23 Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v.

Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 97412, 12 July 1994, 234 SCRA
78.

* THIRD DIV ISION.

VOL. 413, OCTOBER 8, 2003 189 190

Oaminal vs. Castillo

*
G.R. No. 152776. October 8, 2003. 190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
HENRY S. OAMINAL, petitioner, vs.
Oaminal vs. Castillo
PABLITO M. CASTILLO and GUIA S.
CASTILLO, respondents.
personam and the defendant is in the
Philippines, the service of summons may be
Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; made through personal or substituted
Summons; Where the action is in personam service in the manner provided for by
and the defendant is in the Philippines, the Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 of the Revised
service of summons may be made through Rules of Court.
personal or substituted service in the
manner provided for by Sections 6 and 7 of Same; Same; Same; Personal service of
Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court.—In summons preferred over substituted service;
civil cases, the trial court acquires Circumstances in order for substituted
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant service of summons may be valid.—Personal
either by the service of summons or by the service of summons is preferred over
latter’s voluntary appearance and substituted service. Resort to the latter is
submission to the authority of the former. permitted when the summons cannot be
Where the action is in promptly served on the defendant in person
and after stringent formal and substantive
requirements have been complied with. For
_______________ substituted service of summons to be valid,
it is necessary to establish the following desired. Once the service provided by the
circumstances: (a) personal service of rules reasonably accomplishes that end, the
summons within a reasonable time was requirement of justice is answered; the
impossible; (b) efforts were exerted to locate traditional notions of fair play are satisfied;
the party; and (c) the summons was served due process is served.’”
upon a person of sufficient age and Same; Same; Same; The filing of
discretion residing at the party’s residence Motions seeking affirmative relief—to admit
or upon a competent person in charge of the answer, for additional time to file answer,
party’s office or regular place of business. It for reconsideration of a default judgment,
is likewise required that the pertinent facts and to lift order of default with motion for
proving these circumstances are stated in reconsideration—are considered voluntary
the proof of service or officer’s return. submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
Same; Same; Same; Defendant’s actual —Assuming arguendo that the service of
receipt of the summons satisfied the summons was defective, such flaw was
requirements of procedural due process.— cured and respondents are deemed to have
That the defendants’ actual receipt of the submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of
summons satisfied the requirements of the trial court when they filed an Omnibus
procedural due process had previously been Motion to Admit the Motion to Dismiss and
upheld by the Court thus: “x x x [T]here is Answer with Counterclaim, an Answer with
no question that summons was timely Counterclaim, a Motion to Inhibit, and a
issued and received by private respondent. Motion for Reconsideration and Plea to
In fact, he never denied actual receipt of Reset Pre-trial. The filing of Motions
such summons but confined himself to the seeking affirmative relief—to admit answer,
argument that the Sheriff should prove that for additional time to file answer, for
personal service was first made before
resorting to substituted service. “This brings 191
to the fore the question of procedural due
process. In Montalban v. Maximo (22 SCRA
1077 [1968]) the Court ruled that ‘The
constitutional requirement of due process VOL. 413, OCTOBER 8, 2003 191
exacts that the service be such as may be Oaminal vs. Castillo
reasonably expected to give the notice
reconsideration of a default judgment, and procedural niceties at the expense of
to lift order of default with motion for substantial justice.—As much as possible,
reconsideration—are considered voluntary suits should be decided on the merits and
submission to the jurisdiction of the court. not on technicalities. For this reason, courts
Having invoked the trial court’s jurisdiction have repeatedly been admonished against
to secure affirmative relief, respondents default orders and judgments that lay more
cannot—after failing to obtain the relief emphasis on procedural niceties at the
prayed for—repudiate the very same expense of substantial justice. Not being
authority they have invoked. based upon the merits of the controversy,
such issuances may indeed amount to a
Same; Certiorari; Certiorari will lie considerable injustice resulting in serious
only when a court has acted without or in consequences on the part of the defendant.
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of Thus, it is necessary to examine carefully
discretion; It is axiomatic that the the grounds upon which these orders and
availability of the right of appeal precludes judgments are sought to be set aside.
recourse to the special civil action for
certiorari.—Well-settled is the rule that PETITION for review on certiorari of a
certiorari will lie only when a court has decision of the Court of Appeals.
acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion. As a The facts are stated in the opinion of
condition for the filing of a petition for the Court.
certiorari, Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules           Sam Norman G. Fuentes for
of Court additionally requires that “no petitioner.
appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate      P.M. Castillo for respondents.
remedy in the ordinary course of law” must
be available. It is axiomatic that the PANGANIBAN, J.:
availability of the right of appeal precludes
In the instant case, the receipt of the
recourse to the special civil action for
summons by the legal secretary of the
certiorari.
defendants—respondents herein—is
Same; Default; Courts have repeatedly deemed proper, because they admit the
been admonished against default orders actual receipt thereof, but merely
and judgments that lay more emphasis on question the manner of service.
Moreover, when they asked for
affirmative reliefs in several motions
The Antecedents
and thereby submitted themselves to
the The antecedents of the case were
192 narrated by the CA as follows:

