MASON v.
CA
[G.R. No. 144662. October 13, 2003]
QUISUMBING, J.
Doctrine: The enumeration under the new rule is restricted, limited and exclusive (Section 11, Rule 14
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). Notice to enable the other party to be heard and to present
evidence is not a mere technicality or a trivial matter in any administrative or judicial proceedings. The
service of summons is a vital and indispensable ingredient of due process.
Facts:
Petitioners spouses Efren and Digna Mason owned two parcels of land n Pasay City.
On March 30, 1993, petitioners and private respondent Columbus Philippines Bus Corp. entered
into a lease contract, under which Columbus undertook to construct a building worth
P10,000,000 at the end of the third year of the lease.
Because private respondent failed to comply with this stipulation, the petitioners filed a
complaint for rescission of contract with damages against Columbus before the RTC Pasay.
Summons was served upon private respondent through a certain Ayreen Rejalde. While the
receiving copy of the summons described Rejalde as a secretary of Columbus, the sheriffs
return described Rejalde as a secretary to the corporate president, duly authorized to receive
legal processes.
Private respondent failed to file its answer or other responsive pleading, hence petitioners filed
a motion to declare private respondent in default. The motion was granted and petitioners
were allowed to present evidence ex-parte.
RTC ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and against defendant declaring the contract of lease
rescinded, terminated and cancelled, and ordering defendant to pay.
The decision became final on May 12, 1999. The following day, private respondent filed a
motion to lift order of default which was denied by the RTC. MR denied.
Upon appeal, CA granted the petition. It held that the trial court erred when it denied private
respondents motion to lift order of default. The appellate court pointed out that private
respondent was not properly served with summons, thus it cannot be faulted if it failed to file an
Answer.
o Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires that service of
summons upon domestic private juridical entity shall be made through its president,
managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer or in-house counsel.
o Since service upon private respondent was made through a certain Ayreen Rejalde, a
mere filing clerk in private respondents office, as evidenced by the latters employment
record, such service cannot be considered valid.
o Consequently, the subsequent proceedings, including the order of default, judgment by
default and its execution, were also invalid because the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over private respondent.
Issues:
a) Whether there was valid service of summons on private respondent for the trial court to acquire
jurisdiction, and
b) Whether private respondents motion to lift order of default was in order.
Held:
a) UNDER THE OLD RULE, citing the Millenium case:
General rule: Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure clearly specifies the
persons authorized to receive summons on behalf of a private juridical entity, which includes
president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer or in-house
counsel.
Exception: Substantial compliance rule - allowed the validity of the service of summons on the
corporations employee other than those mentioned in the Rule where said summons and
complaint were in fact reasonably received by the corporation from said employee.
UNDER THE NEW RULE, citing the Vilarosa case:
The enumeration under the new rule is restricted, limited and exclusive, following the rule in
statutory construction that expressio unios est exclusio alterius. Had the Rules of Court Revision
Committee intended to liberalize the rule on service of summons, it could have easily done so by
clear and concise language. Absent a manifest intent to liberalize the rule, the Court stressed
strict compliance with Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Millenium was decided when the 1964 Rules of Court were still in force and effect, unlike the
instant case which falls under the new rule. Hence, the cases cited by petitioners where we
upheld the doctrine of substantial compliance must be deemed overturned by Villarosa, which is
the later case.
Notice to enable the other party to be heard and to present evidence is not a mere technicality
or a trivial matter in any administrative or judicial proceedings. The service of summons is a vital
and indispensable ingredient of due process. It will deprive private respondent of its right to
present its defense in this multi-million peso suit, if the Court disregard compliance with the
rules on service of summons.
b) Since service upon it was invalid, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over it. Hence, all
the subsequent proceedings in the trial court are null and void, including the order of default.
This renders the second issue now moot and academic.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED.
