Oaminal vs. Castillo

A trial court acquires jurisdiction over a defendant who actually receives summons and submits to the court's authority by seeking affirmative relief, thereby curing any defect in the manner of service.

Petitioner Henry Oaminal filed a collection complaint for liquidated damages and attorney's fees against respondents Pablito and Guia Castillo with the RTC of Ozamis City. Summons and the complaint were served on respondents' secretary, Ester Fraginal, at their place of business. Respondents did not deny actual receipt but contested the manner of substituted service, simultaneously filing motions to dismiss based on improper venue and litis pendentia, as well as an answer with counterclaim. The trial court initially admitted the answer but subsequently reversed itself, declared respondents in default, and rendered judgment ex parte in favor of petitioner.

• The Collection Suit: On March 9, 2000, petitioner filed a complaint for collection of liquidated damages and attorney's fees against respondents in the RTC of Ozamis City.
• Service of Summons: On May 30, 2000, the sheriff served the summons and complaint on respondents' secretary, Ester Fraginal, at their place of business in Quezon City. The Sheriff's Return did not state that prior efforts were made to personally serve the summons on respondents, nor did it state that personal service was impossible within a reasonable time.
• Respondents' Pleadings: On June 6, 2000, respondents filed an Urgent Motion to Declare Service of Summons Improper, admitting receipt by the secretary but challenging the substituted service's validity. On November 9, 2000, they filed an Omnibus Motion Ad Cautelam to Admit Motion to Dismiss and Answer, a Motion to Dismiss based on improper venue and litis pendentia, and an Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim.
• The RTC's Reversal: On November 16, 2000, the RTC admitted the answer, citing that cases should not be terminated on technicalities. However, on May 22, 2001, the RTC reversed its stance, declared respondents in default for filing the answer late, and denied the motion to admit. On August 23, 2001, the RTC rendered a judgment by default ordering respondents to pay liquidated damages and attorney's fees.
• The CA Petition: Instead of appealing, respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to improper service of summons. The CA granted the petition, nullified the RTC decision, and dismissed the case without prejudice.

• Jurisdiction over Respondents: Petitioner argued that the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction because respondents actually received the summons and never denied the secretary's competence to receive it. Furthermore, respondents submitted to the court's jurisdiction by filing motions seeking affirmative relief.
• Propriety of Certiorari: Petitioner maintained that the CA erred in entertaining the certiorari petition because an appeal was available, making the extraordinary remedy improper.

• Improper Service of Summons: Respondents insisted that substituted service was improperly effected because the Sheriff's Return failed to show that personal service was attempted first or was impossible within a reasonable time.
• Lack of Jurisdiction: Respondents argued that the improper service meant the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over their persons, rendering its default judgment void.

• Jurisdiction over the Person: Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over respondents despite alleged defects in the substituted service of summons.
• Propriety of Certiorari: Whether the Court of Appeals properly entertained a Petition for Certiorari when the remedy of appeal was available to respondents.
• Validity of Default Judgment: Whether the trial court properly declared respondents in default and rendered judgment by default.

• Jurisdiction over the Person: Jurisdiction was validly acquired. Actual receipt of the summons satisfies the requirements of procedural due process, even if the manner of substituted service was defective, because respondents never denied actual receipt. Moreover, any defect in the service of summons was cured when respondents filed motions seeking affirmative relief, such as the motion to admit answer and the motion to dismiss based on improper venue and litis pendentia. By invoking the trial court's jurisdiction to secure affirmative relief, respondents are estopped from repudiating that same authority.
• Propriety of Certiorari: The Petition for Certiorari was improper because the trial court's judgment was a final decision appealable to the Supreme Court. However, the petition was treated as a Petition for Review under Rule 45 in the interest of substantial justice, as it was filed within the reglementary period for appeal, averred errors of judgment, and raised significant issues such as the unconscionable award of liquidated damages without a hearing.
• Validity of Default Judgment: The default order and judgment were annulled as erroneous. The trial court had previously admitted the answer in the interest of justice, and declaring respondents in default six months later was imprudent. Furthermore, default judgments that emphasize procedural niceties over substantial justice are disfavored, especially when the answer has already been filed, albeit late.

• Voluntary Appearance and Submission to Jurisdiction — The filing of motions seeking affirmative relief—such as a motion to admit answer, a motion for additional time to file answer, or a motion to dismiss on grounds other than lack of jurisdiction—constitutes voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction, curing any defect in the service of summons. A party cannot invoke a court's jurisdiction to secure affirmative relief and later repudiate that same authority after failing to obtain the desired relief.
• Substituted Service of Summons — For substituted service to be valid, the following must be established: (a) personal service within a reasonable time was impossible; (b) efforts were exerted to locate the party; and (c) the summons was served upon a person of suitable age and discretion or a competent person in charge. These facts must be stated in the proof of service or officer's return. However, actual receipt of the summons satisfies procedural due process even if the formal requirements of substituted service are not strictly met.
• Certiorari Treated as Appeal — A petition for certiorari may be treated as a petition for review under Rule 45 when (1) filed within the reglementary period for appeal, (2) errors of judgment are averred, and (3) sufficient reason justifies the relaxation of the rules in the interest of substantial justice.

• "Having invoked the trial court's jurisdiction to secure affirmative relief, respondents cannot -- after failing to obtain the relief prayed for -- repudiate the very same authority they have invoked."
• "In civil cases, 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 former."
• "As much as possible, suits should be decided on the merits and not on technicalities."

• Montalban v. Maximo, 22 SCRA 1077 (1968) — Cited for the proposition that the constitutional requirement of due process is satisfied when service of summons reasonably accomplishes the end of giving notice, satisfying traditional notions of fair play.
• Indiana Aerospace University v. Commission on Higher Education, 356 SCRA 367 (2001) — Applied to hold that declaring defendants in default serves no practical purpose when their answer has already been filed, even if filed after the 15-day period but before being declared in default.
• Boticano v. Chu Jr., 148 SCRA 541 (1987) — Followed to emphasize that actual receipt of summons satisfies due process requirements, even if the defendant contests the manner of service.

• Section 6, Rule 14, Rules of Court — Governs service in person on the defendant, requiring the summons to be handed to the defendant in person or tendered if refused. Applied to emphasize that personal service is preferred over substituted service.
• Section 7, Rule 14, Rules of Court — Governs substituted service, allowing service at the defendant's residence or office if personal service is not practicable within a reasonable time. Applied to determine the formal requirements for substituted service, which the sheriff failed to observe in the return.
• Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs the special civil action of certiorari, requiring the absence of any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Applied to note that the availability of appeal precludes certiorari, though the rules may be relaxed.

Puno (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio Morales, JJ., concur. Corona, J., on leave.