“On 09 March 2000, [Petitioner Henry

192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Oaminal] filed a complaint for collection
ANNOTATED against [Respondents Pablito and Guia
Castillo] with the Regional Trial Court
Oaminal vs. Castillo
[RTC] of Ozamis City (Branch 35) x x x.
The complaint prayed that [respondents] be
jurisdiction of the trial court, whatever ordered to pay P1,500,000.00 by way of
defects the service of summons may liquidated damages and P150,000.00 as
have had were cured. attorney’s fees.
“On 30 May 2000, the summons together
The Case with the complaint was served upon Ester
Fraginal, secretary of [Respondent] Mrs.
1
Before us is a Petition for Review Castillo.
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, “On 06 June 2000, [respondents] filed
seeking 2to nullify the March 26, 2002 their ‘Urgent Motion to Declare Service of
Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) Summons Improper and Legally Defective’
in CA-GR SP No. 66562. The assailed alleging that the Sheriffs Return has failed
Decision disposed thus: to comply with Section (1), Rule 14 of the
Rules of Court or substituted service of
“WHEREFORE, the [D]ecision dated 23 summons.
August 2001 is hereby NULLIFIED and “The scheduled hearing of the Motion on
SET ASIDE and Civil Case No. OZC-00-13 14 July 2000 did not take place because x x
ordered DISMISSED, without 3
prejudice. x [RTC] Judge [Felipe Zapatos] took a leave
Costs against [petitioner].” of absence from July 17 to 19, 2000[;]
hence[,] it was re-scheduled to 16 August
2000.
 “On 19 October 2000, [petitioner] filed an 2000 at 8:30 a.m. The said motion
Omnibus Motion to Declare [Respondents] was anchored on the premise that x
in Default and to Render Judgment because x x [petitioner’s] complaint was
no answer [was] filed by [the latter]. barred by improper venue and litis
“[Respondents] forthwith filed the pendentia; and
following: ‘c. Answer with Compulsory Counter-
Claim dated 9 November 2000.’
_______________
“On 16 November 2000, x x x [the] judge
1 Rollo, pp. 8-33. denied [respondents’] Motion to Dismiss,
2 Penned by Justice Buenaventura J. admitted [their] Answer, and set the pre-
Guerrero (Division chairman), with the trial [on] 17 January 2001.
concurrence of Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and “On 24 November 2000, [respondents]
Eliezer R. de los Santos (members); Rollo, pp. filed an ‘Urgent Motion to Inhibit Ad
35-44. Cautelam’ against Judge [Zapatos], ‘In the
3 CA Decision, p. 10; Rollo, p. 44. higher interest of substantial justice and the
[r]ule of [l]aw x x x.’
193
“On 27 December 2000, Judge [Zapatos]
denied the motion and transferred the
VOL. 413, OCTOBER 8, 2003 193 January 17th pre-trial to 19 February
2001.
Oaminal vs. Castillo
“[Respondents] filed an ‘Urgent Omnibus
Motion for Reconsideration with the
‘a. Omnibus Motion Ad Cautelam to
Accompanying Plea to Reset’ dated 22
Admit Motion to Dismiss and
January 2001. The motion requested that it
Answer with Compulsory Counter-
be set for consideration and approval by the
claim dated 9 November 2000 which
trial court on 05 February 2001 at 8:30 a.m.
was set for hearing on 27 November
Said motion in the main prayed ‘that an
2000 at 8:30 a.m.;
order be issued by the Honorable Court
‘b. x x x Urgent Motion to Dismiss also reconsidering its adverse order dated 16
dated 9 November 2000 which was November 2000, by dismissing the case at
also set for hearing on 27 November bar on the ground of improper venue or in
the alternative, that the Honorable ANNOTATED
Presiding Judge reconsider and set aside its
Oaminal vs. Castillo
order dated December 27, 2000 by
inhibiting himself from the case at hand.’ 4
3) x x x cost[s].’ ”
“On 22 May 2001, Judge [Zapatos] ruled
that [respondents’] ‘Omnibus Motion Ad
On September 11, 2001, respondents
Cautelam to Admit Motion to Dismiss and
filed with the CA a Petition for
Answer with Counterclaim’ was filed outside
certiorari, prohibition and injunction,
the period to file answer, hence he (1)
with a prayer for a writ of preliminary
denied the Motion to Admit Motion to
injunction or temporary restraining
Dismiss and Answer; (2) declared
order (TRO). In the main, they raised
[respondents] in default; and (3) ordered
the issue of whether the trial court had
[petitioner] to present evidence ex-parte
validly acquired jurisdiction over
within ten days from receipt of [the] order,
them.
[failing] which, the case will be dismissed.
On September 20, 2001, the
“On 23 August 2001, Judge [Zapatos]
appellate court issued a TRO to enjoin
rendered a decision on the merits, with the
the lower court from issuing a writ of
following dispositi[on]:
execution to enforce the latter’s
‘WHEREFORE, finding by preponderance of decision.
evidence, judgment is hereby rendered in favor
of [petitioner], ordering [respondents] to pay x x
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
x:

