CIVIL PROCEDURE

BY: BONGAT, MA. CARLEEN S.

CASE DIGESTS 2018073111

RULE 14
SUMMONS – RULE 14 CASE DIGESTS

Case: Ellice-Agro Industrial Corp. v. Young, G.R. No. 174077, November 21, 2012

FACTS:
• On July 24, 1995, respondents and petitioner, represented by its alleged corporate secretary and attorney-in-fact, Guia
G. Domingo (Domingo), entered into a Contract to Sell, wherein EAIC agreed to sell to the respondents a 30,000 square-
meter portion of a parcel of land located in Lutucan, Sariaya, in consideration of One Million and Fifty Thousand
(P1,050,000.00) Pesos.
• Respondents paid EAIC, through Domingo, the amount of PHP545,000.00 as partial payment for the property. Despite
such payment, EAIC failed to deliver the owner’s duplicate certificate of title and the corresponding deed of sale to
respondents.
• On November 14, 1996, respondents filed a Complaint for Specific Performance against EAIC and Domingo with the RTC.
• The initial attempt to serve the summons and a copy of the complaint on EAIC, through Domingo, on Rizal Street, Sariaya,
Quezon was unsuccessful as they cannot be located in the said address. However, on the second attempt wherein said
summons was served in the residence of Domingo, it was successful.
• During the pre-trial conference, Domingo nor her counsel appeared allowing the respondents to present its evidence ex
parte. Following the said presentation of evidence ex parte, the RTC rendered its Decision, ordering EAIC to deliver the
owner’s duplicate certificate of title and to execute a deed of sale in favor of respondents.
• Said RTC Decision was made final and executory. However, on April 24, 2001, EAIC initiated a Petition for Annulment of
Judgment with the CA and stated that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over its person and further stated that the
service of summons through Domingo did not bind the company as Domingo was not its President, Manager, Secretary,
Cashier, Agent or Director.
• CA dismissed the petition. Hence, this case.

ISSUE/S: W/N the service of summons to the petitioner corporation, through Domingo, is valid.

RULING:
No, it is not valid. In its ruling, the Court stated that it is a settled rule that jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired
either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant’s voluntary appearance in court. When the defendant does not
voluntarily submit to the court’s jurisdiction or when there is no valid service of summons, any judgment of the court which has
no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is null and void. The purpose of the summons is not only to acquire jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant, but also to give notice to the defendant that an action has been commenced against it and to
afford it an opportunity to be heard on the claim made against it. In this case, the applicable rule on service of summons upon a
private domestic corporation is provided under Sec. 13, Rule 14, wherein it states that if the defendant is a corporation organized
under Philippine laws, service may be made only to its president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors. The
purpose is to render it reasonably certain that the corporation will receive prompt and proper notice in an action against it or to
insure that the summons be served on a representative so integrated with the corporation that such person will know what to do
with the legal papers served on him.
In the present case, Domingo was not EAIC’s president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or director, and in view of her
lack of authority to properly represent EAIC, the Court is constrained to rule that there was no valid service of summons binding
on EAIC. EAIC did not also voluntarily appear in the prior case (where judgment was deemed final and executory) therefore, the
RTC did not validly acquire jurisdiction over the person of EAIC. Hence, such judgment is null and void.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS (RULE 14 - SUMMONS) FOR JD4201 UNDER ATTY. JEDREK NG
BY: BONGAT, MA. CARLEEN S. – 2018073111
Case: NM Rothschild & Sons [Aus] Ltd. V. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co., G.R. No. 175799, November 28, 2011

FACTS:
• On August 30, 2005, respondent filed with the Makati City RTC a Complaint against petitioner praying for a judgment
declaring the loan and hedging contracts between them as void for being contrary to Art. 2018 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines.
• Upon respondent’s motion, the trial court authorized respondent’s counsel to personally bring the summons and
Complaint to the Philippine Consulate General in Sydney, Australia to effect service of summons on the petitioner.
• On October 20, 2005, petitioner filed a Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss praying for the dismissal of the
Complaint on several grounds, most especially, on the ground that the court has not acquired jurisdiction over the person
of the petitioner due to the defective and improper service of summons.
• The RTC dismissed the Motion to Dismiss and stated that there was a proper service of summons through the DFA.
Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the same court which was also dismissed.
• On April 3, 2006, petitioner sought redress via a Petition for Certiorari with the CA, alleging that the trial court committed
a grave abuse of discretion in denying its Motion to Dismiss. The CA also dismissed the same.
• Petitioner now insists that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in not finding that it had not validly
acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner.
• Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/S: W/N the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.

