Manotoc v. Court of Appeals

Agapita Trajano, for the estate of Archimedes Trajano, sued Ma. Imelda "Imee" M. Manotoc in the RTC of Pasig to enforce a judgment of the U.S. District Court of Hawaii for Archimedes Trajano's wrongful death. Summons was issued on July 6, 1993, addressed to her at Alexandra Homes, Pasig. On July 15, 1993, the sheriff left the summons with "(Mr.) Macky de la Cruz," described in the Return as her caretaker on the say-so of the building receptionist. The Return stated only that "on many occasions several attempts were made" to serve her personally "at reasonable hours of the day but to no avail," as she was "usually out." De la Cruz refused to sign. Manotoc was declared in default. By special appearance, she moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over her person, claiming that the unit was not her residence, that de la Cruz was not her representative, and that she lived in Singapore. The RTC denied the motion, relying on the presumption of regularity of the sheriff's service. The Court of Appeals dismissed her petition for certiorari and prohibition.

1. 1Whether there was a valid substituted service of summons on petitioner under Section 8, Rule 14 of the old Rules of Court, so that the trial court acquired jurisdiction over her person.
2. 2Whether the sheriff's Return enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.

The petition was granted. Jurisdiction over a defendant is acquired by valid service of summons or voluntary appearance; substituted service "is extraordinary in character and in derogation of the usual method of service" and must strictly comply with the rules. The Court broke down the requirements: (1) impossibility of prompt personal service, which requires "several attempts" by the sheriff within a reasonable period of one month, "Several attempts" meaning "at least three (3) tries, preferably on at least two different dates," with the reasons for failure stated; (2) specific details in the Return of the dates and times of the attempts, inquiries made, names of occupants and other acts done; (3) if served at the residence, a person of suitable age and discretion, meaning at least 18, able to understand the summons, in a "relation of confidence" with the defendant, and residing there; and (4) if served at the office, a competent person in charge, such as the president or manager. The Return here narrated no specific attempts, dates or reasons, and gave no information on de la Cruz's age, discretion or residence; his refusal to sign indicated no relation of confidence. The Court held that narrations "written in broad and imprecise words will not suffice," departing from the leniency of Umandap v. Sabio. The presumption of regularity applies only when the Return itself shows serious, failed efforts at personal service. The substituted service was void, making it unnecessary to decide whether Alexandra Homes was her residence. The CA decision and resolution and the RTC orders were reversed and set aside.