1) P1,500,000.00 by way of [l]iquidated

The CA ruled that the trial court did
[d]amages;
not validly acquire jurisdiction over
respondents, because the summons
2) P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees and
had been improperly served on them.
litigation expenses; and
It based its finding on the Sheriffs
Return, which did not contain any
194
averment that effort had been exerted
to personally serve the summons on
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS them before substituted service was
resorted to. Thus, the appellate court 195
set aside the trial court’s Decision and
dismissed, without prejudice, Civil
VOL. 413, OCTOBER 8, 2003 195
Case No. OZC-00-13. 5
Hence, this Petition. Oaminal vs. Castillo

“III
Issues
Whether the Honorable Third Division of
Petitioner submits the following issues the Court of Appeals [was] correct in
for our consideration: entertaining and in granting the Writ of
“I Certiorari when the facts clearly
establish[ed] that not only was [an] appeal
Whether respondents’ recourse to a Petition available, but x x x there were other plain,
for Certiorari [was] appropriate when the speedy and adequate remedies in the
remedy of appeal was available? ordinary course of law?

“II “IV

Whether the Decision of the trial court Whether the Honorable Third Division of
attained finality? the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to
nullify and set aside the Decision of the trial
_______________ court and dismiss the case?

4 Id., pp. 2-5 & 36-39. “V

5 The case was deemed submitted for
[Whether] receipt by a legal secretary of
decision on May 15, 2003, upon the Court’s
a summons [is deemed] receipt by a lawyer
receipt of petitioner’s Memorandum signed by 6
in contemplation of law?”
Atty. Sam Norman G. Fuentes. Respondents’
Memorandum, signed by Atty. Pablito M. Simply stated, the issues boil down to
Castillo, was received by this Court on March 4, the following: (1) whether the Petition
2003. for certiorari before the CA was proper;
and (2) whether the trial court _______________
acquired jurisdiction over respondents.
6 Petitioner’s Memorandum, pp. 4-5; Rollo,
Since the Petition for certiorari was
pp. 180-181. Original in upper case.
granted by the CA based on the trial
court’s alleged lack of jurisdiction over 196
respondents, the second issue shall be
discussed ahead of the former.
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
The Court’s Ruling
Oaminal vs. Castillo
The present Petition is partly
meritorious. swer, a Motion to Dismiss on the
grounds of improper venue and litis
pendentia, and an Answer with
First Issue: Counterclaim.
Jurisdiction over Defendants On the other hand, respondents
insist that the substituted service of
Petitioner contends that the trial court
summons on them was improper. Thus,
validly acquired jurisdiction over the
they allege that the trial court did not
persons of respondents, because the
have the authority to render its
latter never denied that they had
August 23, 2001 Decision.
actually received the summons
We clarify.
through their secretary. Neither did
they dispute her competence to receive Service of Summons
it.
Moreover, he argues that In civil cases, the trial court acquires
respondents automatically submitted jurisdiction over the person of the
themselves to the jurisdiction of the defendant either by the service of
trial court when they filed, on summons or by the latter’s voluntary
November 9, 2000, an Omnibus Motion appearance and submission to the
