The Supreme Court ruled that a court lacks jurisdiction over a defendant if the summons was improperly served. This means any judgment against that defendant is void. Practically, this protects individuals and corporations from being held liable in court when they haven’t been properly notified of the lawsuit against them. This case underscores the importance of following the strict rules for serving summons to ensure due process and fair legal proceedings. Without proper service, the entire case can be dismissed, highlighting the critical role of procedural law in safeguarding rights.

Serving Justice: How Defective Summons Can Derail a Lawsuit

Interlink Movie Houses, Inc. filed a complaint against Expressions Stationery Shop, Inc. for unpaid rentals. The central issue arose when the summons, the official notification of the lawsuit, was served on someone not authorized to receive it on behalf of Expressions. The question became: Did this improper service invalidate the entire legal proceeding, depriving the court of jurisdiction to hear the case?

The cornerstone of Philippine legal procedure is acquiring jurisdiction over a defendant. Jurisdiction is obtained through proper service of summons or voluntary submission to the court’s authority. Service of summons ensures defendants are aware of the legal action against them, a fundamental right. As the Supreme Court emphasized in Spouses Belen v. Judge Chavez:

In the absence of service or when the service of summons upon the person of the defendant is defective, the court acquires no jurisdiction over his person, and a judgment rendered against him is null and void.

When a case involves a claim for money and damages (an action in personam), the court must secure jurisdiction through personal or substituted service. Personal service requires delivering the summons directly to the defendant, as stated in the Rules of Court, Rule 14, Section 6:

Personal service is effected by handling a copy of the summons to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him.

If the defendant is a corporation, the Rules of Court, Rule 14, Section 11, specifies who can receive the summons:

Service may be made on its president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel.

The Supreme Court has clarified that this list is exclusive. In Cathay Metal Corporation v. Laguna West Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc., the Court stressed the importance of serving the correct individuals. Serving someone outside this list, such as a regular employee, does not give the court jurisdiction. In this case, the summons was served on a secretary who was not authorized to receive it, rendering the service invalid.

Even if we consider the service as substituted service, it still falls short. Substituted service is allowed only when personal service is impossible after several attempts. The sheriff must make at least three attempts on different dates to serve the summons personally. As highlighted in Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, these attempts must be within a reasonable period, and the sheriff must explain why personal service failed. In the present case, only one attempt was made, and no valid reason was given for not serving the president directly, making the substituted service also defective.

The respondents filed an omnibus motion, seeking to recall the order of default. Generally, seeking affirmative relief from a court implies submitting to its jurisdiction. However, this rule has an exception: a special appearance. A special appearance is when a party challenges the court’s jurisdiction without submitting to it. The Supreme Court in Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Spouses Dy clarified that the party must unequivocally object to the court’s jurisdiction; otherwise, they are deemed to have submitted. Here, the respondents explicitly stated they were making a special appearance to contest jurisdiction due to improper service. Thus, their motion did not constitute a voluntary submission to the court’s authority.

Because there was no valid service of summons and no voluntary submission by the respondents, the trial court never gained jurisdiction over them. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, emphasizing the fundamental importance of proper service in ensuring due process and the validity of legal proceedings.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the respondents given the alleged defective service of summons. The Supreme Court addressed whether service upon an unauthorized individual or insufficient attempts at personal service could confer jurisdiction.
What is service of summons?	Service of summons is the formal delivery of a notification to a defendant that a lawsuit has been filed against them. It is a critical step in ensuring due process and allowing the defendant an opportunity to respond.
Who can receive a summons for a corporation?	According to the Rules of Court, a summons for a corporation can be served on its president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel. Service on any other individual is generally considered invalid.
What is substituted service?	Substituted service is an alternative method of serving a summons when personal service is not possible. It involves leaving a copy of the summons at the defendant’s residence or office with a person of suitable age and discretion.
How many attempts are required for substituted service?	The sheriff must make at least three attempts, preferably on different dates, to personally serve the summons before resorting to substituted service. The sheriff must also document the reasons why personal service was not possible.
What is a special appearance?	A special appearance is when a party appears in court for the sole purpose of challenging the court’s jurisdiction over them. It allows a party to contest the court’s authority without submitting to its jurisdiction.
What happens if the summons is improperly served?	If the summons is improperly served, the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the defendant, and any judgment rendered against them is void. This emphasizes the critical importance of following proper procedures for service of summons.
Can a party waive the issue of improper service?	Yes, a party can waive the issue of improper service by voluntarily submitting to the court’s jurisdiction. However, if a party makes a special appearance to challenge jurisdiction, they are not deemed to have waived the issue.

This case reaffirms the strict requirements for serving summons in the Philippines, highlighting the critical role of proper procedure in ensuring fairness and due process. It serves as a reminder that shortcuts in service can invalidate entire legal proceedings.

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: INTERLINK MOVIE HOUSES, INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 203298, January 17, 2018