STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION | DIGESTS | 1D

Case No. 10: Santos v. PNOC Exploration Corporation

Dizon, Katherine M.

FACTS:
1. Respondent PNOC Exploration Corporation filed a complaint for a sum of money against
petitioner Pedro T. Santos, Jr. in the RTC of Pasig City. The complaint sough to collect the
amount of PHP 698,502.10 representing petitioner’s unpaid balance of the car loan advanced to
him by respondent when he was still a member of its board of directors.
2. Personal service of summons to petitioner failed because he could not be located in his last
known address despite earnest efforts to do so. Subsequently, on respondent’s motion, the trial
court allowed service of summons by publication; publication of the summons was caused in
Remate, a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. Thereafter, respondent submitted
the affidavit of publication if the advertising manager of the newspaper and an affidavit of service
of respondent’s employee to the effect that he sent a copy of the summons by registered mail to
petitioner’s last known address.
3. Petitioner still failed to file his answer within the prescribed period despite the publication of
summons. Hence, respondent filed a motion for the reception of its evidence ex parte. Trial court
granted said motion and proceeded with the ex parte presentation and formal offer of its
evidence.
4. Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and to Admit Attached Answer, alleging
that the affidavit of service submitted by respondent failed to comply with Section 19, Rule 14 of
the Rules of Court as it was not executed by the clerk of court. He also claimed that he was
denied due process as he was not notified of the order and prayed that respondent’s evidence
ex parte be stricken off the records and that his answer be admitted.

RTC RULING:

The trial court denied the motion of the petitioner and held that the rules did not require the affidavit of
complementary service by registered mail to be executed by the clerk of court. Additionally, it also ruled
that due process was observed as a copy of the September 11, 203 order was actually mailed to
petitioner at his last known address. It also denied the motion to admit petitioner’s answer because the
same was filed way beyond the reglementary period.

CA RULING:

The Court of Appeals rendered its decision sustaining the September 11, 2003 and February 6, 2004
orders of the trial court and dismissing the petition. It denied consideration.

ISSUES:

1. WoN the trial court lacks jurisdiction over his person due to improper service of summons.
2. WoN the propriety of service can be done through publication.
3. WoN there was a failure of the trial court to furnish him with copies of its orders and processes
including the September 11 order.

PETITIONER (NAME): RESPONDENT (NAME):

SC RULING:
1. No. The trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner by his own voluntary
appearance in the action against him. In this connection, Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of
Court states that the defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to
service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION | DIGESTS | 1D

Petitioner voluntarily appeared in the action when he filed the “Omnibus Motion for
Reconsideration and to Admit Attached Answer.” This was equivalent to service of summons
and vested the trial court with jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.

2. No. Since petitioner could not be personally served with summons despite diligent efforts to
locate his whereabouts, respondent sought and was granted leave of court to effect service of
summons upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation. Thus, petitioner was
properly served with summons by publication.

Service of summons by publication is proved by the affidavit of the printer, his foreman or
principal clerk, or of the editor, business or advertising manager of the newspaper which
published the summons. The service of summons by publication is complemented by service of
summons by registered mail to the defendant’s last known address. The complementary
service is evidenced by an affidavit “showing the deposit of a copy of the summons and order
for publication in the post office, postage prepaid, directed to the defendant by registered mail
to his last known address.” The rules do not require that the affidavit of complementary service
be executed by the clerk of court.

3. Petitioner failed to file an answer in time, which is why he had to file an Omnibus Motion to
Admit Attached Answer. The disputed order of September 11, 2003 was a finding that the
petitioner was in default for failure to file an answer or pleading within the period fixed. It is
illogical to notify him of the order simply on account of the reality that he was no longer residing
and/or found on his last known address and his whereabouts unknown thus the publication of
summons. Santos could not reasonably demand that copies of orders and processes be
furnished him. His residence or whereabouts is not known and he cannot be located.

In the case at bar, there is obviously no way notice can be sent to him and the notice
requirement cannot apply to him. The law does not require that the impossible be done. Nemo
tenetur ad impossibile. The law obliges no one to perform an impossibility. Laws and rules must
be interpreted in a way that they are in accordance with logic, common sense, reason and
practicability. Be that as it may, a copy of the September 11, 2003 order was still mailed to him
at his last known address but it was unclaimed.

ADDITIONAL NOTES
● Section 3, Rule 9 (on Effect of Failure to Plead) of the Rules of Court: If the defending party
fails to answer within the time allowed therefor, the court shall, upon motion of the claiming
party with notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure, declare the defending party in
default.
● Section 4: A party in default shall be entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings but not to
take part in the trial.