to Dismiss or Admit An- authority of the former. Where the
action is in personam and the
defendant is in the Philippines, the
service of summons may be made For substituted service of summons
through personal or substituted to be valid, it is necessary to establish
service in the manner provided for by the following circumstances: (a)
Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 of the personal service of summons within a
Revised Rules of Court, which read: reasonable time was impossible; (b)
efforts were exerted to locate the party;
“Section 6. Service in person on defendant. and (c) the summons was served upon
—Whenever practicable, the summons shall a
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. 7 Sandoval II v. House of Representatives
“Section 7. Substituted service—If, for Electoral Tribunal (HRET), G.R. No. 149380,
justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be July 3, 2002, 383 SCRA 770; Spouses Miranda
served within a reasonable time as provided v. Court of Appeals, 383 Phil. 163; 326 SCRA
in the preceding section, service may be 278, February 23, 2000; Ang Ping v. Court of
effected (a) by leaving copies of the Appeals, 369 Phil. 607; 310 SCRA 343, July 15,
summons at the defendant’s residence with 1999.
some person of suitable age and discretion
then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the 197
copies at defendant’s office or regular place
of business with some competent person in VOL. 413, OCTOBER 8, 2003 197
charge thereof.”
Oaminal vs. Castillo
Personal service of summons is
preferred over substituted service. person of sufficient age and discretion
Resort to the latter is permitted when residing at the party’s residence or
the summons cannot be promptly upon a competent person in charge of
served on the defendant in person and the party’s office or regular place of
8
after stringent formal and substantive business. It is likewise required that
requirements
7
have been complied the pertinent facts proving these
with.
circumstances are stated in the proof of thereof; it merely assailed the manner
service or officer’s return. of its service. In fact, they admitted in
In the
9
present case, the Sheriffs their Motion that the “summons,
Return failed to state that efforts had together with the complaint, was
been made to personally serve the served by the Sheriff on Ester
summons on respondents. Neither did Fraginal, secretary of the defendants
the Return indicate that it was at No. 7, 21st Avenue,12 Cubao, Quezon
impossible to do so within a reasonable City on 30 May 2000.”
time. It simply stated: That the defendants’ actual receipt
of the summons satisfied the
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on the 30th requirements of procedural due process
day of May 2000, copies of the summons had previously been upheld by the
together with the complaint and annexes Court thus:
attached thereto were served upon the
defendants Pablito M. Castillo and Guia B. “x x x [T]here is no question that summons
Castillo at their place of business at No. 7, was timely issued and received by private
21st Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City thru MS. respondent. In fact, he never denied actual
ESTER FREGINAL, secretary, who is receipt of
authorized to receive such kind of process.
She signed in receipt of the original as _______________
evidenced by her signature appearing on
the original summons. 8 Umandap v. Sabio Jr., 339 SCRA 243, August

