LIBERTAD POBLETE, PETITIONER, VS. MANOTOK SERVICES, INC., RESPONDENT.

Poblete versus Manotok Services

The Case

This is an ejectment case that became a lesson in jurisdiction. Manotok Services, Incorporated sued Libertad Poblete to recover possession of a parcel of land in Tondo, Manila that it had leased to her, and to collect unpaid rentals. The case matters to every bar candidate because the Supreme Court did not decide the ejectment on its merits at all. It decided a threshold question: whether the trial court ever acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant through a valid substituted service of summons. The Court held that it did not, and that everything that followed was void for lack of due process.

Procedural History

Manotok Services filed the ejectment suit in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. Poblete moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over her person and over the subject matter, and the court found that the first summons had been improperly served by substituted service. Instead of dismissing, the court ordered that summons be served anew. The sheriff again resorted to substituted service, and when Poblete filed no answer, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to render judgment and decided in favor of Manotok Services. Poblete appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, which affirmed the decision but reduced the attorney's fees. She moved for reconsideration, and the Regional Trial Court denied it. She then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review.

Facts

Manotok Services leased to Poblete a parcel of land of 105 square meters on Avellana Street in Tondo, Manila, for one year, from the first of January 1999 to the thirty-first of December 1999. She fell into arrears for nine months within that year and continued to occupy the premises after the contract expired without paying rentals. As of the end of February 2001, her arrears, including interests and taxes, amounted to 102,916 pesos and 35 centavos. Demands to pay and to vacate went unheeded, the last demand being a letter sent in March 2001.

The plaintiff sued in October 2001. The first summons was left not at Poblete's residence but at the leased property, which she in turn was leasing to another person. The Metropolitan Trial Court itself ruled that this was improper substituted service, but ordered a new summons rather than dismissing the complaint.

The new summons was served in May 2003 at Poblete's residence in Las Piñas City. The sheriff's return stated that he went there once, that a certain Halili Poblete, said to be a relative residing thereat and a person of suitable age and discretion, told him the defendant had gone to Bataan on business, that she declined to receive the papers, and that he then left the summons and complaint in the defendant's mailbox in full view of that person. Poblete later claimed she never received the summons and complaint and was not informed of them. The trial court nonetheless treated her as in default for failure to answer, and rendered judgment ordering her to vacate, to pay rentals in arrears, attorney's fees, and costs.

Issues

• Whether or not there was a valid service of summons and complaint by substituted service, such that the Metropolitan Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
• Whether or not the initial failure to serve summons at a place where the defendant does not reside amounts to a lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, on personal service, provides:

Service of summons shall be made 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.

This is the general rule, and the Court stressed that substituted service is measured against it.

Section 7 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, on substituted service, provides:

If service in person cannot be made promptly, service may be effected by leaving the summons and copy of the complaint at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or by leaving them at the defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof.

This is the provision the sheriff invoked, and the Court found that its requirements were not strictly met.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in the negative. A trial court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant either through a valid service of summons or through voluntary appearance. Substituted service may be resorted to only when personal service cannot be made promptly, and because it is extraordinary and in derogation of the usual method, the proof of service must show that impossibility. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in Keister versus Navarro:

The impossibility of prompt service in person should be shown by stating the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the fact that such efforts failed. This statement should be made in the proof of service. This is necessary because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service.

From this the Court drew three requirements for the proof of service: it must indicate the impossibility of service within a reasonable time, specify the efforts exerted to locate the defendant, and state that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion residing at the address or in charge of the office. The sheriff's return failed on all counts. It showed a single attempt on one day, no effort to return when the defendant was expected home, and the papers simply left in the mailbox instead of being placed in the hands of the person present. The Court held that the failure to comply strictly with the requirements renders the service ineffective, and that the defect did not vest personal jurisdiction over Poblete in the trial court. Its judgment was therefore void and ineffectual for lack of due process.

On the second issue, the Court found it unnecessary to discuss, because the outcome of the first assigned error already disposed of the case.

Doctrine

First, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in a civil action is acquired either by valid service of summons or by voluntary appearance. Second, substituted service is extraordinary and may be used only when personal service cannot be made promptly, and the proof of service must state the efforts made to find the defendant and why they failed. Third, the sheriff must leave the papers with a person of suitable age and discretion residing at the residence, or with a competent person in charge of the office; merely leaving them in a mailbox is not compliance. Fourth, an ejectment action is an action in personam, so personal service of summons cannot be lightly regarded. Fifth, a defective substituted service invalidates all subsequent proceedings on jurisdictional grounds, and the judgment rendered is void for lack of due process.

Disposition

The petition for review was granted; the decisions of the Regional Trial Court and the Metropolitan Trial Court were nullified and set aside, and the Regional Trial Court was ordered to remand the records to the Metropolitan Trial Court for appropriate proceedings. Poblete won.

Remember This

Memorize the line that substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service, so the proof of service must show the efforts made to find the defendant and why they failed. Examiners use this case on jurisdiction over the person, on the requisites of substituted service, and on the void effect of a judgment rendered without valid summons.