay causes prejudice (e.g., difficulty in producing witnesses, dissipation of evidence).
Sample Q&A
Question: Paul files a suit in personam against Dennis, a resident of the Philippines, for damages. While Dennis is temporarily vacationing in Europe, Paul serves summons by leaving copies at Dennis’s residence with his wife, a person of suitable age and discretion, pursuant to Section 8, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. Dennis returns and claims the service was void, asserting that Section 18, Rule 14 (extraterritorial service by leave of court) was the only legally mandated method of obtaining jurisdiction while he was abroad. Is Dennis correct?
Answer: No, Dennis is incorrect. The substituted service effected pursuant to Section 8, Rule 14 is valid and sufficient to vest jurisdiction over Dennis, who is a resident temporarily absent from the country. Jurisdiction over a resident in a suit in personam is founded upon the principle that domicile creates amenability to suit, regardless of temporary absence. Substituted service is considered the normal method of service in such a scenario. Furthermore, this method satisfies the constitutional requirement of procedural due process because it is reasonably calculated to give notice. Section 18, Rule 14, which allows for extraterritorial service, is not the sole and exclusive method but merely an alternative mode, typically used only when service under Section 8 cannot be had. Moreover, if Dennis waited a lengthy period after learning of the judgment (as required by due process) before challenging the jurisdiction, he may be barred by laches from annulling the proceedings.
#MontalbanvMaximo #CivilProcedure #RemedialLaw #ServiceOfSummons #SubstitutedService #Jurisdiction #Rule14 #ActionInPersonam #DueProcessPH #SummonsPhilippineLaw #SupremeCourtPH #PhilippineJurisprudence #LegalEducationPH #BarReviewPH #LawStudentPH #FutureLawyerPH #LawSchoolPhilippines #PhilLaw #LegalProfessionLegalUpdates #LawDaily #KnowYourLaw #LegalKnowledge #LawyerLife #StudyMotivation #LegalTips #LawCommunity #PinoyLawyer #DailyGrind
Leave a Reply