ANG vs CHINATRUST COMMERCIAL BANK CORP.

GR No. 200693, April 18, 2016

Facts:

Chinatrust filed a money claim against Nation Petroleum Corporation (Nation)

and petitioners before the RTC Makati. Consequently, the RTC issued summonses to
the defendants. The summonses indicated Nation’s address as “Ground Floor, BPI
Building, Rizal Street, Candelaria Quezon and/or 39th Floor, Yuchengco Tower, RCBC
Plaza, 6819 Ayala Avenue corner Sen. Gil J. Puyat Avenue, Makati City.” It is also the
indicated the address of the individual defendants. The Process Server of the RTC
served the copy of summons together with complaint, its annexes, writ, order and bond,
upon defendants at the said address. One of the petitioners, Ricky Ang, personally
acknowledged receipt thereof. But with respect to others, the process server resorted to
substituted service. The process server served the summons to Charlotte Magpayo,
Administrative Assistant of Nation performing the functions of a property supply
custodian.

Issue:

Whether or not the substituted service of summons was valid.

Held:

No. Sec. 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that in case of substituted
service, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the
defendant’s 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. In the instant case, the substituted
service through Magpayo was invalid. A “competent person in charge” refers to one
managing the office or the business, such as the president, manager, or the officer-in-
charge. The rule presupposes the existence of a relation of confidence between such
person and the defendant. Magpayo is a Property Custodian at Nation Petroleum. Her
position denotes limited responsibility to office equipment, inventory, and supplies.
Chinatrust did not submit any evidence that Magpayo’s job description includes the
management of Nation Petroleum’s Makati office. Hence, Magpayo cannot be
considered as the competent person in charge of the defendants’ business or office.