Manotoc vs Court of Appeals

Facts

 Agapita Trajano, on behalf of Archimedes Trajano on the Action for the enforcement of foreign
judgement on for the wrongful death of deceased Archimedes Trajano committed by military
intelligence officials of the phi allegedly under the command of Imee Marcos.
 Trial Court issued summons on Marcos, but was allegedly served upon Macky de la Cruz, caretaker of
condo of Imee in pasig. (Substituted service)
 After 9 days, the court declared Imee in default.
 Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction because of invalid substituted
service of summons.
 On hearing for motion to dismiss, Imee presented a witness testifying that he only saw Imee at the
condo once, a certification that it is owned by someone else and not leased to anyone, a passport
showing that she is a resident of Singapore, among others.
 Trajano alleged that Bongbong testified that the condo is the residence of Imee and the logbook
showed the name of Imee and the sheriff.
 TRIAL COURT and CA ruled in favor of Trajano, based on documentary evidence of Trajano and the
presumption of regularity of the duty of sheriff.

Issue

 Whether or not there was a valid substituted service of summons to Imee Marcos.

Ruling

 No. The Sheriff did not properly serve the summons due to the lack of adherence to the rules.
 First, sheriff must show that defendant cannot be served summons personally despite the reasonable
time given by the court.
 Reasonable time for plaintiffs to serve summons, 7 days.
 Reasonable time for sheriff to serve summons, 15 to 30 days.
 Return of Summons are used by the Clerk of Court in Monthly Report of Cases to be submitted on the
Office of the Court Administrator within the First 10 days of every month.

 Sheriffs' duty shall be discharged with due care, utmost diligence, and reasonable promptness and
speed but since defendants try to avoid the summons, sheriff must be resourceful, persevering, canny,
and diligent.
 For substituted service of summons to be available, there must be at least 3 tries in two separate dates.
 Returns of Summons must contain DETAILED information and facts why such personal service was
impossible such as date and time of the attempts on personal service, inquiries made to locate the
defendant, name of the occupant, etc. VAGUE STATEMENTS ON THE ROS ARE INVALID
 Substituted service must be made by leaving copies at the residence of the defendant with some
person of suitable age and discretion then residing or the office of the defendant or regular place of
business with some competent person in charge.
 The refusal of Macky de la Cruz signifies that he does not have Relation of Confidence with Imee.
 The fact that the defendant had actual knowledge of attempted service does not render the service
effectual if in fact the process was not served in accordance with the requirements of the rules.
 Express Padala vs Ocampo

Facts

 BDO hired Helen Ocampo as a remittance processor in September 2002 to and was dismissed in
February 2004 due to falsification invoices of money payments. BDO filed a case against her in Italy
and was convicted wish 6 months of kulong and fine of 3h Euros but granted her the benefit of
suspension of the enforcement of sentence on account of her guilty plea.
 BDO filed a petition for recognition of foreign judgement and the cancellation of passport by DFA.
 Sheriff attempted to deliver summons in her address in Batangas but barangay officials pointed him to
house belong to father and uncle of Helen, and the present occupant who informed them that Family of
Helen is in Italy. Sheriff served summons on uncle.
 BDO filed a motion to declare default which RTC granted and allowed BDO to present evidence ex
parte.
 Helen filed a petition for certiorari at CA arguing that RTC acted in a grave abuse of discretion.
 CA ruled in favor of Helen showing that sheriff erroneously delivered the summons through substituted
service and not service of summon by publication since whereabouts of Helen are unknown.

Issue

 Whether or not Helen was validly served summons

Ruling

 No. GR is summons shall be served in person. XPN justifiable reason, other modes may be resorted to.
 If the whereabouts of defendants are unknown but cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry with proof,
rules allow service of summon by publication.
 Summon by publication requires the plaintiff to file a written motion for leave of court to effect service of
summons by publication supported by affidavit of plaintiff setting forth the grounds for the application.
 Substituted service presupposes that the place where the summons is being served is the current
residence or office or regular place of business of the defendant. Thus, where the defendant does not
reside nor holds office in the address stated in the summons, substituted service cannot be resorted to.
 They refer to the place where the person named in the summons is living at the time when the service
is made, EVEN THOUGH HE MAY BE TEMPORARILY OUT OF THE COUNTRY. In the given facts,
Helen is already residing in Italy with her family. Hence, RTC did not acquire jurisdiction in Helen.
 Leah Palma vs Galvez

Facts

 Palma filed an action for damages against Philippine Heart Center alleging defendants committed
professional fault for having removed her right ovary against her will and losing tissues extracted during
the procedure, and although specimen was subsequently found, Leah was doubtful due to another
label.
 Defendants include two doctors and two nurses
 Summons were served to private respondents thru her husband since respondent is out of the country.
 Through the counsel of the respondent, it filed notice of appearance and a motion for extension of time
to file an answer on March 1, 2004 and another motion for another extension of time to file answer on
March 15, 2004.
 Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over her since
summons were not served properly. Alleging that summons by publication shall be done and not
substituted service.
 RTC ruled in favor of the respondent granting motion to dismiss

