Republic of the Philippines vs. Domingo

When the defendant is the Republic of the Philippines, service of summons must be effected on the Solicitor General; service upon a regional office of an unincorporated government agency is insufficient to vest the trial court with jurisdiction over the State.

Alberto A. Domingo entered into seven lease contracts with the DPWH Region III for the use of his construction equipment for emergency lahar control projects from April to September 1992. After the projects were completed, the DPWH Region III failed to pay the unpaid rentals amounting to ₱6,320,163.05 despite repeated demands.

• The Contracts: Domingo entered into seven lease contracts with DPWH Region III for lahar control projects from April to September 1992. The unpaid rentals amounted to ₱6,320,163.05.
• The RTC Case: Domingo filed a Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages against DPWH Region III. Summons was served on Nora Cortez, Clerk III of the DPWH Region III. DPWH Region III failed to file a responsive pleading and was declared in default. The RTC rendered judgment in favor of Domingo, awarding the principal sum, 6% legal interest, and attorney's fees.
• Execution and Annulment: A Writ of Execution was issued. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the Court of Appeals, arguing lack of jurisdiction over the Republic due to improper service of summons.

• Proper Service of Summons: Petitioner argued that under Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, service of summons on the Republic must be made on the Solicitor General. Service on the DPWH regional office is insufficient because the DPWH is merely an agent of the Republic, which is the real party in interest.
• State Not Bound by Agent Errors: Petitioner maintained that the State is not bound by the errors or mistakes of its agents, specifically the regional office's failure to forward the summons to the OSG.
• Quantum Meruit: Petitioner contended that respondent can only recover on the government contracts on a quantum meruit basis.

• Regional Office as Part of the Department: Respondent argued that the DPWH Region III is part of the DPWH itself; a suit against the regional office is a suit against the department and the Republic. Service on the regional office is effectively service on the department.
• Estoppel: Respondent countered that the Republic is estopped from questioning the trial court's jurisdiction because in two other civil actions filed against DPWH Region III, the OSG entered its appearance, thereby recognizing the validity of service upon the regional office.

• Service of Summons: Whether service of summons upon the DPWH Region III, instead of the Office of the Solicitor General, validly vests the trial court with jurisdiction over the Republic of the Philippines.
• Estoppel: Whether the Republic is estopped from questioning the trial court's jurisdiction based on the OSG's appearance in other unrelated cases.

• Service of Summons: Jurisdiction over the Republic was not acquired. Section 13, Rule 14 mandates service on the Solicitor General when the defendant is the Republic. The DPWH and its regional office are mere agents of the Republic, which is the real party in interest. It is the plaintiff's duty to implead the proper defendant and cause service of summons on the officer mandated by law; failure to do so renders the proceedings void.
• Estoppel: The Republic is not estopped from questioning jurisdiction. The OSG's appearance in other civil cases involving different transactions has no bearing on the present case. Such appearance merely indicated notice and voluntary appearance in those specific cases, which did not occur here.

• Service of Summons on the Republic — When the defendant is the Republic of the Philippines, service of summons may be effected on the Solicitor General. Service upon a regional office of an unincorporated government agency is insufficient to vest the trial court with jurisdiction over the State.
• Suit Against Unincorporated Government Agency — A suit against an unincorporated government agency, which possesses no juridical personality of its own, is a suit against the agency's principal, the State. Consequently, summons must be served on the Solicitor General.

• "Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired through coercive process, generally by the service of summons issued by the court, or through the defendant's voluntary appearance or submission to the court."
• "It is the duty of the plaintiff to implead all the necessary or indispensable parties for the complete determination of the action."

• Heirs of Mamerto Manguiat v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 150768 and 160176, August 20, 2008, 562 SCRA 422 — Followed. The Court applied the ruling that service of summons on an unincorporated government agency (Bureau of Telecommunications) was insufficient; summons should have been served on the Solicitor General because the agency is part of the Republic.
• Republic of the Philippines v. "G" Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 141241, November 22, 2005, 475 SCRA 608 — Cited for the definition of lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment.
• Philippine Rock Industries, Inc. v. Board of Liquidators, 259 Phil. 650 (1989) — Cited for the doctrine that a suit against an unincorporated government agency is a suit against the State.

• Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court — Governs service of summons upon public corporations, specifically providing that when the defendant is the Republic of the Philippines, service may be effected on the Solicitor General. Applied to invalidate the service of summons on the DPWH regional office.
• Sections 1, 2, and 7, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court — Govern annulment of judgments by the Court of Appeals on grounds of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction, and the effect of a judgment of annulment. Applied to set aside the RTC decision without prejudice to refiling.

Renato C. Corona (CJ), Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. del Castillo, Martin S. Villarama, Jr.