Professional Documents
Culture Documents
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd7d5c8e702a3933003600fb002c009e/p/APE812/?username=Guest Page 1 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 344 1/16/18, 13:43
________________
* FIRST DIVISION.
822
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd7d5c8e702a3933003600fb002c009e/p/APE812/?username=Guest Page 2 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 344 1/16/18, 13:43
823
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd7d5c8e702a3933003600fb002c009e/p/APE812/?username=Guest Page 3 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 344 1/16/18, 13:43
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
_________________
824
On July 14, 1997, the trial court issued an Order for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment. The Writ of
Preliminary Attachment was issued on July 15, 1997. On
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd7d5c8e702a3933003600fb002c009e/p/APE812/?username=Guest Page 4 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 344 1/16/18, 13:43
________________
825
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd7d5c8e702a3933003600fb002c009e/p/APE812/?username=Guest Page 5 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 344 1/16/18, 13:43
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd7d5c8e702a3933003600fb002c009e/p/APE812/?username=Guest Page 6 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 344 1/16/18, 13:43
826
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd7d5c8e702a3933003600fb002c009e/p/APE812/?username=Guest Page 7 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 344 1/16/18, 13:43
_______________
4 Petition for Review, pp. 14-16, 18 and 20; Rollo, pp. 22-24, 26 and 28.
5 Alindao v. Joson, G.R. No. 114132, 264 SCRA 211 [1996]; citing
Gonzales v. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230, 235-236 (1963) and Madrigal v.
Lecaroz, 191 SCRA 20, 26 (1990).
827
this case is the lack of jurisdiction of the trial court over the
persons of the respondents, due to improper service of
summons.
Petitioner maintains that respondents had voluntarily
submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court when they
filed the Supplemental Manifestation to the effect that
Ramon Araneta, the alleged vendee of the aircraft levied
upon, had filed a complaint before Branch 72 of the
Olongapo Regional Trial Court for Replevin and/or
Annulment of the Writ of Preliminary Attachment issued
by the court a quo in Civil Case No. 8696. According to
petitioner, the Supplemental Manifestation was actually an
opposition to the Motion for Leave to Sell Attached
Property they filed with the trial court.
The records show, however, that respondents filed the
Supplemental Motion on August 7, 1998, almost a month
after they filed the petition for certiorari before the Court
of Appeals. It was preceded by a Special Appearance to
Question the Jurisdiction
6
of this Honorable Court, dated
March7 26, 1998, and by a Manifestation, dated August 5,
1998, informing the trial court of the pendency of the
petition for certiorari assailing the courtÊs jurisdiction over
their persons. In other words, when the Supplemental
Motion was filed, it was made clear that respondents were
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd7d5c8e702a3933003600fb002c009e/p/APE812/?username=Guest Page 8 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 344 1/16/18, 13:43
_______________
828
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd7d5c8e702a3933003600fb002c009e/p/APE812/?username=Guest Page 9 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 344 1/16/18, 13:43
respondents.
Pertinent is Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, particularly Sections 6 and 7, which
respectively provide as follows·
_______________
8 See Spouses Ortiz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127393, 299 SCRA
708 [1998].
9 See Comment, p. 3; Rollo, p. 137.
10 Miranda v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114243, 23 February 2000,
326 SCRA 278.
829
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd7d5c8e702a3933003600fb002c009e/p/APE812/?username=Guest Page 10 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 344 1/16/18, 13:43
________________
11 See Annex „C‰ to Annex „D,‰ Petition for Review; Rollo, p. 75.
12 Madrigal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129955, 26 November 1999,
319 SCRA 331.
13 Ang Ping v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126947, 310 SCRA 343
[1999].
14 Miranda v. Court of Appeals, supra.
15 „SUBJECT: Service of Summons
830
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd7d5c8e702a3933003600fb002c009e/p/APE812/?username=Guest Page 11 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 344 1/16/18, 13:43
________________
The Trial Judges of all lower courts, as well as the Clerks of Court in
their capacity as Ex-Officio Sheriffs together with the Deputy Sheriffs
are reminded of the provision of Section 8, Rule 14, Rules of Court on
substituted service as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
The manner of effecting substituted service as prescribed in
Venturanza v. Court of Appeals, 156 SCRA 305 (1987), must be strictly
complied with, thus:
ÂThe substituted service should be availed only when the defendant cannot be
served promptly in person. Impossibility of prompt service should be shown by
stating the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the failure of such
efforts. The statement should be made in the proof of service This is necessary
because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service.
Substituted service is a method extraordinary in character, and hence may
be used only as prescribed in the circumstances authorized by statute. Thus,
the statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly,
faithfully and any substituted service other than authorized by the statute is
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd7d5c8e702a3933003600fb002c009e/p/APE812/?username=Guest Page 12 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 344 1/16/18, 13:43
considered ineffective.Ê
831
SO ORDERED.
··o0o··
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fd7d5c8e702a3933003600fb002c009e/p/APE812/?username=Guest Page 13 of 13