Defective Summons When A Court Lacks Power Over A Person

The Supreme Court, in United Coconut Planters Bank v. Sps. Alison Ang-Sy, et al. (G.R. No. 204753, March 27, 2019), reaffirmed a fundamental rule of civil procedure: a court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a defendant unless summons is properly served, or the defendant voluntarily appears. The case is a useful reminder that even a bank's substantial claim cannot proceed if the procedural steps for serving summons are not strictly followed.

The Facts

United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against Nation Granary, Inc. (NGI), Nation Petroleum Gas, Inc. (NPGI), and several individuals. The bank also obtained a writ of preliminary attachment, and the sheriff levied on properties and garnished assets on the same day summons was served.

The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over their persons. They pointed out that summons for the corporations was served on a mere property supply custodian, not on any of the officers authorized by the Rules of Court. As for the individual defendants, the sheriff had resorted to substituted service without first making several attempts at personal service.

The RTC denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the service of summons was defective and that all proceedings before the RTC were void. UCPB appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Issue

The central question was whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants despite the defective service of summons—either through valid service or through the defendants' voluntary appearance.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court denied UCPB's petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the service of summons was indeed defective, and that the defendants did not voluntarily submit to the RTC's jurisdiction.

Defective service on individuals. Under Rule 14, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, summons must be served by handing a copy to the defendant in person. Substituted service under Section 7 is allowed only when the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time. The sheriff must make several attempts at personal service—at least three tries, preferably on at least two different dates. In this case, the sheriff made only a single day's effort. The Sheriff's Report also failed to state that the person who received the summons was of suitable age and discretion residing in the defendant's residence, or that such person understood the duty to deliver the summons to the defendant.

Defective service on corporations. For domestic private juridical entities, Section 11, Rule 14 provides an exclusive list of officers who may receive summons: the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel. Service on a mere property supply custodian is invalid.

No voluntary appearance. UCPB argued that the defendants voluntarily submitted to the RTC's jurisdiction because their motion to dismiss also prayed for the suspension of proceedings due to a Stay Order from another court. The Supreme Court rejected this. Citing Interlink Movie Houses, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Court explained that a party who makes a special appearance to challenge the court's jurisdiction over his person does not submit to its authority. Because the defendants explicitly and unequivocally objected to the RTC's jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of summons, their incidental prayer for suspension did not amount to voluntary appearance.

The Court also noted that even if a party fails to raise the issue of jurisdiction, the courts may dismiss an action on that ground motu proprio, since issues of jurisdiction are not subject to the whims of the parties.

Practical Takeaways

• Personal service first. A sheriff must make several genuine attempts to serve summons personally before resorting to substituted service. One attempt on a single day is not enough.
• Corporations have a closed list. Summons on a corporation must be served on the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel—not on a random employee.
• The return must be detailed. The Sheriff's Return must clearly describe the attempts made and the circumstances of substituted service, including the recipient's suitability and understanding of the summons.
• Special appearance is safe. A defendant may challenge the court's jurisdiction over his person without waiving that objection, even if the motion also asks for other incidental relief.
• Defective service voids proceedings. Without valid service or voluntary appearance, the court acquires no jurisdiction over the defendant, and any judgment rendered is null and void.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.