Robinson vs. Miralles

Substituted service of summons upon a subdivision security guard is valid and confers jurisdiction over the defendant when the defendant's own instructions to the guard prevented personal service, and the defendant failed to controvert the sheriff's return or deny receiving the summons.

The case arose from a complaint for sum of money involving a loan obligation of US$20,054.00 evidenced by a Memorandum of Agreement dated January 12, 2000. The dispute centered on the validity of service of summons when the defendant could not be personally served due to her own preventive instructions to the subdivision security guard.

• On August 25, 2000, respondent Celita B. Miralles filed a complaint for sum of money against petitioner Remelita M. Robinson before the RTC, Branch 274, Parañaque City, docketed as Civil Case No. 00-0372, alleging that petitioner borrowed US$20,054.00 as evidenced by a Memorandum of Agreement executed on January 12, 2000.
• Summons was initially served at petitioner's given address, but per return of service dated March 5, 2001, Sheriff Maximo Potente reported that petitioner no longer resides at such address.
• On July 20, 2001, the trial court issued an alias summons to be served at No. 19 Baguio St., Alabang Hills, Muntinlupa City, petitioner's new address.
• Sheriff Potente attempted to serve the summons twice but was refused entry by the subdivision security guard, A.H. Geroche, who alleged that petitioner had given strict instructions not to let anybody proceed to her house if she is not around.
• Despite the sheriff's explanation that he could leave the summons with any person of suitable age and discretion residing in the same house, the security guard still refused entry.
• The sheriff eventually left copies of the summons and complaint with the security guard, who refused to affix his signature on the original copy.
• Respondent filed a motion to declare petitioner in default for failure to file an answer seasonably.
• On February 28, 2003, the trial court granted the motion, declared petitioner in default, and allowed respondent to present evidence ex parte.
• On June 20, 2003, the trial court rendered judgment by default ordering petitioner to pay US$20,054.00 as unpaid obligation plus 3% monthly interest from May 2000, Php100,000.00 moral damages, Php50,000.00 attorney's fees plus Php1,500.00 per appearance, and costs of suit.
• On September 26, 2003, petitioner filed a petition for relief from judgment, claiming that summons was improperly served, thus the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over her person.
• Petitioner failed to controvert the sheriff's declaration regarding the service of summons and did not deny having received the summons through the security guard.

• Petitioner contends that service of summons upon the subdivision security guard does not comply with Section 7, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure because the security guard is not related to her nor staying at her residence.
• The security guard is not duly authorized to receive summons for the residents of the village.
• The substituted service of summons is invalid, and consequently, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over her person, rendering all proceedings void.

• Respondent argued that substituted service was validly effected upon petitioner through the security guard after reasonable efforts to locate her and effect personal service failed.
• Petitioner cannot claim lack of jurisdiction when her own instructions to the security guard prevented the sheriff from entering the subdivision to serve the summons.
• The petition for relief was properly denied by the trial court.

• Procedural: Whether the trial court correctly ruled that substituted service of summons upon petitioner has been validly effected under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
• Substantive Issues: N/A

• Procedural: The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Resolutions of the RTC. The Court held that while statutory requirements for substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully, and fully, and any substituted service other than that authorized by the Rules is considered ineffective, the Court frowns upon an overly strict application of the Rules. It is the spirit, rather than the letter of the procedural rules, that governs. The sheriff's return established that personal service was impossible because petitioner gave strict instructions to the security guard not to allow anyone to proceed to her residence when she is out. Petitioner failed to controvert the sheriff's declaration and did not deny receiving the summons through the security guard. Considering her strict instruction to the security guard, she must bear its consequences. Thus, the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over her person.
• Substantive: N/A

• Substituted Service of Summons — A mode of service extraordinary in character that requires strict compliance with statutory requirements: (a) personal service within a reasonable time was impossible; (b) efforts were exerted to locate the party; and (c) summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion residing at the party's residence or upon a competent person in charge of the party's office or place of business. However, overly strict application is frowned upon; the spirit rather than the letter of the rules governs.
• Jurisdiction over the Person — Acquired through valid service of summons or waiver; any judgment without such service, in the absence of valid waiver, is null and void.
• Consequences of One's Own Acts — A party who, by her own instructions or actions, prevents personal service of summons and makes it impossible for the sheriff to effect service, cannot later invoke the invalidity of such service but must bear the consequences of her own preventive acts.

• "Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him or her."
• "In a civil action, service of summons is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant."
• "Any judgment without such service, in the absence of a valid waiver, is null and void."
• "Under our procedural rules, personal service is generally preferred over substituted service, the latter mode of service being a method extraordinary in character."
• "We have ruled that the statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully, and fully and any substituted service other than that authorized by the Rules is considered ineffective."
• "However, we frown upon an overly strict application of the Rules. It is the spirit, rather than the letter of the procedural rules, that governs."
• "Considering her strict instruction to the security guard, she must bear its consequences."

• Romualdez-Licaros v. Licaros — Cited for the definition of summons as a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him or her.
• Gomez v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the principle that service of summons is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
• Umandap v. Sabio, Jr. — Cited for the rule that any judgment without service of summons, absent valid waiver, is null and void, and for the requirements of substituted service.
• Osminal v. Castillo — Cited for the provisions of Sections 6 and 7, Rule 14 regarding personal and substituted service of summons.
• Ancheta v. Ancheta — Cited for the principle that personal service is generally preferred over substituted service, the latter being extraordinary in character.
• Keister v. Navarro — Cited for the preference for personal service over substituted service and the need for strict compliance with substituted service requirements.
• Laus v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the requisites of valid substituted service.
• Samartino v. Ruiz — Cited for the rule that failure to comply with substituted service requirements invalidates all subsequent proceedings on jurisdictional grounds.
• Paluwagan ng Bayan Savings Bank v. King — Cited for the requirement that statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully, and fully.
• Arevalo v. Quilatan — Cited for the strict compliance requirement for substituted service.
• Venturanza v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the nullity of judgment without valid service of summons.
• Madrigal v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the jurisdictional defect caused by failure to comply with substituted service requirements.

• Section 6, Rule 14, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides for service in person on defendant by handing a copy to the defendant or tendering it if refused.
• Section 7, Rule 14, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides for substituted service by leaving copies at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or at the defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof, when personal service is impossible for justifiable causes.