“That this return is submitted to inform 29, 2000; Laus v. Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 688,

the Honorable x 10x x Court that the same March 8, 1993.

was duly served.” 9 Rollo, p. 45.
10 Ibid.
Nonetheless, nothing in the records 11 CA Rollo, pp. 42-44.
shows that respondents denied actual 12 Urgent Motion to Declare Service of Summons
receipt of the summons through their Improper and Legally Defective, par. 1, p. 1; id., p.
secretary, Ester Fraginal. Their 42.
“Urgent Motion to Declare Service of
Summons 11 Improper and Legally 198
Defective” did not deny receipt
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS improper venue and litis pendentia.
ANNOTATED They argued therein:
Oaminal vs. Castillo
“3. x x x. To be sure, the
such summons but confined himself to the [respondents] have already
argument that the Sheriff should prove that prepared a finalized draft of
personal service was first made before their [M]otion to [D]ismiss the
resorting to substituted service. case at bar, based on the twin
“This brings to the fore the question of compelling grounds of
procedural due process. In Montalban v. ‘improper venue’ and [the]
Maximo (22 SCRA 1077 [1968]) the Court additional fact that ‘there
ruled that ‘The constitutional requirement exists a case between the
of due process exacts that the service be parties involving the same
such as may be reasonably expected to give transaction/s covered by the
the notice desired. Once the service provided plaintiff’s cause of action.’ x x x;
by the rules reasonably accomplishes that “4. That as things now stand, the
end, the requirement of justice is answered; [respondents] are confronted
the traditional notions of fair13 play are with the dilemma of filing their
satisfied; due process is served.’ ” [M]otion to [D]ismiss based on
the legal grounds stated above
There is likewise no showing that and thus avoid forfeiture and
respondents had heretofore pursued waiver of these rights as
the issue of lack of jurisdiction; neither provided for by the Rules and
did they reserve their right to invoke it also file the corresponding
in their subsequent pleadings. If at all, [M]otion to [A]dmit x x x
what they avoided forfeiting and [A]nswer as mandated by the
waiving—both in their Omnibus Omnibus Rule. 16
Motion ad Cautelam to Admit Motion x x x     x x x     x x x”
to Dismiss and Answer14
with
Compulsory Counter-Claim 15
and in Verily, respondents did not raise in
their Motion to Dismiss —was their their Motion to Dismiss the issue of
right to invoke the grounds of
jurisdiction over their persons; they Motion to Dismiss and Answer with
raised only improper Counterclaim, an Answer with
Counterclaim, a Motion to Inhibit, and
_______________ a Motion for Reconsideration and Plea
to Reset Pretrial. The filing of Motions
13 Boticano v. Chu, Jr., 148 SCRA 541, 551, seeking affirmative relief—to admit
March 16, 1987, per Paras, J. answer, for additional time to file
14 CA Rollo, pp. 47-51. answer, for reconsideration of a default
15 CA Rollo, pp. 52-54. judgment, and to lift order of default
16 Omnibus Motion ad Cautelam to Admit with motion for reconsideration—are
Motion to Dismiss and Answer with considered voluntary submission
18
to the
Compulsory Counterclaim dated November 9, jurisdiction of the court. Having
2000; id., pp. 47-48. invoked the trial court’s jurisdiction to
secure affirmative relief, respondents
199
cannot—after failing to obtain the
relief prayed for—repudiate the very 19
VOL. 413, OCTOBER 8, 2003 199 same authority they have invoked.
Oaminal vs. Castillo
Second Issue:
venue and litis pendentia. Hence, Propriety of the Petition for
whatever defect there was in the Certiorari
manner17 of service should be deemed
waived. Petitioner contends that the certiorari
Petition filed by respondents before the
Voluntary Appearance and Submission CA was improper, because other
remedies in the ordinary course of law
Assuming arguendo that the service of
were available to them. Thus, he
summons was defective, such flaw was
argues that the CA erred when it took
cured and respondents are deemed to
cognizance of and granted the Petition.