RULING:
Yes, the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.
In its ruling, the Court stated that extraterritorial service of summons only applies if the action in a suit is either in rem or
quasi in rem. The Complaint in this case at bar is an action to declare the loan and Hedging Contracts between the parties void,
which is considered as an action in personam. The facts of the case also stated that petitioner does not reside and is not found in
the Philippines, therefore, the Philippine courts cannot try any case against it because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction
over its person unless it voluntarily appears in court. However, by application of Sec. 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court which states
that “the defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to
dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary
appearance”, petitioner is considered to have validly submitted to the jurisdiction of said court when it sought affirmative reliefs.
The Court further stated that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and
after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate, or question the same jurisdiction.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS (RULE 14 - SUMMONS) FOR JD4201 UNDER ATTY. JEDREK NG
BY: BONGAT, MA. CARLEEN S. – 2018073111
Case: Sansio v. Sps. Mogul, G.R. No. 177007, July 14, 2009

FACTS:
• Petitioner is a domestic corporation that is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling appliances and other
related products. On July 12, 2000, petitioner filed a Complaint for Sum of Money and Damages against the respondents
with the MeTC of City of Manila.
• On October 3, 2000, upon request of the petitioner, the process server of the MeTC of Manila served the
summons and the copy of the Complaint on respondents at the courtroom of MeTC of Manila Branch 24, where
respondents and their counsel were waiting.
• The summons referred the same to their counsel and the latter took hold of the same and the copy of the complaint and
read the same. Thereafter, he pointed out to the process server that the summons and the copy of the complaint should
be served only in the address stated in both documents.
• The counsel gave back the documents to the process server and advised his clients not to receive and sign the same.
Thereafter, the process server issued a Return on Service of Summons declaring that the same is deemed “unreceived”.
• Petitioner then filed a Motion to Declare [Respondents] in Default, averring that the summons and the copy of the
complaint were validly served to respondents and the latter just refused to accept for no valid reason at all.
• MeTC granted petitioner’s motion and declared respondents in default. Upon appeal to the RTC by respondents, the said
court affirmed the same ruling.
• However, upon appeal to the CA, the said court granted it and reversed the decision of the lower courts.
• Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/S: W/N the service of summons to respondents in the courtroom is valid.

RULING:
Yes, the service of summons to respondents is valid. In its ruling, the Court stated that it is well-established that summons
upon a respondent or a defendant must be served by handing a copy thereof to him in person or, if he refuses to receive it, by
tendering it to him. Personal service of summons most effectively ensures that the notice desired under the constitutional
requirement of due process is accomplished. The essence of personal service is the handing or tendering of a copy of the summons
to the defendant himself, wherever he may be found; that is, wherever he may be, provided he is in the Philippines.
In the present case, the Court finds that there was already a valid service of summons in the persons of respondents. This
took place when the process server presented the summons and the copy of the complaint to respondents at the courtroom of
MeTC of Manila Branch 24. The latter immediately referred the matter to their counsel, who was present with them in the said
courtroom. At the express direction of his clients, the counsel took the summons and the copy of the complaint, read the same,
and thereby informed himself of the contents of the said documents. Thus, jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents was
already acquired by the MeTC of Manila, Branch 25. The subsequent act of the counsel of respondents of returning the summons
and the copy of the complaint to the process server was no longer material. It should be noted that service of summons in the
persons of the defendants is generally preferred over substituted service.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS (RULE 14 - SUMMONS) FOR JD4201 UNDER ATTY. JEDREK NG
BY: BONGAT, MA. CARLEEN S. – 2018073111
Case: UCPB v. Ongpin, G.R. No. 146593, October 26, 2001

