Scribd
Upload
87 views2 pages

#Agilent V Integrated

The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over Helen M. Ocampo. Substituted service of the summons on her uncle was improper because Ocampo no longer resided at the address in the Philippines. Her whereabouts in Italy were unknown. Service should have been done by publication in a newspaper of general circulation since her whereabouts could not be ascertained by diligent inquiry. As the RTC did not validly acquire jurisdiction over Ocampo, the judgment rendered against her was void.

Uploaded by

Kareen Baucan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
87 views2 pages

#Agilent V Integrated

The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over Helen M. Ocampo. Substituted service of the summons on her uncle was improper because Ocampo no longer resided at the address in the Philippines. Her whereabouts in Italy were unknown. Service should have been done by publication in a newspaper of general circulation since her whereabouts could not be ascertained by diligent inquiry. As the RTC did not validly acquire jurisdiction over Ocampo, the judgment rendered against her was void.

Uploaded by

Kareen Baucan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

202505 September 6, 2017

EXPRESS PADALA (ITALIA) S.P.A., now BDO REMITTANCE (ITALIA) S.P.A. vs. HELEN M. OCAMPO,

FACTS: BDO Remittance, a corporation with principal office in Italy, hired respondent Ocampo as a
remittance processor. She was dismissed for misappropriating the sum of €24,035.60 by falsifying invoices of money
payments relating to customers' money transfer orders.

BDO Remittance filed a criminal complaint against Ocampo for the same acts before the Court of Turin, Italy.
Ocampo pleaded guilty to the offense charged. the Honorable Court of Turin convicted and sentenced her to suffer
imprisonment of six months and a penalty of €300.00, but granted her the benefit of suspension of the enforcement of
sentence on account of her guilty plea (the Court of Turin Decision).

BDO Remittance filed a petition for recognition of foreign judgment with the RTC of Mandaluyong City. BDO
Remittance prayed for the recognition of the Court of Turin Decision.

The sheriff attempted to personally serve the summons on Ocampo in her local address alleged in the petition
located in San Bernardo Village, Darasa, Tanauan, Batangas. However, since the address was incomplete, the sheriff
sought the help of barangay officials, who pointed him to the house belonging to Ocampo's father, Nicasio Ocampo,
Victor P. Macahia (Macahia), uncle of Ocampo and present occupant, informed the sheriff that Ocampo and her family
were already in Italy, and that he was only a caretaker of the house. The sheriff then proceeded to serve the summons
upon Macahia. After Ocampo failed to file an answer, BDO Remittance filed a motion to declare Ocampo in default.
The RTC granted the motion and allowed BDO Remittance to present evidence ex parte.

The RTC rendered a Decision in favor of BDO Remittance (RTC Decision). It recognized as valid and binding
in the Philippines the Court of Turin Decision.

Ocampo was later able to engage the services of counsel who filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with
the CA. Ocampo principally argued that the RTC acted in grave abuse of discretion in recognizing and ordering the
enforcement of the Court of Turin Decision.

The CA held that since Ocampo's whereabouts were unknown, summons should have been served in
accordance with Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The sheriff however, erroneously effected the
substituted service of summons under Section 7 of Rule 14. Thus, the CA concluded that the RTC did not acquire
jurisdiction over Ocampo, and the RTC Decision against her is null and void.

ISSUE: Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over Ocampo.

RULING: NO. RTC did not acquired jurisdiction over Ocampo.

The general rule in this jurisdiction is that summons must be served personally on the defendant. Section 6,
Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 6. Service in person on defendant. - Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served 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.

For justifiable reasons, however, other modes of serving summons may be resorted to. When the defendant cannot be
served personally within a reasonable time after efforts to locate him have failed, the rules allow summons to be served
by substituted service. Substituted service is effected by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence
with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or by leaving the copies at defendant's office or
regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof.

When the defendant's whereabouts are unknown, the rules allow service of summons by publication. As an exception
to the preferred mode of service, service of summons by publication may only be resorted to when the whereabouts of
the defendant are not only unknown, but cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry. The diligence requirement means
that there must be prior resort to personal service under Section 7 and substituted service under Section 8, and proof
that these modes were ineffective before summons by publication may be allowed. This mode also requires the plaintiff
to file a written motion for leave of court to effect service of summons by publication, supported by affidavit of the plaintiff
or some person on his behalf, setting forth the grounds for the application.
In the present case, the sheriff resorted to substituted service upon Ocampo through her uncle, who was the
caretaker of Ocampo's old family residence in Tanauan, Batangas. The CA held that substituted service was improperly
resorted to. It found that since Ocampo' s "whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry x x
x service may be effected only by publication in a newspaper of general circulation."

Indeed, the substituted service is improper under the facts of this case. Substituted service presupposes that
the place where the summons is being served is the defendant's current residence or office/regular place of
business.

Based on the sheriffs report, it is clear that Ocampo no longer resides in San Bernardo Village, Darasa,
Tanauan, Batangas. The report categorically stated that "defendant Helen M. Ocampo and her family were already in
Italy," without, however, identifying any specific address. Even BDO Remittance itself admitted in its petition for
recognition that Ocampo' s "whereabouts in Italy are no longer certain." This, we note, is the reason why in alleging the
two addresses of Ocampo, one in Italy and one in the Philippines, BDO Remittance used the phrase "last known
[address ]" instead of the usual "resident of." Not being a resident of the address where the summons was served, the
substituted service of summons is ineffective. Accordingly, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of
Ocampo.

The service of summons is a vital and indispensable ingredient of a defendant's constitutional right to due
process. As a rule, if a defendant has not been validly summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over his person,
and a judgment rendered against him is void. Since the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the person of Ocampo,
the judgment rendered by the court could not be considered binding upon her.

You might also like