have submitted themselves to the
jurisdiction of the trial court when they
filed an Omnibus Motion to Admit the _______________
 17 Ibid. that “no appeal nor any plain, speedy
18 Europa v. Hunter Garments and adequate remedy in the ordinary 21
Manufacturing (Phil.), Inc., 175 SCRA 394, course of law” must be available. It is
July 18, 1989; Orosa v. Court of Appeals, 330 axiomatic that the availability of the
Phil. 67; 261 SCRA 376, September 3, 1996; right of appeal precludes recourse22 to
Villareal v. Court of Appeals, 356 Phil. 826; 295 the special civil action for certiorari.
SCRA 511, September 17, 1998; Navale v. Here, the trial court’s judgment was
Court of Appeals, 324 Phil. 70; 253 SCRA 705, a final Decision that disposed of the
February 20, 1996, citing Soriano v. Hon. case. It23was therefore a fit subject of an
Palacio and Medenilla, 120 Phil. 1244; 12 appeal. However, instead of appealing
SCRA 447, November 28, 1964. the Decision, respondents filed a
19 American Inter-Fashion Corporation v. Petition for certiorari on September 11,
Glorious Sun Fashion Garments 2001.
Manufacturing (Phils.) Inc., 335 Phil. 723; 268 Be that as it may, a petition for
SCRA 258, February 13, 1997; citing St. Luke’s certiorari may be treated as a petition
Medical Center, Inc. v. Torres, 223 SCRA 779, for review under Rule 45. Such move is
June 29, 1993. in accordance with the liberal spirit
pervading the Rules of Court and in
200
the interest of substantial justice,
especially (1) if the petition was filed
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS within the reglementary 24period for
ANNOTATED filing a petition for review;
25
(2) errors
of judgment are averred; and (3) there
Oaminal vs. Castillo
is sufficient reason to 26
justify the
relaxation of the rules. Besides, it is
Well-settled is the rule that certiorari axiomatic that the nature of an action
will lie only when a court has acted is determined by the allegations of the
without or in excess of jurisdiction
20
or complaint or petition and the character
with grave abuse of discretion. As a 27
of the relief sought. The Court
condition for the filing of a petition for explained:
certiorari, Section 1 of Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court additionally requires
_______________
 20 Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 201
21 National Steel Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, 381 Phil. 219; 324 SCRA 208, January
VOL. 413, OCTOBER 8, 2003 201
31, 2000; Province of Bulacan v. Court of
Appeals, 359 Phil. 779; 299 SCRA 442, Oaminal vs. Castillo
November 27, 1998.
22 Ley Construction & Development “x x x. It cannot x x x be claimed that this
Corporation v. Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing petition is being used as a substitute for
Corporation, 339 SCRA 223, August 29, 2000; appeal after that remedy has been lost
Raymundo v. Court of Appeals, 374 Phil. 95; through the fault of petitioner. Moreover,
315 SCRA 494, September 29, 1999. stripped of allegations of ‘grave abuse of
23 See Section 2 of Rule 36 of the Rules of discretion,’ the petition actually avers errors
Court. of judgment rather than of jurisdiction,
24 Republic v. Court of Appeals, 379 Phil. 92; which are the subject of a petition for
28
322 SCRA 81, January 18, 2000; Eternal review.”
Gardens Memorial Park v. Court of Appeals,
347 Phil. 232; 282 SCRA 553, December 9, The present case satisfies all the above
1997. requisites. The Petition for certiorari
25 Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. v. Court of before the CA was filed within the
Appeals, 335 Phil. 1066; 268 SCRA 597, reglementary period of appeal. A
February 20, 1997. review of the records shows that
26 Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage respondents filed their Petition on
Bank v. Court of Appeals, 389 Phil. 644; 334 September 11, 200—four days after
SCRA 305, June 23, 2000. they had received the RTC Decision.
27 Ten Forty Realty and Development Corp. Verily, there were still 11 days to go
v. Cruz, G.R. No. 151212, before the lapse of the period for filing
September 10, 2003, 410 SCRA 484; Chico v. an appeal. Aside from charging grave
