G.R. No. 202505. September 6, 2017.*

 
EXPRESS PADALA (ITALIA) S.P.A., now BDO
REMITTANCE (ITALIA) S.P.A., petitioner, vs. HELEN
M. OCAMPO, respondent.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Service of Summons;

Substituted Service of Summons; Substituted service is effected
by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence
with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing
therein, or by leaving the copies at defendant’s office or regular
place of business with some competent person in charge thereof.—
The general rule in this jurisdiction is that summons must be
served personally on the defendant. Section 6, Rule 14 of the
Rules of Court provides: Sec. 6. Service in person on defendant.—
Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by handing
a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to
receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him. For justifiable
reasons, however, other modes of serving summons may be
resorted to. When the defendant cannot be served personally
within a reasonable time after efforts to locate him have failed,
the rules allow summons to be served by substituted service.
Substituted service is effected by leaving copies of the summons
at the defendant’s residence with some person of suitable age
and discretion then residing therein, or by leaving the copies at
defendant’s office or regular place of business with some
competent person in charge thereof.
Same; Same; Same; Service of Summons by Publication; As
an exception to the preferred mode of service, service of summons
by publication may only be resorted to when the whereabouts of
the defendant are not only unknown, but cannot be ascertained by
diligent inquiry.—When the defendant’s whereabouts are
/
unknown, the rules allow service of summons by publication. As
an exception to the preferred mode of service, service of
summons by publication may only be resorted to when the
whereabouts of the defendant are not only unknown, but cannot
be ascertained by diligent inquiry. The diligence requirement
means that there must be prior resort to

_______________

*  FIRST DIVISION.

 
 
48

48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Express Padala (Italia) S.P.A., now BDO Remittance
(Italia) S.P.A. vs. Ocampo

personal service under Section 7 and substituted service

under Section 8, and proof that these modes were ineffective
before summons by publication may be allowed. This mode also
requires the plaintiff to file a written motion for leave of court to
effect service of summons by publication, supported by affidavit
of the plaintiff or some person on his behalf, setting forth the
grounds for the application.
Same; Same; Same; Substituted Service of Summons;
Substituted service presupposes that the place where the
summons is being served is the defendant’s current residence or
office/regular place of business.—We agree with the CA that
substituted service is improper under the facts of this case.
Substituted service presupposes that the place where the
summons is being served is the defendant’s current residence
or office/regular place of business. Thus, where the
defendant neither resides nor holds office in the address stated
in the summons, substituted service cannot be resorted to. As we
explained in Keister v. Navarro, 77 SCRA 209 (1977): Under the
Rules, substituted service may be effect[ed] (a) by leaving copies
of the summons at the defendant’s dwelling house or residence
with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing /
therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendant’s office or
regular place of business with some competent person in charge
thereof. The terms “dwelling house” or “residence” are generally
held to refer to the time of service, hence it is not sufficient “to
leave the copy at defendant’s former dwelling house, residence,
or place of abode, as the case may be, after his removal
therefrom.” They refer to the place where the person named in
the summons is living at the time when the service is made, even
though he may be temporarily out of the country at the time.
Similarly, the terms “office” or “regular place of business” refer
to the office or place of business of defendant at the time of
service. Note that the rule designates the persons to whom
copies of the process may be left. The rule presupposes that such
a relation of confidence exists between the person with whom the
copy is left and the defendant and, therefore, assumes that such
person will deliver the process to defendant or in some way give
him notice thereof.
Same; Same; Same; Modes of service of summons must be
strictly followed in order that the court may acquire jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant.—BDO Remittance’s reliance on
Palma v. Galvez, 615 SCRA 86 (2010), is misplaced for the
simple reason that the case involved service of summons to a
person who is temporarily

 
 
49

VOL. 839, SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 49

Express Padala (Italia) S.P.A., now BDO Remittance
(Italia) S.P.A. vs. Ocampo

out of the country. In this case, however, Ocampo’s sojourn

in Italy cannot be classified as temporary considering that she
already resides there, albeit her precise address was not known.
Modes of service of summons must be strictly followed in order
that the court may acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant. The purpose of this is to afford the defendant an
opportunity to be heard on the claim against him. BDO
/
Remittance is not totally without recourse, as the rules allow
summons by publication and extraterritorial service. Unlike
substituted service, however, these are extraordinary modes
which require leave of court.
Same; Same; Same; As a rule, if a defendant has not been
validly summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over his
person, and a judgment rendered against him is void.—The
service of summons is a vital and indispensable ingredient of a
defendant’s constitutional right to due process. As a rule, if a
defendant has not been validly summoned, the court acquires no
jurisdiction over his person, and a judgment rendered against
him is void. Since the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the
person of Ocampo, the judgment rendered by the court could not
be considered binding upon her.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
   Mark C. Acoymo for respondent.