FACTS:
• On November 17, 1994, PAI entered into a credit agreement with petitioner for the amount of US$500,000.00.
Respondent who was then the controlling stockholder of PAI, signed as surety for PAI’s obligations.
• When PAI failed to pay its obligations, petitioner filed a complaint against respondent with the Makati City RTC, Branch
133 to enforce respondent’s obligation as surety of PAI. Petitioner sought the issuance of preliminary attachment through
the said complaint.
• Meanwhile, respondent, through his counsel, moved to dismiss the complaint and to quash the writ of attachment on
the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the respondent, as the summons prepared remained unserved as
of November 17, 1995. The trial court denied the urgent motion, as well as respondent’s MR.
• Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. During the pendency of such petition, petitioner filed a Motion
for Leave to Serve Summons Through Publication with the trial court on May 27, 1996.
• On November 27, 1997, the deputy sheriff of the court and the petitioner’s counsel, went to the PILTEL Office in Makati
City to serve the summons on respondent, who was then the chairman of PILTEL. They failed to serve the summons on
that day.
• The next day, they went to the same office again, where they met a certain Anne Morallo who represented herself as the
authorized representative of respondent to receive court processes on his behalf. The sheriff then served the summons
to Morallo but when Morallo forwarded it to respondent’s counsel, the latter refused to receive it.
• After serving the summons to Morallo, the sheriff then implemented the writ of attachment. Then, on December 4, 1997,
respondent filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion to Dismiss, amongst others. The trial court denied the motion and
respondent’s MR.
• Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari with application for a TRO and Writ of Preliminary Injunction with the CA.
The said court granted the petition and set aside the order of the trial court, on the ground that PILTEL was not the regular
place of business of respondent and that, Morallo could not be considered a competent person in charge of respondent’s
office, as she was the executive secretary of the President of PILTEL and not of respondent.
• Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the service of summons to Anne Morallo, executive secretary of the President of PILTEL, was valid.

RULING:
No, the service of summons to Anne Morallo was not valid. Anne Morallo is the executive secretary of the President of
PILTEL, a company which is not a party to the present action. Sec.7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that if, for justifiable
causes, personal service cannot be effected on defendant, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the
defendant’s residence with some person of suitable age and discretion residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at the
defendant’s office of regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. The word “office” or the phrase
“regular place of business” refers to the office or place of business of the defendant at the time of service.
In the case at bar, PILTEL, where the substituted summons was served and of which respondent was the chairman of the
board, was not even a party to the present suit. Respondent was sued in his personal capacity as surety for PAI. As the PILTEL
office is not respondent’s regular place of business, it cannot therefore be said that Anne Morallo was authorized to receive service
of process on behalf of respondent. Therefore, the service of summons to her is not valid.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS (RULE 14 - SUMMONS) FOR JD4201 UNDER ATTY. JEDREK NG
BY: BONGAT, MA. CARLEEN S. – 2018073111
Case: Robinson v. Miralles, G.R. No. 163584, December 12, 2006

FACTS:
• On August 25, 2000, respondent filed with the RTC of Paranaque City a complaint for sum of money against petitioner.
Summons was then served on petitioner at her given address. However, upon return of service of the sheriff, petitioner
no longer resides at the said address.
• On July 20, 2001, the trial court issued an alias summons to be served at No. 19 Baguio St., Alabang Hills, Muntinlupa City,
which is said to be petitioner’s new address.
• Again, the summons could not be served on petitioner, as the assigned security guard at the gate of the subdivision
refused to let the sheriff to go inside the subdivision to effect the service of summons to petitioner, as said guard was
instructed not to let anybody proceed to petitioner’s house if she is not around.
• Respondent filed a motion to declare petitioner in default for her failure to answer despite the service of summons, which
was granted by the trial court. Respondent was allowed to present evidence ex parte. Thereafter, the trial court issued
an Order in favor of plaintiff.
• On September 26, 2003, petitioner filed with the trial court a petition for relief from the judgment by default and claimed
that the service of summons was improper, thus, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over her and that all
proceedings related to that judgment is null and void.
• The trial court denied such petition. The MR filed by petitioner was also denied.
• Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the substituted service of summons upon petitioner was proper.

