SPS. DOMINGO M. BELEN AND DOMINGA P. BELEN v. PABLO R. CHAVEZ, GR No. 175334, 2008-03-26
Facts:
The instant petition originated from the action for the
enforcement of a foreign judgment against herein petitioners, spouses Domingo
and Dominga Belen, filed by private respondent spouses Silvestre and Patricia
Pacleb.
The complaint alleged that private respondents secured a
judgment by default in Case No. NC021205 rendered by a certain Judge John W.
Green of the Superior Court of the State of California. The judgment ordered
petitioners to pay private respondents the amount of $56,204.69 representing loan
repayment and share in the profits plus interest and costs of suit. The summons
was served on petitioners' address in San Gregorio, Alaminos, Laguna, as was
alleged in the complaint, and received by a certain Marcelo M. Belen.
On 5 December 2000, Atty. Reynaldo Alcantara entered his
appearance as counsel for petitioners
Atty. Alcantara subsequently filed an answer, alleging that
contrary to private respondents' averment, petitioners were actually residents
of California, USA. The answer also claimed that petitioners' liability had
been extinguished via a release of abstract judgment issued in the same
collection case.
In view of petitioners' failure to attend the scheduled
pre-trial conference, the RTC ordered the ex parte presentation of evidence for
private respondents
On 16 March 2001, before the scheduled ex parte presentation
of evidence, Atty. Alcantara filed a motion to dismiss, citing the judgment of
dismissal issued by the Superior Court of the State of California, which
allegedly dismissed Case No. NC021205. The RTC held in abeyance the ex parte
presentation of evidence of private respondents and the resolution of Atty.
Alcantara's motion pending the submission of a copy of the judgment of
dismissal.
For failure to present a copy of the alleged judgment of
dismissal, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss. Through a motion, Atty.
Alcantara sought the reinstatement of the motion to dismiss by attaching a copy
of the said foreign judgment.
For their part, private respondents filed a motion for the
amendment of the complaint. The amended complaint attached to the motion
averred that private respondents were constrained to withdraw their complaint
against petitioners from the California court because of the prohibitive cost
of litigation, which withdrawal was favorably considered by said court. The
amended complaint prayed for judgment ordering petitioners to satisfy their
obligation to private respondents in the amount of P2,810,234.50.
The answer to the amended complaint raised the defenses of
lack of cause of action, res judicata and lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter and over the persons of the defendants since the amended complaint had
raised an entirely new cause of action which should have been ventilated in
another complaint.
Issues:
whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the persons of
petitioners through either the proper service of summons or the appearance of
the late Atty. Alcantara on behalf of petitioners
Ruling:
On one hand, courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs
upon the filing of the complaint. On the other hand, jurisdiction over the
defendants in a civil case is acquired either through the service of summons
upon them or through their voluntary appearance in court and their submission
to its authority. As a rule, if defendants have not been summoned, the court
acquires no jurisdiction over their person, and a judgment rendered against
them is null and void. To be bound by a decision, a party should first be subject
to the court's jurisdiction.
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case.
Jurisdiction over the person of a resident defendant who does not voluntarily
appear in court can be acquired by personal service of summons as provided
under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. If he cannot be personally
served with summons within a reasonable time, substituted service may be made
in accordance with Section 8 of said Rule. If he is temporarily out of the
country, any of the... following modes of service may be resorted to: (1)
substituted service set forth in Section 8; (2) personal service outside the
country, with leave of court; (3) service by publication, also with leave of
court; or (4) any other manner the court may deem sufficient.
However, in an action in personam wherein the defendant is a
non-resident who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the
court, personal service of summons within the state is essential to the
acquisition of jurisdiction over her person. This method of service is possible
if such defendant is physically present in the country. If he is not found
therein, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and therefore
cannot validly try and decide the case against him. An exception was laid down
in Gemperle v. Schenker wherein a non-resident was served with summons through
his wife, who was a resident of the Philippines and who was his representative
and attorney-in-fact in a prior civil case filed by him; moreover, the second
case was a mere offshoot of the first case.
On the other hand, in a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem,
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer
jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over
the res. Nonetheless, summons must be served... upon the defendant not for the
purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the
due process requirements. Thus, where the defendant is a non-resident who is
not found in the Philippines and (1) the action affects the personal status of
the plaintiff; (2) the action relates to, or the subject matter of which is
property in the Philippines in which the defendant has or claims a lien or
interest; (3) the action seeks the exclusion of the defendant from any interest
in the property located in the Philippines; or (4) the property of the
defendant has been attached in the Philippines-- service of summons may be
effected by (a) personal service out of the country, with leave of court; (b)
publication, also with leave of court; or (c) any other manner the court may
deem sufficient.
The action filed against petitioners, prior to the amendment
of the complaint, is for the enforcement of a foreign judgment in a complaint
for breach of contract whereby petitioners were ordered to pay private
respondents the monetary award. It is in the nature of an action in personam
because private respondents are suing to enforce their personal rights under
said judgment.
Applying the foregoing rules on the service of summons to
the instant case, in an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court
is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case through personal
service or, if this is not possible and he cannot be personally served,
substituted service as provided in Rule 14, Sections 6-7.
In an action strictly in personam, personal service on the
defendant is the preferred mode of service, that is, by handing a copy of the
summons to the defendant in person. If the defendant, for justifiable reasons,
cannot be served with the summons within a reasonable period, then substituted
service can be resorted to. While substituted service of summons is permitted,
"it is extraordinary in character and in derogation of the usual method of
service."
If defendant cannot be served with summons because he is
temporarily abroad, but otherwise he is a Philippine resident, service of
summons may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines under Rule
14, Section 15. In all of these cases, it should be noted, defendant must be a
resident of the Philippines, otherwise an action in personam cannot be brought
because jurisdiction over his person is essential to make a binding decision.
However, the records of the case reveal that herein
petitioners have been permanent residents of California, U.S.A. since the filing
of the action up to the present. From the time Atty. Alcantara filed an answer
purportedly at the instance of petitioners' relatives, it has been consistently
maintained that petitioners were not physically present in the Philippines.
That being the case, the service of summons on petitioners'
purported address in San Gregorio, Alaminos, Laguna was defective and did not
serve to vest in court jurisdiction over their persons.
Through certain acts, Atty. Alcantara was impliedly
authorized by petitioners to appear on their behalf. For instance, in support
of the motion to dismiss the complaint, Atty. Alcantara attached thereto a duly
authenticated copy of the judgment of dismissal and a photocopy of the
identification page of petitioner Domingo Belen's U.S. passport. These
documents could have been supplied only by petitioners, indicating that they
have consented to the appearance of Atty. Alcantara on their behalf. In sum,
petitioners voluntarily submitted themselves through Atty. Alcantara to the
jurisdiction of the RTC.
Comments
Post a Comment