JARDELEZA, J.:
 
This is a petition for review on certiorari1 challenging
the Decision2 dated January 5, 2012 and Resolution3
dated June 27, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-
G.R. S.P. No. 113475. The CA granted the petition for
certiorari filed by

_______________

1  Rollo, pp. 8-25.

2  Id., at pp. 27-44, penned Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, and
Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Ricardo R. Rosario,
concurring.
3  Id., at pp. 46-47.

 
 

50

50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Express Padala (Italia) S.P.A., now BDO Remittance
/
 (Italia) S.P.A. vs. Ocampo

 
respondent Helen M. Ocampo (Ocampo) and set aside the
Decision4 dated September 14, 2009 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) in Civil Case No. MC08-3775 which granted
BDO Remittance (Italia) S.P.A.’s (BDO Remittance)
petition for recognition of foreign judgment.
The core issue being raised is whether service of
summons was validly effected upon respondent, who lives
in Italy, through substituted service.
BDO Remittance, a corporation with principal office in
Italy, hired respondent Ocampo as a remittance processor
in September 2002. She was dismissed in February 2004
for misappropriating the sum of €24,035.60 by falsifying
invoices of money payments relating to customers’ money
transfer orders from February to December 2003.5
Accordingly, BDO Remittance filed a criminal
complaint against Ocampo for the same acts before the
Court of Turin, Italy. Ocampo pleaded guilty to the offense
charged. On April 13, 2005, the Honorable Court of Turin
convicted and sentenced her to suffer imprisonment of six
months and a penalty of €300.00, but granted her the
benefit of suspension of the enforcement of sentence on
account of her guilty plea (the Court of Turin Decision).6
On September 22, 2008, BDO Remittance filed a
petition for recognition of foreign judgment7 with the RTC
of Mandaluyong City. BDO Remittance prayed for the
recognition of the Court of Turin Decision and the
cancellation or restriction of Ocampo’s Philippine passport
by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA).8

_______________

4  Id., at pp. 123-129.

5  Id., at pp. 123-124.
6  Id., at p. 29.
7  Id., at pp. 115-121.
8  Id., at p. 119.

 
 

51 /
 VOL. 839, SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 51
Express Padala (Italia) S.P.A., now BDO Remittance
(Italia) S.P.A. vs. Ocampo

 
On November 21, 2008, the sheriff attempted to
personally serve the summons on Ocampo in her local
address alleged in the petition located in San Bernardo
Village, Darasa, Tanauan, Batangas. However, since the
address was incomplete, the sheriff sought the help of
barangay officials, who pointed him to the house
belonging to Ocampo’s father, Nicasio Ocampo; Victor P.
Macahia (Macahia), uncle of Ocampo and present
occupant, informed the sheriff that Ocampo and her
family were already in Italy, and that he was only a
caretaker of the house. The sheriff then proceeded to serve
the summons upon Macahia.9 After Ocampo failed to file
an answer, BDO Remittance filed a motion to declare
Ocampo in default. The RTC granted the motion and
allowed BDO Remittance to present evidence ex parte.10
On September 14, 2009, the RTC rendered a Decision11
in favor of BDO Remittance (RTC Decision). It recognized
as valid and binding in the Philippines the Court of Turin
Decision and ordered the DFA to cancel or restrict
Ocampo’s Philippine passport and not to allow its renewal
until she has served her sentence.12
On February 11, 2010, Ocampo’s mother, Laureana
Macahia, received a copy of the RTC’s Decision and
forwarded it to Ocampo.13 Not having been represented by
counsel a quo, the period of appeal lapsed. Ocampo was
later able to engage the services of counsel who filed a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA on April
12, 2010.14 Ocampo principally argued that the RTC acted
in grave abuse of discretion in recognizing and ordering
the enforcement of the Court of Turin’s Decision.15

_______________

9   Id., at pp. 30-31.

10  Id., at p. 31.
11  Id., at pp. 123-129.
/
 12  Id., at p. 128.
13  Id., at p. 95.
14  Id., at p. 176.
15  Id., at p. 33.

