Valmonte v. CA Digest

G.R. No. 108538 January 22, 1996

Ponente: Mendoza, J.:

Service of Summons

Facts:

1. Petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte is a foreign resident. Petitioners Lourdes and Alfredo are husband and wife both residents of 90222 Carkeek Drive South Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. Petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte, who is a member of the Philippine bar, however, practices his profession in the Philippines, commuting for this purpose between his residence in the state of Washington and Manila, where he holds office at S-304 Gedisco Centre, 1564 A. Mabini, Ermita, Manila.
2.  Private respondent Rosita Dimalanta, who is the sister of petitioner filed an action for partition against former and her husband. She alleged that, the plaintiff is of legal age, a widow and is at present a resident of 14823 Conway Road, Chesterfield, Missouri, U.S.A., while the defendants are spouses but, for purposes of this complaint may be served with summons at Gedisco Center, Unit 304, 1564 A. Mabini St., Ermita, Manila where defendant Alfredo D. Valmonte as defendant Lourdes Arreola Valmonte’s spouse holds office and where he can be found.He husband was also her counsel, who has a law office in the Philippines. The summons were served on her husband.
3. Petitioner in a letter, referred private respondent’s counsel to her husband as the party to whom all communications intended for her should be sent. Service of summons was then made upon petitioner Alfredo at his office in Manila.  Alfredo D. Valmonte accepted his summons, but not the one for Lourdes, on the ground that he was not authorized to accept the process on her behalf. Accordingly the process server left without leaving a copy of the summons and complaint for petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte.
4.  Petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte thereafter filed his Answer with Counterclaim. Petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte, however, did not file her Answer. For this reason private respondent moved to declare her in default. Petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte entered a special appearance in behalf of his wife and opposed the private respondent’s motion. RTC denied the MR of respondents. CA declared petitioner Lourdes in default. Said decision was received by Alfredo hence this petition.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte was validly served with summons.

NO.

There was no valid service of summons  on Lourdes.

1.       The action herein is in the nature of an action quasi in rem. Such an action is essentially for the purpose of affecting the defendant’s interest in a specific property and not to render a judgment against him. As petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte is a nonresident who is not found in the Philippines, service of summons on her must be in accordance with Rule 14, § 17. Such service, to be effective outside the Philippines, must be made either (1) by personal service; (2) by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court should be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant; or (3) in any other manner which the court may deem sufficient.

2.       In the case at bar, the service of summons upon petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte was not done by means of any of the first two modes.  This mode of service, like the first two, must be made outside the Philippines, such as through the Philippine Embassy in the foreign country where the defendant resides.  The service of summons on petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte was not made upon the order of the court as required by Rule 14, § 17 and certainly was not a mode deemed sufficient by the court which in fact refused to consider the service to be valid and on that basis declare petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte in default for her failure to file an answer.

3.       Secondly, the service in the attempted manner on petitioner was not made upon prior leave of the trial court as required also in Rule 14, § 17. As provided in § 19, such leave must be applied for by motion in writing, supported by affidavit of the plaintiff or some person on his behalf and setting forth the grounds for the application.

4.       Finally, and most importantly, because there was no order granting such leave, petitioner Lourdes was not given ample time to file her Answer which, according to the rules, shall be not less than sixty (60) days after notice.