RULING:
Yes, the substituted service of summons upon petitioner was proper. As stated by the Court, summons is a writ by which
the defendant is notified of the action brought against him or her. In a civil action, service of summons is the means by which the
court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and that any judgment without such service, in the absence of a valid
waiver, is null and void. The service of summons may be made through personal or substituted service in the manner provided for
in Secs. 6 and 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court where the action is in personam and the defendant is in the Philippines. Personal
service is generally preferred over substituted service, the latter mode of service being a method in extraordinary character. For
substituted service to be justified, the following circumstances must clearly be established: (a) personal service of summons within
a reasonable time was impossible; (b) efforts were exerted to locate the party; and (c) the summons was served upon a person
of sufficient age and discretion residing at party’s resident or upon a competent person in charge of the party’s office or place of
business. Failure to do so would invalidate all subsequent proceedings on jurisdictional grounds.
In the present case, petitioner contends that the service of summons upon the subdivision security guard is not in
compliance with the Rules since he is not related to her or staying at her residence. Moreover, he is not duly authorized to receive
summons for the residents of the village. However, petitioner forgets that she gave strict instructions to the security guard and
that she did not deny having received the summons through him. Therefore, the trial court is correct in stating that the summons
has been properly served upon petitioner and that it has acquired jurisdiction over her.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS (RULE 14 - SUMMONS) FOR JD4201 UNDER ATTY. JEDREK NG
BY: BONGAT, MA. CARLEEN S. – 2018073111
Case: Sagana v. Francisco, G.R. No. 161952, October 2, 2009

FACTS:
• On December 13, 1994, petitioner filed a Complaint for Damages against respondent before the Quezon City RTC. On
January 31, 1995, process server Panlasigui attempted to serve summons at respondent’s address but was unsuccessful.
• Subsequently, the trial court attempted to serve summons to respondent’s office through registered mail on February 9,
1995. However, despite three notices, respondent failed to pick up the summons, which led to the dismissal of the case
by the trial court on account of petitioner’s lack of interest to prosecute.
• Petitioner then filed his MR, stating that after the Server’s Return was filed, he exerted efforts to locate the respondent
and he confirmed that respondent still lives in the stated address.
• On August 25, 1995, process server Iconar again tried to serve the summons at the address of respondent to no avail.
According to Iconar’s handwritten notation on the summons, he was informed by the respondent’s brother, Michael
Francisco, that respondent no longer live in the said address. However, he left a copy of the summons to Michael
Francisco.
• Petitioner then filed a Motion to Declare Defendant in Default which was granted, finding that the summons was validly
served to respondent through his brother, Michael Francisco.
• Michael Francisco, through a Manifestation, denied that he received the summons or that he was authorized to receive
summons on behalf of his brother. He also alleged that the substituted service did not comply with Sec. 8, Rule 14 of the
Rules of Court.
• The trial court denied Michael’s manifestation and motion for lack of merit. However, the CA set aside the said Decision
and held that the service of summons was irregular, therefore, the proceedings in the RTC is null and void since it did not
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent.
• Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not there was a valid substituted service of summons upon the respondent.

RULING:
Yes, there was a valid substituted service of summons upon the respondent. Sec. 8, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court and
jurisprudence has long established that for substituted service to be valid, the following must be demonstrated: (a) that personal
service of summons within a reasonable time was impossible; (b) that efforts were exerted to locate the party; and (c) that the
summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion residing at the party’s residence or upon a competent person
in charge of the party’s office or regular place of business. It is likewise required that pertinent facts proving these circumstances
be stated in the proof of service or in the officer’s return.
In the present case, personal service was twice attempted by the trial court, although unsuccessfully. In the first attempt,
the resident of the house refused to receive the summons; worse, he would not even give his name. In the second attempt,
respondent’s own brother refused to sign for receipt of the summons, and then later claimed that he never received a copy,
despite his participation in the proceedings. Clearly, personal service of summons was made impossible by the acts of respondent
in refusing to reveal his whereabouts, and by the act of his brother in claiming that respondent no longer lived at the indicated
address, yet failing to disclose his brother’s location. Respondent also admitted that he received a copy of the trial court’s Decision.
He even filed a Notice of Appeal and also received a copy of the CA’s order for preliminary conference. These were never denied
by respondent, despite being given every opportunity to do so. Therefore, the Court finds that there was a valid substituted service
upon respondent through his brother.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS (RULE 14 - SUMMONS) FOR JD4201 UNDER ATTY. JEDREK NG
BY: BONGAT, MA. CARLEEN S. – 2018073111
Case: Gentle Supreme Phils., v. Consulta, G.R. No. 183182, September 1, 2010

