QUIRINO LEE, PETITIONER, V. HON. BERNELITO R. FERNANDEZ, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY BRANCH 97 AND SIO TIAT KING, RESPONDENTS.

Quirino Lee versus Fernandez

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by Quirino Lee against Judge Bernelito R. Fernandez of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 97, and against Sio Tiat King, the plaintiff in the court below. Lee asks the Supreme Court to annul two orders of the trial court: the order of February 18, 2011, which set aside an earlier order dismissing the civil complaint against Lee for lack of jurisdiction over his person, and the order of March 8, 2012, which denied his motion for reconsideration. The case matters because it gathers in one place the rules every litigator must know: when a defective notice of hearing may be excused as substantial compliance, when a motion for reconsideration is timely filed, and whether a trial court may issue fresh summons instead of dismissing the complaint when the first service of summons was defective.

Procedural History

Sio Tiat King filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of title, recovery of physical possession of property, and damages, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction, before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 97, against several defendants including Quirino Lee and a certain Co An. Lee and Co An entered a special appearance and moved to dismiss on several grounds, among them that the court had not acquired jurisdiction over their persons because summons was not validly served. On August 13, 2010, the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint as to Lee and Co An for lack of jurisdiction over their persons, declaring the other grounds moot and academic. Sio Tiat King moved for reconsideration and clarification. On February 18, 2011, the trial court granted that motion, set aside its earlier dismissal, and ordered that summons be issued and served on Lee and Co An, with the summons for Lee, a resident of Candon City, referred to the Clerk of Court acting as ex officio sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Candon City. Lee's motion for reconsideration was denied on March 8, 2012. Lee then went directly to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65, assigning grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Facts

On March 16, 2009, Sio Tiat King sued several defendants, including Quirino Lee and Co An, in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 97, to nullify a title, recover possession of property, and claim damages. On March 25, 2009, Lee and Co An, appearing specially, moved to dismiss. Among their grounds were that the court had no jurisdiction over their persons, that the complaint had a defective verification and certification against forum shopping, that it failed to state a cause of action, that the plaintiff was barred by laches and estoppel, and that the plaintiff was guilty of forum shopping. They argued that the service of summons undertaken by the plaintiff's counsel was not valid.

On August 13, 2010, the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint as to Lee and Co An, finding no proof of service by the Regional Trial Court of Candon City and no jurisdiction over their persons. Sio Tiat King received a copy of that order through counsel on August 24, 2010, and on September 6, 2010 filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification. A copy of the motion was stamped as received by the office of the counsel of Lee and Co An on September 8, 2010, but the notice of hearing in the motion was addressed to the branch clerk of court rather than to the parties.

On February 18, 2011, the trial court granted the motion, set aside the August 13, 2010 dismissal, and directed that summons be issued and served anew on Lee and Co An. Lee's motion for reconsideration was denied on March 8, 2012, prompting his petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court gravely abused its discretion in acting on and granting the motion for reconsideration despite its defective notice of hearing, which was addressed to the branch clerk instead of the parties.
• Whether or not the motion for reconsideration was filed within the fifteen-day reglementary period.
• Whether or not the order of August 13, 2010 had already become final and executory when it was set aside.
• Whether or not the trial court gravely abused its discretion in setting aside the dismissal and ordering the issuance of new summons to Lee and Co An.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 4. Hearing of motion. Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant. Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice.

This fixes the three-day notice requirement that Lee claimed was violated.

Section 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 5. Notice of hearing. The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten days after the filing of the motion.

This is the provision the motion violated when its notice was addressed to the clerk rather than to the parties.

Section 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 6. Proof of service necessary. No written motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service thereof.

This is the requirement Lee invoked when he complained that the motion carried no proof of service.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the defective notice of hearing was cured. Although the notice was addressed to the clerk of court instead of the parties, a copy of the motion was furnished the counsel of Lee and Co An, as shown by the stamp of receipt on September 8, 2010, so the adverse parties were in fact notified. The Court applied its ruling in City of Dumaguete versus Philippine Ports Authority, quoting with approval that there is substantial compliance with the rules if a copy of the motion for reconsideration was furnished to the counsel of the adverse party.

On the second issue, because the motion substantially complied with the rules, it was not a mere pro forma motion, and its filing on September 6, 2010, thirteen days after counsel received the August 13, 2010 order on August 24, 2010, was within the fifteen-day reglementary period.

On the third issue, since the motion for reconsideration was timely filed, the August 13, 2010 order had not yet become final and executory when the trial court set it aside.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the trial court was authorized to issue another summons to acquire jurisdiction over Lee's person after discovering that the initial service was defective. It relied on Bank of the Philippine Islands versus Santiago, quoting that a case should not be dismissed simply because an original summons was wrongfully served, and that an alias summons can be actually served on the defendant. The Court added that it is not pertinent whether the summons is designated as original or alias, so long as it adequately served its purpose and complied with the Rules.

Doctrine

A defective notice of hearing addressed to the clerk of court instead of the parties is cured, and the motion is deemed to have substantially complied with Sections 4, 5, and 6 of Rule 15, when a copy of the motion is furnished to the counsel of the adverse party, who is thereby actually notified. A motion that substantially complies is not pro forma, and it tolls the running of the reglementary period; a motion for reconsideration filed within fifteen days from receipt of the order assailed is timely, and the order does not become final and executory. Finally, a case should not be dismissed simply because the original summons was wrongfully served; the trial court may issue new or alias summons, and jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired once the new summons is validly served.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari, leaving standing the trial court's orders setting aside the dismissal and directing the service of new summons on Quirino Lee and Co An.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a case should not be dismissed simply because an original summons was wrongfully served, and a defective notice of hearing is cured when a copy of the motion reaches the adverse party's counsel. Examiners use this case on Rule 15 notice of hearing, on the timeliness of motions for reconsideration, and on the remedy of alias summons.