Express Padala (Italia) S.P.A. vs. Ocampo

Substituted service of summons under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is improper when the defendant no longer resides at the address served and is actually residing abroad with unknown whereabouts; in such cases, service by publication under Section 14, Rule 14 is required after diligent inquiry, and failure to validly serve summons results in the court's lack of jurisdiction over the defendant's person, rendering any judgment against her void.

BDO Remittance (Italia) S.P.A., formerly Express Padala (Italia) S.P.A., is a corporation with principal office in Italy that hired Helen M. Ocampo as a remittance processor in September 2002. In February 2004, she was dismissed for allegedly misappropriating €24,035.60 by falsifying invoices of money payments relating to customers' money transfer orders from February to December 2003. BDO Remittance subsequently filed a criminal complaint against her before the Court of Turin, Italy, where she pleaded guilty and was convicted on April 13, 2005, sentenced to six months imprisonment and a penalty of €300.00, but granted the benefit of suspension of the enforcement of sentence.

• BDO Remittance (Italia) S.P.A., formerly Express Padala (Italia) S.P.A., is a corporation with principal office in Italy that hired respondent Helen M. Ocampo as a remittance processor in September 2002.
• In February 2004, BDO Remittance dismissed Ocampo for allegedly misappropriating the sum of €24,035.60 by falsifying invoices of money payments relating to customers' money transfer orders from February to December 2003.
• BDO Remittance filed a criminal complaint against Ocampo before the Court of Turin, Italy, where she pleaded guilty to the offense charged.
• On April 13, 2005, the Court of Turin convicted Ocampo and sentenced her to suffer imprisonment of six months and a penalty of €300.00, but granted her the benefit of suspension of the enforcement of sentence on account of her guilty plea.
• On September 22, 2008, BDO Remittance filed a petition for recognition of foreign judgment with the RTC of Mandaluyong City, praying for the recognition of the Court of Turin Decision and the cancellation or restriction of Ocampo's Philippine passport by the Department of Foreign Affairs.
• On November 21, 2008, the sheriff attempted to personally serve the summons on Ocampo in her local address alleged in the petition located in San Bernardo Village, Darasa, Tanauan, Batangas, but the address was incomplete.
• The sheriff sought the help of barangay officials, who pointed him to the house belonging to Ocampo's father, Nicasio Ocampo.
• Victor P. Macahia, uncle of Ocampo and present occupant, informed the sheriff that Ocampo and her family were already in Italy, and that he was only a caretaker of the house.
• The sheriff then proceeded to serve the summons upon Macahia as substituted service.
• After Ocampo failed to file an answer, the RTC granted BDO Remittance's motion to declare her in default and allowed the presentation of evidence ex parte.
• On September 14, 2009, the RTC rendered a Decision recognizing as valid and binding in the Philippines the Court of Turin Decision and ordered the DFA to cancel or restrict Ocampo's Philippine passport and not to allow its renewal until she has served her sentence.
• On February 11, 2010, Ocampo's mother, Laureana Macahia, received a copy of the RTC Decision and forwarded it to Ocampo in Italy.
• Not having been represented by counsel before the RTC, the period of appeal lapsed, and Ocampo later engaged counsel who filed a petition for certiorari with the CA on April 12, 2010.
• Ocampo presented a decree from the High Court of Turin dated June 29, 2010 stating that her criminal liability has been extinguished.

• BDO Remittance argued that Ocampo availed of the wrong remedy by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of appealing the RTC decision.
• It contended that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in granting the petition for recognition of foreign judgment and ordering the DFA to restrict or cancel Ocampo's passport.
• It maintained that substituted service was valid and that the RTC properly acquired jurisdiction over Ocampo's person.

• Ocampo argued that the RTC acted in grave abuse of discretion in recognizing and ordering the enforcement of the Court of Turin Decision.
• She explained that BDO Remittance's insistence on enforcement was misleading because, by availing of the benefit of suspension of the enforcement, the penalty of confinement will not be enforced upon her.
• She presented a decree from the High Court of Turin dated June 29, 2010 stating that her criminal liability has been extinguished.
• She contended that she was not properly served with summons, as she was already residing in Italy and her whereabouts were unknown, thus substituted service at her former family residence was improper.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of respondent Ocampo due to invalid substituted service of summons.
  • Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy for Ocampo.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in recognizing a foreign criminal judgment and ordering the cancellation or restriction of Ocampo's Philippine passport.