Issue

 Whether or not there was a valid service of summon on the respondent

Ruling

 Yes. Defendants which are outside the country but resides here may be served through publication,
and other means as Section 16, Rule 14 used the word MAY and ALSO, hence, service through
publication is not mandatory. Other methods of service may be availed if the resident defendant such
as substituted service, personal service outside the country through leave of court, service by
publication through leave of court, any other manner the court may deem sufficient.
 Substituted service of summon is the normal method of service of summons that will confer jurisdiction
against residents of the country temporarily outside the Philippines. It is usual for such a man to leave
at his home or with his business associates' information to where he may be contacted in the event a
question that affects him crops up.
 RTC acquired jurisdiction when the counsel of defendant entered his appearance on behalf of the
defendant without questioning the validity of summon and even filed two motions for extension of time
to file answer. Further, motions to admit answer, additional time to file answer, reconsideration of a
default judgement, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration are considered voluntary
submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
 Swagman vs CA

Facts

 Swagman Hotels and Travels Inc. Entered into loan with Neal Christian with 3 promissory notes each
with $50,000 payable after three years from its date, (August 7, 1996, March 14, 1997, July 14, 1997)
with interest of 15% per annum payable every three months.
 Christian informed Swagman that it will be terminating loans and demanded payment of the total
amount with unpaid interests amounting to $13,500
 February 2, 1999, Christian filed an action for a sum of money and damages in violation of the terms of
the three promissory note because Swagman only paid him 6% per annum from January to December
1998.
 Swagman contested that Christian did not have Cause of action because at the time of filing of the com
plaint, no promissory note was due and demandable yet and there was novation of the principal
obligation since it accepted payments of the principal loans in installment basis, hence, capital re
payment from January 1998 to February 1999.
 May 5, 2000, RTC rendered judgement in favor of Christian declaring first two promissory notes as due
and demandable and that there were no novation as mere modifications of debt agreed upon between
parties do not constitute novation.
 Further, rule allows a complaint which states no cause of action to be cured either by evidence
presented without objection (in the facts, iyon yung due and demandable promissory note) or, in the
event of objection sustained by the court, by an amendment of the complaint with the leave of court
 CA affirmed in toto the ruling of the trial court.

Issue

 Whether or not a complaint that lacks a cause of action at the time it was filed be cured by the accrual
of a cause of action during the pendency of the case

Ruling

 No. Cause of Action is an act or violation of a party against the right of another.
 When the com plaint for a sum of money and damages was filed, no cause of action has yet existed
because the petitioner had not committed any act in violation of the terms of the three notes. WITHOUT
A CAUSE OF ACTION, THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAD NO RIGHT TO MAINTAIN AN ACTION IN
COURT, AND THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED HIS COMPLAINT
 Amendments of pleadings are allowed when evidence not within the issues raised in the pleadings is
presented by the parties during the trial, and to conform to such evidence the pleadings are
subsequently amended on the motion of a party. BUT this is only applicable if a cause of action in fact
exists at the time the complaint is filed, but the complaint is defective for failure to allege the essential
facts but the com plaint is defective for failure to allege the essential facts.
 Further, for novation, there is only modificatory novation due to alterations of the terms and conditions
of the obligation.
 Gumabay vs Baralin

Facts

 Celestina Gumabay filed an action to recover possession (action for forcible entry) of 17sqm cornland
in Cagayan at CFI
 Defendants moved to dismiss the action on the ground that CFI does not have the jurisdiction over the
case
 Without awaiting for the resolution of that motion, Gumabay amended the complaint changing it from
forcible entry to quieting of title
 CFI amended the com plaint and ordered defendant to answer it and denied motion to dismiss
 Celestina moved to declare the defendants' default for not filing their answer
 Defendants objected
 CFI denied motion of Gumabay to declare default and ordered defendants to answer the amended
complaint which they failed to do so.
 Gumabay filed a motion to declare default which CFI did and ordered clerk of court to admit evidence of
Gumabay ex parte
 Gumabay alleged that the land was owned by his father who gave it to her on her wedding, that her
father was in possession when she was still a child, the land was cultivated by her tenant and his
children, the land was planted corn and tobacco, that on August 5, 1959, defendants entered and
harvested five carts of corn and four rolls of barbed wire against their will, and the defendants persisted
working on the land.
 CFI ruled in favor Gumabay
 CA elevated the case to SC due to involvement of legal issues only.

Issue

 Whether or not the amended complaint is valid

Ruling

 Yes. CFI validly admitted the com plaint to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive
determination of every action and proceeding. To require Gumabay to file another action to quiet title
will be circuitous, dilatory, and ex pensive proceeding.
 Further, the trial court had already acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendants when they
were served with summons on the basis of the original com plaint and when they appeared and filed a
motion to dismiss.