7 - Express Padala (Italia) S.P.A., Now BDO Remittance (Italia) S.P.A. vs. Ocampo

9/19/22, 5:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 839

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.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183550175d69cd27a5d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
_______________

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

55

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

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.
34 Chu v. Mach Asia Trading Corporation, G.R. No. 184333, April 1, 2013, 694
SCRA 302, 311.

57

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 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

7 - Express Padala (Italia) S.P.A., Now BDO Remittance (Italia) S.P.A. vs. Ocampo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7 - Express Padala (Italia) S.P.A., Now BDO Remittance (Italia) S.P.A. vs. Ocampo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

7 - Express Padala (Italia) S.P.A., Now BDO Remittance (Italia) S.P.A. vs. Ocampo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/19/22, 5:10 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 839

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

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Service of Summons; Substituted

48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

personal service under Section 7 and substituted service under Section

VOL. 839, SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 49

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

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

1 Rollo, pp. 8-25.

50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

4 Id., at pp. 123-129.

VOL. 839, SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 51

9 Id., at pp. 30-31.

52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

16 Id., at pp. 27-44.

VOL. 839, SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 53

Sec. 6. Service in person on defendant.—Whenever practicable, the

21 Rules of Court, Rule 14, Sec. 7.

54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

24 Rules of Court, Rule 14, Sec. 17.

VOL. 839, SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 55

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

27 Id., at pp. 215-216.

56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

32 Pacaña-Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150908, January 21, 2005,

VOL. 839, SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 57

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

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed insofar as

Notes.—The rules allow summons to be served by substituted

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like