 
 

52

52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Express Padala (Italia) S.P.A., now BDO Remittance
(Italia) S.P.A. vs. Ocampo

 
In its now assailed Decision,16 the CA set aside the
RTC’s Decision and revoked the order to cancel or restrict
Ocampo’s Philippine passport (CA Decision). The CA first
settled the issue of procedural due process, particularly
whether Ocampo was properly served with summons. It
held that since Ocampo’s whereabouts were unknown,
summons should have been served in accordance with
Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The
sheriff however, erroneously effected the substituted
service of summons under Section 7 of Rule 14. Thus, the
CA concluded that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction
over Ocampo, and the RTC’s Decision against her is null
and void. It also found that the RTC acted in grave abuse
of discretion when it recognized a foreign judgment of a
criminal case and ordered the DFA to restrict or cancel
Ocampo’s passport.17
After the CA denied its motion for reconsideration,
BDO Remittance filed the present petition for review
under Rule 45 arguing that: (1) Ocampo availed of the
wrong remedy; and (2) the RTC did not gravely abuse its
discretion in granting the petition for recognition of
foreign judgment and ordering the DFA to restrict or
cancel Ocampo’s passport.18
In her comment,19 Ocampo explained that BDO
Remittance’s insistence on the enforcement of Court of
Turin Decision is misleading because, by availing of the
benefit of suspension of the enforcement, the penalty of
confinement will not be enforced upon her. She also /
presented a decree20 from the High Court of Turin dated
June 29, 2010 which stated that her criminal liability has
been extinguished.
We deny the petition.

_______________

16  Id., at pp. 27-44.

17  Id., at pp. 33-36.
18  Id., at pp. 15-22.
19  Id., at pp. 94-114.
20  Id., at pp. 155-156.

 
 
53

VOL. 839, SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 53

Express Padala (Italia) S.P.A., now BDO Remittance
(Italia) S.P.A. vs. Ocampo

 
The general rule in this jurisdiction is that summons
must be served personally on the defendant. Section 6,
Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 6. Service in person on defendant.—Whenever

practicable, the summons shall be served by handing a copy
thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive and
sign for it, by tendering it to him.

 
For justifiable reasons, however, other modes of serving
summons may be resorted to. When the defendant cannot
be served personally within a reasonable time after efforts
to locate him have failed, the rules allow summons to be
served by substituted service. Substituted service is
effected by leaving copies of the summons at the
defendant’s residence with some person of suitable age
and discretion then residing therein, or by leaving the
copies at defendant’s office or regular place of business
with some competent person in charge thereof.21
/
 When the defendant’s whereabouts are unknown, the
rules allow service of summons by publication.22 As an
exception to the preferred mode of service, service of
summons by publication may only be resorted to when the
whereabouts of the defendant are not only unknown, but
cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry. The diligence
requirement means that there must be prior resort to
personal service under Section 7 and substituted service
under Section 8, and proof that these modes were
ineffective before summons by publication may be
allowed.23 This mode also requires the plaintiff to file a
written motion for leave of court to effect service of
summons by publi-

_______________

21  RULES OF COURT, Rule 14, Sec. 7.

22  Id., Sec. 14.
23  See Pua v. Deyto, G.R. No. 173336, November 26, 2012, 686 SCRA
365, 372-373, citing  Santos, Jr. v. PNOC Exploration Corporation, G.R.
No. 170943, September 23, 2008, 566 SCRA 272.

 
 
54

54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Express Padala (Italia) S.P.A., now BDO Remittance
(Italia) S.P.A. vs. Ocampo

 
cation, supported by affidavit of the plaintiff or some
person on his behalf, setting forth the grounds for the
application.24
In the present case, the sheriff resorted to substituted
service upon Ocampo through her uncle, who was the
caretaker of Ocampo’s old family residence in Tanauan,
Batangas. The CA held that substituted service was
improperly resorted to. It found that since Ocampo’s
“whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by
diligent inquiry x  x  x service may be effected only by
publication in a newspaper of general circulation.”25 /
 We agree with the CA that substituted service is
improper under the facts of this case. Substituted service
presupposes that the place where the summons is being
served is the defendant’s current residence or
office/regular place of business. Thus, where the
defendant neither resides nor holds office in the address
stated in the summons, substituted service cannot be
resorted to. As we explained in Keister v. Navarro:26
Under the Rules, substituted service may be effect[ed]
(a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s
dwelling house or residence with some person of suitable
age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving
the copies at defendant’s office or regular place of business
with some competent person in charge thereof. The terms
“dwelling house” or “residence” are generally held to refer
to the time of service, hence it is not sufficient “to leave
the copy at defendant’s former dwelling house, residence,
or place of abode, as the case may be, after his removal
therefrom.” They refer to the place where the person
named in the summons is living at the time when the
service is made, even though he may be temporarily out of
the country at the time. Similarly, the

_______________

24  RULES OF COURT, Rule 14, Sec. 17.

25  Rollo, p. 35.
26  No. L-29067, May 31, 1977, 77 SCRA 209.

 
 

