Galedo, Abegail P.

32. MACASAET VS. CO

PETITIONER : ALLEN A. MACASAET,

RESPONDENT : FRANCISCO R. CO, JR
DATE : June 5, 2013
PONENTE : Bersamin, J.
TOPIC : Jurisdiction over the parties

FACTS:

 Francisco Co sued Abante Tonite, a daily tabloid of general circulation claiming damages
because of an alleged libelous article that petitioner published.
 The case was raffled to RTC Branch 51 wherein the sheriff tried to issue summons to defendants.
Defendants was then out of the office and unavailable. When he returned in the afternoon,
petitioner were still out of the office. He then resorted to substituted service of summons.
 Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint alleging lack of jurisdiction over their person because
of an invalid and ineffective service of summons. They contend that the sheriff made no prior
attempt to serve the summons personally on each of them in accordance with Sec. 6 & 7, Rule 14
of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:

WON the court validly acquire jurisdiction over the petitioner.

HELD:

 Jurisdiction over the person/jurisdiction in personam is the power of the court to render a
personal judgment to subject parties in a particular action to judgment and other rulings
rendered in the action.
 It is an element of due process that is essential in all actions as well as civil and criminal
except in actions in rem or quasi in rem.
 Jurisdiction over the defendant in an action in rem or quasi in rem is not required and the
court requires jurisdiction over an action as long as it acquires jurisdiction over the rest
that is the subject matter of the action. Purpose of summons is not acquisition of
jurisdiction over the defendant but mainly to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due
process.
 When a case is an action in rem / quasi in rem, Sec. 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court,
Philippine courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide a case because they have
jurisdiction over the res and jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant is
not essential.
 Extraterritorial service of summons can be made upon the defendant and such is not for
purpose of vesting court with jurisdiction but for purposes of complying with requirements
of fair play or due process so that defendant will be informed of pending action against
him.