• Procedural:
  • The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that substituted service was improperly resorted to. The Court held that substituted service presupposes that the place where the summons is being served is the defendant's current residence or office/regular place of business. Since the sheriff's report categorically stated that Ocampo and her family were already in Italy, and even BDO Remittance admitted in its petition that Ocampo's "whereabouts in Italy are no longer certain" and used "last known [address]" instead of "resident of," Ocampo was no longer a resident of the address where the summons was served. Therefore, substituted service upon her uncle as caretaker of the old family residence was ineffective, and the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over her person. The Court noted that when the defendant's whereabouts are unknown, service by publication under Section 14, Rule 14 should be resorted to after diligent inquiry and with leave of court.
• Substantive:
  • The Court did not reach the substantive issues regarding the recognition of the foreign judgment and the passport cancellation order because the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over Ocampo's person. The Court noted that these issues can be resolved by the trial court upon acquiring jurisdiction over Ocampo and giving her an opportunity to be heard. The Court refused to consider Ocampo's claim that her criminal liability has been extinguished based on the June 29, 2010 decree from the High Court of Turin because the document has not been authenticated in accordance with the rules on evidence and the Court is not a trier of facts.

• Substituted Service of Summons — Defined as service effected by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's dwelling house or residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or by leaving the copies at defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. The terms refer to the place where the person is living at the time of service, not a former residence. Applied in this case to invalidate the service made upon an uncle at a family residence where the defendant no longer lived and had relocated abroad.
• Service of Summons by Publication — An extraordinary mode of service allowed when the defendant's whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, requiring prior resort to personal and substituted service, proof of ineffectiveness, and a written motion for leave of court supported by affidavit. Applied in this case to emphasize that this was the proper mode given Ocampo's unknown whereabouts in Italy.
• Jurisdiction over the Person — Acquired through valid service of summons or the defendant's voluntary appearance; without valid service, the court acquires no jurisdiction over the defendant's person and any judgment rendered is void. Applied to declare the RTC decision void for lack of jurisdiction over Ocampo.

• "Substituted service presupposes that the place where the summons is being served is the defendant's current residence or office/regular place of business. Thus, where the defendant neither resides nor holds office in the address stated in the summons, substituted service cannot be resorted to."
• "The terms 'dwelling house' or 'residence' are generally held to refer to the time of service, hence it is not sufficient 'to leave the copy at defendant's former dwelling house, residence, or place of abode, as the case may be, after his removal therefrom.' They refer to the place where the person named in the summons is living at the time when the service is made, even though he may be temporarily out of the country at the time."
• "The service of summons is a vital and indispensable ingredient of a defendant's constitutional right to due process. As a rule, if a defendant has not been validly summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over his person, and a judgment rendered against him is void."

• Keister v. Navarro — Cited for the definition and requirements of substituted service, emphasizing that "dwelling house" or "residence" refers to the place where the person is living at the time of service, not a former residence.
• Palma v. Galvez — Distinguished by the Court because it involved service of summons to a person who is temporarily out of the country, whereas in this case, Ocampo's sojourn in Italy could not be classified as temporary as she already resided there.
• Pua v. Deyto — Cited for the requirement of diligent inquiry before resorting to service by publication when the whereabouts of the defendant are unknown.
• Santos, Jr. v. PNOC Exploration Corporation — Cited in Pua v. Deyto regarding the diligence requirement for service by publication.
• Pacaña-Gonzales v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the principle that modes of service of summons must be strictly followed to afford the defendant an opportunity to be heard.
• Chu v. Mach Asia Trading Corporation — Cited for the rule that if a defendant has not been validly summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over his person, and a judgment rendered against him is void.

• Rule 14, Section 6 of the Rules of Court — Provides that whenever practicable, summons shall be served by handing a copy to the defendant in person.
• Rule 14, Section 7 of the Rules of Court — Provides for substituted service by leaving copies at the defendant's residence or office with a competent person.
• Rule 14, Section 14 of the Rules of Court — Provides for service of summons by publication when the defendant's whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry.
• Rule 14, Section 15 of the Rules of Court — Cited regarding extraterritorial service as an alternative mode when the defendant is a foreign resident.
• Rule 14, Section 17 of the Rules of Court — Requires a written motion for leave of court supported by affidavit to effect service by publication.