The Supreme Court held that substituted service of summons was improperly executed in a petition for recognition of a foreign judgment because the respondent no longer resided at the address where service was attempted. This means that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) did not acquire jurisdiction over the respondent, rendering its decision void. The ruling underscores the strict requirements for serving summons to ensure a defendant’s right to due process, especially when their whereabouts are uncertain, emphasizing the need for proper procedures like publication or extraterritorial service.

Across Borders: Safeguarding Due Process in International Legal Actions

Express Padala (Italia) S.P.A., now BDO Remittance (Italia) S.P.A., sought to recognize a judgment from the Court of Turin, Italy, against Helen M. Ocampo for misappropriation. Ocampo, a former remittance processor for BDO Remittance in Italy, was convicted in absentia after pleading guilty to falsifying invoices. BDO Remittance then filed a petition in the Philippines to recognize the foreign judgment, aiming to cancel or restrict Ocampo’s Philippine passport.

The critical issue arose during the attempted service of summons. The sheriff tried to serve the summons at Ocampo’s alleged local address in Batangas but was informed that she and her family were residing in Italy. Despite this, the sheriff proceeded with substituted service by leaving the summons with Ocampo’s uncle, who was merely a caretaker of the property. This procedural misstep became the focal point of the Supreme Court’s decision, highlighting the importance of proper service of summons in ensuring due process.

The Supreme Court emphasized that personal service is the preferred method for serving summons, as stated in the Rules of Court:

Sec. 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.

However, if personal service is not feasible, the Rules of Court allow for substituted service under specific conditions. Substituted service requires leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence with a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein, or at the defendant’s office or regular place of business with a competent person in charge. In cases where the defendant’s whereabouts are unknown, service by publication may be permitted, but only after diligent inquiry and unsuccessful attempts at personal or substituted service.

The Court found that BDO Remittance failed to properly serve summons to Ocampo. The sheriff’s report clearly indicated that Ocampo no longer resided at the Batangas address, and BDO Remittance even acknowledged that her whereabouts in Italy were uncertain. The Supreme Court cited the case of Keister v. Navarro to underscore that substituted service is only valid if the summons is served at the defendant’s current residence or place of business:

Under the Rules, substituted service may be effect[ed] (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s dwelling house or 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 terms “dwelling house” or “residence” are generally held to refer to the time of service, hence it is not sufficient “to leave the copy at defendant’s former dwelling house, residence, or place of abode, as the case may be, after his removal therefrom.” They refer to the place where the person named in the summons is living at the time when the service is made, even though he may be temporarily out of the country at the time. Similarly, the terms “office” or “regular place of business” refer to the office or place of business of defendant at the time of service. Note that the rule designates the persons to whom copies of the process may be left. The rule presupposes that such a relation of confidence exists between the person with whom the copy is left and the defendant and, therefore, assumes that such person will deliver the process to defendant or in some way give him notice thereof.

Because Ocampo was no longer a resident of the address where substituted service was attempted, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over her person. This lack of jurisdiction rendered the RTC’s decision recognizing the foreign judgment void.

The Supreme Court clarified that BDO Remittance was not without recourse, as the Rules of Court provide for service by publication and extraterritorial service when a defendant’s whereabouts are unknown. However, these methods require leave of court and diligent efforts to locate the defendant. In conclusion, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of proper service of summons as a fundamental aspect of due process. Without valid service, the court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant, and any judgment rendered is not binding. This principle ensures that individuals have the opportunity to be heard and defend themselves against claims made against them, regardless of their location.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the substituted service of summons was validly executed on Helen M. Ocampo, who was residing in Italy at the time the summons was served at her former address in the Philippines. The Supreme Court determined that the substituted service was invalid because Ocampo no longer resided at the address where the summons was served.
What is substituted service of summons?	Substituted service is a method of serving summons when personal service is not possible. It involves leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence with a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein, or at the defendant’s office or regular place of business with a competent person in charge.
When can service by publication be used?	Service by publication can be used when the defendant’s whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry. This method requires a written motion for leave of court, supported by an affidavit, setting forth the grounds for the application.
What happens if the summons is not properly served?	If the summons is not properly served, the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Any judgment rendered against the defendant in such a case is considered void.
What is the significance of due process in serving summons?	Due process requires that a defendant be given proper notice of a legal action against them and an opportunity to be heard. Valid service of summons is a vital component of due process, ensuring that the defendant is aware of the case and can present a defense.
What options does BDO Remittance have now?	BDO Remittance can pursue service of summons by publication or extraterritorial service, as allowed by the Rules of Court. These methods require leave of court and proof of diligent efforts to locate Ocampo.
What did the Court of Appeals decide in this case?	The Court of Appeals set aside the RTC Decision, ruling that the substituted service was improper and the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over Ocampo. The appellate court revoked the order to cancel or restrict Ocampo’s Philippine passport.
What was the original ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)?	The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a Decision in favor of BDO Remittance, recognizing as valid and binding in the Philippines the Court of Turin Decision. It also ordered the DFA to cancel or restrict Ocampo’s Philippine passport until she had served her sentence.

This case underscores the critical importance of adhering to the procedural rules for serving summons, particularly when dealing with parties residing abroad. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that proper service is essential for a court to acquire jurisdiction and ensure due process. The ruling serves as a reminder to legal practitioners to diligently follow the rules and exhaust all available means to properly notify defendants of legal actions against them.

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: EXPRESS PADALA (ITALIA) S.P.A. VS. HELEN M. OCAMPO, G.R. No. 202505, September 06, 2017