PEDRO SANTOS, JR. vs.

PNOC EXPLORATION CORPORATION court to effect service of summons by publication in a newspaper of general
Modes of service | September 23, 2008 | Corona, J. circulation. Santos was properly served with summons by publication
b. The in rem/in personam distinction as argued by Santos only applied for
Nature of Case: Petition for review the old rule, but the present rule expressly states that it applies in any
SUMMARY: PNOC sought to claim the unpaid balance of a loan from Santos but could not action where the defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like,
effect personal service of summons so by leave of court, it effected a service of summons by or whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by
publication. When the case was submitted for decision, Santos sought to have his answer diligent inquiry. It now applies to all actions
admitted. He alleges that service of summons by publication does not apply to in personam c. While service of summons by publication is proved by the affidavit of the
actions. The Court held that the present rules allow this mode of service for all actions printer, his foreman or principal clerk, or of the editor, business or
DOCTRINE: Service of summons by publication may be done for all actions where the advertising manager of the newspaper which published the summons, this
defendant or his/her whereabouts is unknown. The rules do not require the affidavit of is complemented by service of summons by registered mail to the
complementary service to be executed by the clerk of court defendants last known address as evidenced by an affidavit showing the
deposit of a copy of the summons and order for publication in the post
FACTS: office, postage prepaid, directed to the defendant by registered mail to his
• Respondent PNOC Exploration Corp. filed a complaint for a sum of money against last known address, as stated in Rule 14, Sec. 19
Petitioner Pedro Santos, Jr. at RTC Pasig Branch 167 for P698,502.10, the unpaid d. The rules do not require that the affidavit of complementary service by
balance of Santos’ car loan when he was still a member of PNOC’s board of directors executed by the clerk of court. While the trial court ordinarily does the
• Personal service of summons to him failed because he could not be located in his last mailing of copies of its orders and processes, the duty to make the
known address despite earnest efforts. On motion, PNOC was allowed service of complementary service by registered mail is on the party who resorts to it
summons by publication. This was done in Remate, a newspaper of general e. Assuming that the service of summons was defective, the RTC acquired
circulation. jurisdiction over Santos by his own voluntary appearance when he filed the
• PNOC submitted an affidavit of publication by Remate’s advertising manager and an Omnibus MR and to Admit Attached Answer
affidavit of service by PNOC’s employee-messenger that he sent a copy of the
summons by registered mail to Santos’ last known address 2. WON Santos was entitled to notice of the proceedings - YES
• Santos failed to file his answer within the prescribed period so PNOC moved that the a. If the defendant fails to file his answer on time, he may be declared in
case be set for the reception of its evidence ex parte. This was granted on Sept. 11, default upon motion of the plaintiff with notice to the said defendant. The
2003 and afterwards, the case was deemed submitted for decision on Oct. 15, 2003 court shall proceed to render judgment granting the plaintiff such relief as
• On Oct. 28, 2003, Santos filed an Omnibus MR and to Admit Attached Answer. He his pleading may warrant, unless the court in its discretion requires the
alleged that the affidavit of service failed to comply with ROC Rule 14, Sec. 19 for not plaintiff to submit evidence. The defaulting defendant may not take part in
being executed by the clerk of court and that he was denied due process for not being the trial but shall be entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings
notified of the Sept. 11 Order. He prays that the evidence be stricken off the records b. Here, PNOC moved only for the ex parte presentation of evidence, not for
• PNOC insisted that it complied with the rules on service by publication and that the declaration of petitioner in default. While the RTC stated in its Feb. 6,
Santos was already deemed in default for failing to file an answer 2004 order that Santos was in default in the Sept. 11, 2003 order, this could
• The RTC denied Santos’ MR and held that the rules did not require the affidavit of not be validly done because an order of default can be made only upon
complementary service by registered mail to be executed by the clerk of court and motion of the claiming party. No default order should have been issued
that due process was observed as a copy of the Sept. 11, 2003 order was mailed to c. However, if a party declared in default is entitled to notice of subsequent
Santos’ last known address. It also denied the motion to admit his answer proceedings, all the more should a party who has not been declared in
• Santos assailed the RTC orders via petition for certiorari at the CA, arguing that the default be entitled to notice. However, if the residence or whereabouts of
RTC should not have taken cognizance of the case despite lack of jurisdiction due to the defending party is not known, there is no way that notice can be sent to
improper service of summons and for failing to furnish him with copies of its orders him and such notice requirement cannot apply
and processes, upholding technicality over equity and justice d. Equity is available only in the absence of law, not as its replacement. It may
• During the pendency of the petition in the CA, the RTC rendered its decision, be applied only in the absence of rules of procedure, not against it
ordering Santos to pay the unpaid balance of his loan with legal interest and costs
RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.
• Meanwhile, the CA sustained the RTC orders and dismissed the petition
• Santos reiterates the arguments he raised at the CA but also argues that the rule on
NOTE:
service by publication under ROC Rule 14, Sec. 14 only applies to actions in rem so it
Related provisions
does not apply in this case where it is a complaint for a sum of money
ROC
Rule 14 SEC. 14. Service upon defendant whose identity or whereabouts are unknown. In any
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
action where the defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his
1. WON service by publication was properly effected – YES
whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by
a. Since Santos could not be personally served with summons despite diligent
leave of court, be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation and
efforts to locate his whereabouts, PNOC sought and was granted leave of
in such places and for such times as the court may order.