55

VOL. 839, SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 55

Express Padala (Italia) S.P.A., now BDO Remittance
(Italia) S.P.A. vs. Ocampo

terms “office” or “regular place of business” refer to the office or

place of business of defendant at the time of service. Note that
the rule designates the persons to whom copies of the process
/
may be left. The rule presupposes that such a relation of
confidence exists between the person with whom the copy is left
and the defendant and, therefore, assumes that such person will
deliver the process to defendant or in some way give him notice
thereof.27 (Italics in the original, citations omitted)

 
Based on the sheriff’s report, it is clear that Ocampo no
longer resides in San Bernardo Village, Darasa, Tanauan,
Batangas. The report categorically stated that “defendant
Helen M. Ocampo and her family were already in Italy,”28
without, however, identifying any specific address. Even
BDO Remittance itself admitted in its petition for
recognition that Ocampo’s “whereabouts in Italy are no
longer certain.”29 This, we note, is the reason why in
alleging the two addresses of Ocampo, one in Italy and one
in the Philippines, BDO Remittance used the phrase “last
known [address]”30 instead of the usual “resident of.” Not
being a resident of the address where the summons was
served, the substituted service of summons is ineffective.
Accordingly, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the
person of Ocampo.
BDO Remittance’s reliance on Palma v. Galvez31 is
misplaced for the simple reason that the case involved
service of summons to a person who is temporarily out of
the country. In this case, however, Ocampo’s sojourn in
Italy cannot be classified as temporary considering that
she already resides there, albeit her precise address was
not known. Modes of service of summons must be strictly
followed in order that the court

_______________

27  Id., at pp. 215-216.

28  Rollo, p. 30.
29  Id., at p. 118.
30  Id., at p. 115.
31  G.R. No. 165273, March 10, 2010, 615 SCRA 86.

 
 
56

/
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Express Padala (Italia) S.P.A., now BDO Remittance
(Italia) S.P.A. vs. Ocampo

 
may acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
The purpose of this is to afford the defendant an
opportunity to be heard on the claim against him.32 BDO
Remittance is not totally without recourse, as the rules
allow summons by publication and extraterritorial
service.33 Unlike substituted service, however, these are
extraordinary modes which require leave of court.
The service of summons is a vital and indispensable
ingredient of a defendant’s constitutional right to due
process. As a rule, if a defendant has not been validly
summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over his
person, and a judgment rendered against him is void.34
Since the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the person
of Ocampo, the judgment rendered by the court could not
be considered binding upon her.
Consequently, it is no longer necessary to delve into the
other issues raised in the petition. These issues can be
resolved by the trial court upon acquiring jurisdiction over
Ocampo and giving her an opportunity to be heard. It is in
a better position to receive and assess the evidence that
may be presented by Ocampo, including the decree dated
June 29, 2010 issued by the High Court of Turin, to the
effect that her liability has been extinguished. While such
claim would tend to render the case moot, we refuse to
consider the argument at the first instance on two
grounds: first, we are not a trier of facts; and second, the
document submitted has not been authenticated in
accordance with the rules on evidence.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision
dated January 5, 2012 and Resolution dated June 27,
2012 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 113475
are AFFIRMED insofar as there was no valid service of
summons.

_______________

32   Pacaña-Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150908, January

21, 2005, 449 SCRA 196, 204. /
 33  RULES OF COURT, Rule 14, Sec. 15.
34  Chu v. Mach Asia Trading Corporation, G.R. No. 184333, April 1,
2013, 694 SCRA 302, 311.

 
 

57

VOL. 839, SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 57

Express Padala (Italia) S.P.A., now BDO Remittance
(Italia) S.P.A. vs. Ocampo

 
The Decision dated September 14, 2009 of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 212, Mandaluyong City in Civil Case
No. MCOS-3775 is declared VOID.
SO ORDERED.

Leonardo-De Castro,** Del Castillo and Tijam, JJ.,

concur.
Sereno, CJ., On Official Leave.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed

insofar as there was no valid service of summons.

Notes.—The rules allow summons to be served by

substituted service only for justifiable causes and if the
defendant or respondent cannot be served within
reasonable time. (De Pedro vs. Romasan Development
Corporation, 743 SCRA 52 [2014])
Service of summons by publication in a newspaper of
general circulation is allowed when the defendant or
respondent is designated as an unknown owner or if his or
her whereabouts are “unknown and cannot be ascertained
by diligent inquiry.” (Id.)
 
——o0o——

_______________

**  Designated Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special

Order No. 2480 dated August 31, 2017.
/
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.