FACTS:
• Petitioner filed a collection case with application for a writ of preliminary attachment against Consar Trading Corporation
(CTC), its president (Consulta, respondent), and its vice-president before the Pasig City RTC. It alleged that CTC, through
its respondent president and vice-president, bought certain merchandise from it but refused to pay for them.
• The RTC issued summons against the defendants but the sheriff failed to serve the summons and copies of the complaint
on any of the CTC’s authorized officers, and on respondent president and vice-president.
• The sheriff, however, left copies of the documents with a certain Agnes Canave, who according to the sheriff, was vice-
president’s secretary and an authorized representative of both vice-president and respondent.
• None of the defendants filed an answer to the complaint, therefore, they were declared in default by the RTC. Petitioner
was then allowed to present evidence ex parte. The RTC ruled in favor of petitioner and issued a writ of execution against
the defendants.
• Respondent then filed a petition for annulment of the RTC decision before the CA, alleging amongst others, that he was
not properly served with summons because, although his address stated in the complaint was his regular place of
business, Agnes Canave, who received the summons, was not in charge of the matter.
• CA rendered a decision, holding that the RTC sheriff did not properly serve summons on all the defendants, and remanded
the case to the trial court.
• Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/S: Whether the CA correctly ruled that summons had not been properly served on respondent Consulta.

RULING:
No, the CA erred in ruling that summons had not been properly served on respondent Consulta. In its ruling, the Court
stated that there is valid substituted service of summons on Consulta at his place of business with some competent person in
charge thereof. According to the sheriff’s return, he served a copy of the complaint on Canave, an authorized representative of
both Consulta (respondent) and Sarayba (vice-president). The Court further ruled that it is not necessary that the person in charge
of defendant’s regular place of business be specifically authorized to receive the summons. It is enough that he appears to be in
charge.
In the present case, Agnes Canave, a secretary whose job description necessarily includes receiving documents and other
correspondence, would have the semblance of authority to accept the court documents. Further, respondent does not deny that
summons had been properly served on Sarayba, his vice-president, through Agnes Canave, at the company’s office; and that the
summons on him was served on the same occasion also through Canave.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS (RULE 14 - SUMMONS) FOR JD4201 UNDER ATTY. JEDREK NG
BY: BONGAT, MA. CARLEEN S. – 2018073111
Case: Macasaet v. Co, G.R. No. 156759, June 5, 2013

FACTS:
• Respondent is claiming damages from petitioners because of an allegedly libelous article that the latter published on June
6, 2000 in Abante Tonite. The case was raffled to Branch 51 of RTC.
• On September 18, 2000, RTC Sheriff Medina proceeded to the address of petitioners to effect personal service of
summons but he failed, since petitioners were then out office and available. He went again the next day and failed to
serve summons again.
• The sheriff then decided to resort to substituted service of the summons and explained the reason why in his return,
dated September 22, 2000.
• Petitioners then moved for dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over their persons because of the
invalid and ineffectual substituted service of summons. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss which the CA also affirmed.
• Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the CA erred in holding that the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioners through
the substituted service of summons by the RTC Sheriff.

RULING:
No, the CA’s ruling is correct. Under the Rules of Court, service of summons should firstly be effected on the defendant
himself whenever practicable. Such personal service consists either in handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person,
or, if the defendant, refuses to receive and sign for it, in tendering it to him. If, for justifiable reasons, the defendant cannot be
served in person within a reasonable time, the service of summons may then be effected either (a) by leaving a copy of the
summons at his residence with some person of suitable age and discretion residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copy at his office
or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof.
In the present case, there is no question that Sheriff Medina twice attempted to serve the summons upon each of
petitioners in person at their office address. Each attempt failed because petitioners were “always out and not available” and the
others were “always roving outside and gathering news.” Petitioners’ insistence on personal service by the serving officer was
demonstrably superfluous. Petitioners had actually received the summonses through their substitutes, as borne out by their filing
of several pleadings in the RTC, including an answer with compulsory counterclaim and a pre-trial brief. They had also availed
themselves of the modes of discovery available under the Rules of Court. Such acts, according to the Court, evinced their voluntary
appearance in the action.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS (RULE 14 - SUMMONS) FOR JD4201 UNDER ATTY. JEDREK NG
BY: BONGAT, MA. CARLEEN S. – 2018073111
Case: Palma v. Galvez, G.R. No. 165273, March 10, 2010

FACTS:
• Petitioner filed with the RTC an action for damages against Philippine Heart Center, Dr. Danilo Giron, and Dr. Bernadette
Cruz. Summons were subsequently issued to them.
• On February 17, 2004, RTC’s process server submitted his return of summons stating that the alias summons were served
upon private respondent thru her husband Alfredo Agudo, who received and signed the same as private respondent was
out of the country.
• On March 30, 2004, private respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction
over her as she was not properly served with summons, since she was temporarily out of the country. She also alleged
that service of summons on her must conform to Sec. 16, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
• The RTC granted private respondent’s motion to dismiss and stated that while the summons was served at private
respondent’s house and received by her husband, such service did not qualify as a valid service of summons on her as
she was out of the country at the time it was served, thus, she was not personally served a summons.
• Petitioner filed her MR which the RTC denied in its Order.
• Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not there was a valid service of summons on private respondent.

