In Pedro T. Santos, Jr. v. PNOC Exploration Corporation, the Supreme Court clarified the rules on serving summons by publication, especially when a defendant’s location is unknown. The Court ruled that if personal service fails despite diligent efforts, serving summons via publication in a newspaper is valid, regardless of whether the action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. Additionally, the Court emphasized that a defendant’s voluntary appearance in court, such as filing a motion, submits them to the court’s jurisdiction, even if the initial service of summons was flawed. This decision ensures that cases can proceed even when defendants attempt to evade service, safeguarding the plaintiff’s right to seek legal recourse.

Vanishing Act: Can a Lawsuit Proceed When You Can’t Find the Defendant?

Pedro T. Santos, Jr., once a board member of PNOC Exploration Corporation, found himself on the receiving end of a lawsuit when he allegedly failed to pay the balance of a car loan. PNOC Exploration Corporation filed a complaint to recover P698,502.10 from Santos, but they hit a snag: Santos couldn’t be found at his last known address. This predicament forced PNOC to seek permission from the court to serve Santos with a summons by publication, meaning they would publish the notice of the lawsuit in a newspaper. After publication in Remate, when Santos failed to respond, the trial court allowed PNOC to present its evidence ex parte. However, Santos resurfaced, arguing that the service by publication was improper, and the court lacked jurisdiction over him. This set the stage for a legal battle over the nuances of service of summons and the extent of a court’s jurisdiction.

The central question was whether service by publication was appropriate in this type of case, specifically, an action in personam – a lawsuit directed against a specific person. Santos argued that service by publication should only be allowed in actions in rem, which deal with property rights. However, the Supreme Court disagreed. Building on the established precedent, the Court clarified that the Rules of Court explicitly allow service by publication in any action where the defendant’s whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained through diligent efforts. This clarification expanded the scope of service by publication, making it a viable option in a wider range of cases.

The Court examined Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court which provides:

SEC. 14. Service upon defendant whose identity or whereabouts are unknown. – In any action where the defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of court, be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation and in such places and for such times as the court may order.

This rule makes no distinction between the type of action, thereby encompassing actions in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. Further complicating matters, Santos challenged the validity of the affidavit of service, arguing that it should have been executed by the clerk of court. But the Supreme Court clarified that the rules only require an affidavit showing the deposit of the summons and order for publication in the post office, postage prepaid, directed to the defendant’s last known address.

The rules do not specify who must execute this affidavit. The court pointed out that while the trial court usually handles the mailing of court orders and processes, the responsibility for making the complementary service by registered mail falls on the party resorting to service by publication. Therefore, the affidavit submitted by PNOC was deemed sufficient.

Ultimately, the Court underscored that even if the service of summons was initially defective, Santos’ own actions cured any jurisdictional defect. When Santos filed the “Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and to Admit Attached Answer,” he made a voluntary appearance in the case. As explicitly stated in Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court:

SEC. 20. Voluntary appearance. – The defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.

By voluntarily participating in the proceedings, Santos submitted himself to the court’s jurisdiction, precluding any further challenge to the court’s authority over him. Finally, Santos contended that he was not given notice of the proceedings, but the Court highlighted that he failed to file his answer within the prescribed time. Even so, the records indicated that a copy of the September 11, 2003 order was mailed to Santos’s last known address but was unclaimed.

The Court reasoned that while a party declared in default is entitled to notice, the requirement becomes impractical when the party’s whereabouts are unknown. The law does not require the impossible. As such, the Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming that service by publication was proper, and the trial court had jurisdiction over Santos.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the trial court properly acquired jurisdiction over Pedro T. Santos, Jr., through service of summons by publication, and whether Santos was entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings.
When is service by publication allowed?	Service by publication is allowed when the defendant’s whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, as authorized by the court.
Does the rule on service by publication apply to actions in personam?	Yes, the rule on service by publication applies to any action, including actions in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem, when the defendant’s whereabouts are unknown.
Who should execute the affidavit of service by registered mail?	The rules do not specify who must execute the affidavit of service by registered mail; it simply requires proof of mailing to the defendant’s last known address.
What constitutes a voluntary appearance in court?	A voluntary appearance occurs when a defendant files a pleading or motion, such as a motion for reconsideration, submitting themselves to the court’s jurisdiction.
What is the effect of a voluntary appearance?	A defendant’s voluntary appearance is equivalent to service of summons, vesting the court with jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
Is a party entitled to notice if declared in default?	Yes, a party declared in default is entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings, but they may not participate in the trial.
What happens if the whereabouts of the defending party are unknown?	If the defending party’s whereabouts are unknown, the notice requirement does not apply, as the law does not require the impossible.

This case clarifies important aspects of procedural law, particularly concerning service of summons and court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court’s ruling provides guidance on how to proceed when defendants are difficult to locate and reinforces the principle that voluntary participation in a legal proceeding confers jurisdiction on the court, even if initial service was flawed.

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: PEDRO T. SANTOS, JR. VS. PNOC EXPLORATION CORPORATION, G.R. No. 170943, September 23, 2008