The Supreme Court held that a Regional Trial Court (RTC) did not acquire jurisdiction over a defendant due to an invalid substituted service of summons. This means the RTC’s decision against the defendant was null and void. The ruling underscores the importance of strict compliance with the Rules of Court regarding service of summons to ensure due process and protect individuals from judgments made without proper notification. In essence, this case reinforces the principle that courts must meticulously follow procedural rules to fairly exercise authority over a person.

When a Maid’s Refusal Meant No Jurisdiction: Examining Substituted Service

The case revolves around a complaint for specific performance filed by Constantino Pascual against Lourdes Pascual. The critical issue arose when the process server attempted to serve summons to Lourdes at her residence. The initial attempts failed, with the process server reporting that Lourdes was not home and her maid refused to accept the summons. Subsequent attempts, even with barangay officials, were unsuccessful. Ultimately, the process server resorted to substituted service, leaving the summons with the maid, who again refused to sign.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared Lourdes in default for failing to file a responsive pleading and eventually ruled in favor of Constantino. Lourdes then challenged the RTC’s decision, arguing that she was never validly served with summons and, therefore, the court never acquired jurisdiction over her person. The Court of Appeals (CA) agreed with Lourdes, nullifying the RTC’s decision. The Supreme Court then reviewed the CA’s decision to determine whether the substituted service of summons was valid.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of proper service of summons in acquiring jurisdiction over a defendant in an action in personam. The Rules of Court prioritize personal service, and substituted service is only allowed when personal service is impossible. Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 outline the procedures:

Section 6. Service in person on defendant. – Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him.

Section 7. Substituted service. – If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendant’s office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof.

The Court referred to the Manotoc v. Court of Appeals case, which detailed the requirements for valid substituted service. These include: (1) impossibility of prompt personal service, (2) specific details in the return, (3) service to a person of suitable age and discretion, and (4) if at the office, a competent person in charge. The Court found that the process server’s returns failed to demonstrate impossibility of prompt personal service.

The returns did not specify the efforts made to personally serve the summons or the reasons for the failure. The Supreme Court found the returns inadequate. The Court then quoted Jose v. Boyon.  

The Return of Summons shows no effort was actually exerted and no positive step taken by either the process server or petitioners to locate and serve the summons personally on respondents. At best, the Return merely states the alleged whereabouts of respondents without indicating that such information was verified from a person who had knowledge thereof. Certainly, without specifying the details of the attendant circumstances or of the efforts exerted to serve the summons, a general statement that such efforts were made will not suffice for purposes of complying with the rules of substituted service of summons.

Because of these deficiencies, the Court concluded that the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over Lourdes. Without proper jurisdiction, the RTC’s decision was null and void. The court said “When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the court’s jurisdiction or when there is no valid service of summons, ‘any judgment of the court which has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is null and void.’”

The Court then addressed the argument of the petitioner that the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court was an improper remedy because the decision of the RTC had already attained finality.

The Court said, “The said doctrine, however, is applicable only when the judgment or decision is valid. In the present case, as earlier pronounced, and as ruled by the CA, the judgment in question is void, the RTC not having acquired jurisdiction over the person of the respondent. It is a well-entrenched principle that a void judgment can never become final.”

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The main issue was whether the substituted service of summons on the respondent was valid, thereby giving the trial court jurisdiction over her person. The Supreme Court ruled it was not valid.
What is substituted service of summons?	Substituted service is a method of serving summons when personal service is not possible after diligent attempts, by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence or office with a person of suitable age and discretion or a competent person in charge.
What are the requirements for valid substituted service?	The requirements include the impossibility of prompt personal service, specific details in the return of summons, and leaving the summons with a person of suitable age and discretion or a competent person in charge.
Why was the substituted service in this case considered invalid?	The process server’s returns failed to demonstrate that diligent efforts were made to personally serve the summons, and the returns lacked specific details of the attempts made and the reasons for their failure.
What happens when a court does not have jurisdiction over a defendant?	If a court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant, any judgment rendered by the court is null and void and has no legal effect.
What is the importance of the process server’s return of summons?	The process server’s return of summons is crucial as it provides the court with evidence of how the summons was served and whether the service complied with the rules, thus establishing the court’s jurisdiction.
Can a void judgment become final and executory?	No, a void judgment can never become final and executory. Because a void judgment does not exist, it can be assailed anytime.
What is the effect of a maid refusing to receive the summons?	If the maid refuses to receive the summons, it could signify that a valid substituted service was not made. The process server should be able to convince the maid to receive it.

This case emphasizes the necessity of strict adherence to the rules governing service of summons to safeguard due process and ensure the validity of court proceedings. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that any deviation from these rules can result in a lack of jurisdiction and render the court’s judgment null and void, thereby protecting individuals from judgments made without proper notification.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Constantino A. Pascual vs Lourdes S. Pascual, G.R. No. 171916, December 04, 2009