RULING:
Yes, there was a valid service of summons on private respondent. Considering that private respondent was temporarily
out of the country, the summons and complaint may be validly served on her through substituted service under Sec. 7, Rule 14 of
the Rules of Court. It is, thus, the service of summons intended for the defendant that must be left with the person of suitable age
and discretion residing in the house of the defendant. Said section also designates the persons with whom copies of the process
may be left. The rule presupposes that such a relation of confidence exists between the person with whom the copy is left and
the defendant and, therefore, assumes that such person will deliver the process to defendant or in some way give him notice
thereof.
In the present case, the Sheriff’s Return stated that private respondent was out of the country; thus, the service of
summons was made at her residence with her husband. The husband was presumably of suitable age and discretion, who was
residing in that place and, therefore, was competent to receive the summons on private respondent’s behalf. Therefore, the RTC
had indeed acquired jurisdiction over the person of private respondent when the latter’s counsel entered his appearance on
private respondent’s behalf, without qualification and without questioning the propriety of the service of summons, and even
filed two Motions for Extension of Time to File Answer.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS (RULE 14 - SUMMONS) FOR JD4201 UNDER ATTY. JEDREK NG
BY: BONGAT, MA. CARLEEN S. – 2018073111
Case: Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Sps. Santiago, G.R. No. 169116, March 28, 2007

FACTS:
• Centrogen is a domestic corporation engaged in pharmaceutical business, duly organized and existing as such under the
Philippine laws and represented in this act by its President, Edwin Santiago, son of private respondents Sps. Ireneo
Santiago and Li-wanag Santiago.
• Centrogen obtained loans from FEBTC wherein Ireneo Santiago executed a Real Estate Mortgage over a parcel of land
registered under his name as security for the principal loan that Centrogen obtained from the FEBTC.
• Centrogen defaulted in its obligation when it became due and demandable. FEBTC, meanwhile, merged with BPI
(petitioner) with the latter as the surviving corporation.
• On December 13, 2002, BPI filed an Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage over the Santiago’s property. A
Notice of Sale was issued to Sps. Santiago. Upon receipt of such Notice, Sps. Santiago and Centrogen filed a Complaint
seeking the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, and as alternative, for the annulment
of the Real Estate Mortgage with BPI.
• BPI was then summoned to file and serve its Answer to the Complaint filed by the Spouses. On the same day, the Sheriff
served a copy of the summons to the Branch Manager of BPI Sta. Cruz, Laguna Branch, as evidenced by the Sheriff’s
Return.
• Instead of filing an Answer, BPI filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant. It also claimed that the Branch Manager of its Sta. Cruz, Laguna Branch, was not one of those
authorized by Sec. 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court to receive summons on corporation’s behalf.
• The RTC denied the BPI’s Motion to Dismiss. On March 6, 2003, the RTC ordered the service of new summons to BPI in
accordance to with the provisions of the Revised Rules of Court, a copy of which was served upon the Office of the
Corporate Secretary of BPI on March 11, 2003.
• Upon appeal to the CA, the CA affirmed RTC’s decision and declared that jurisdiction was acquired upon the service of
summons.
• BPI insists that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over its person and consequently, the Order issued by the said court
was therefore void and does not bind BPI.
• Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of BPI when the original summons was served upon the
Branch Manager of its Sta. Cruz, Laguna Branch.

RULING:
No, the original summons served upon the Branch Manager of its Sta. Cruz, Laguna Branch did not bind the corporation
for the branch manager is not included in the enumeration of the statute of the persons upon whom service of summons can be
validly made in behalf of the corporation, in accordance with Sec. 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. However, such defect was
cured upon the issuance and the proper service of new summons on March 11, 2003. The fact that the original summons was
validly served is of no moment since jurisdiction over BPI was subsequently acquired by the service of a new summons.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS (RULE 14 - SUMMONS) FOR JD4201 UNDER ATTY. JEDREK NG
BY: BONGAT, MA. CARLEEN S. – 2018073111