Court of Appeals, 348 Phil. 37; 284 SCRA 33, abuse of discretion and lack of
January 5, 1998; Cañiza v. Court of Appeals, jurisdiction, they likewise assigned as
335 Phil. 1107; 268 SCRA 640, February 24, errors the order and the judgment of
1997. default as well as the RTC’s allegedly
unconscionable and iniquitous award
29
 29
of liquidated damages. We find the or may hereafter be declared to be immediately
latter issue particularly significant, executory, shall be enforceable after their
considering that the trial court rendition and shall not be stayed by an appeal
awarded P1,500,000 as liquidated taken therefrom, unless otherwise ordered by
damages without the benefit of a the trial court. x x x.”
hearing and out of an obligation
202
impugned by respondents because
30
of
petitioner’s failure to pay. Hence,
there are enough reasons to treat the 202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Petition for certiorari as a petition for ANNOTATED
review.
Oaminal vs. Castillo
In view of the foregoing, we rule
that the Petition effectively tolled the31
finality of the trial court Decision.
Trial Court’s Default Orders Erroneous
Consequently, the appellate court had
jurisdiction to pass upon the assigned A review of the assailed Decision
errors. The question that remains is reveals that the alleged lack of
whether it was correct in setting aside jurisdiction of the trial court over the
the Decision and in dismissing the defendants therein was the reason why
case. the CA nullified the former’s default
judgment and dismissed the case
without prejudice. However, we have
_______________
ruled earlier that the lower court had
28 Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. v. Court of acquired jurisdiction over them. Given
Appeals, supra, p. 1075, per Mendoza, J. this fact, the CA erred in dismissing
29 Respondents’ Petition for Certiorari before the case; as a consequence, it failed to
the CA, p. 16; CA Rollo, p. 17. rule on the propriety of the Order and
30 Id., pp. 3 & 4. the judgment of default. To avoid
31 Under Section 4 of Rule 39 of the Rules of circuitousness and further delay, the
Court, only “[j]udgments in actions for Court deems it necessary to now rule
injunction, receivership, accounting and on this issue.
support, and such other judgments as are now
 As much as possible, suits should be ‘Lapses in the literal observance of a rule of
decided on the 32
merits and not on procedure will be overlooked when they do not
technicalities. For this reason, courts involve public policy, when they arose from an
have repeatedly been admonished honest mistake or unforeseen accident, when
against default orders and judgments they have not prejudiced the adverse party and
that lay more emphasis on procedural have not deprived the court of its authority.
niceties33 at the expense of substantial Conceived in the best traditions of practical and
justice. Not being based upon the moral
merits of the controversy, such
issuances may indeed amount to a _______________
considerable injustice resulting in
32 Spouses Diaz v. Diaz, 387 Phil. 314, 331 SCRA
serious consequences on the part of the
defendant. Thus, it is necessary to 302, April 28, 2000.

examine carefully the grounds upon 33 Sarmiento v. Juan, 205 Phil. 335; 120 SCRA

which these orders and 34

judgments are 403 January 28, 1983; cited in Philippine

sought to be set aside. Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 382

Respondents herein were declared Phil. 777; 326 SCRA 18, February 18, 2000.
in default by the trial court on May 22, 34 Spouses Ampeloquio v. Court of Appeals, 389
2001, purportedly because of their Phil. 13; 333 SCRA 465, June 15, 2000.
delay in filing an answer. Its
203
unexpected volte face came six months
after it had ruled to admit their
Answer on November 16, 2000, as VOL. 413, OCTOBER 8, 2003 203
follows: Oaminal vs. Castillo
“That with respect to the Motion to Admit
Answer, this Court is not in favor of justice and common sense, the Rules of Court

terminating this case on the basis of frown upon hairsplitting technicalities that do

technicality for failure to answer on time, not square with their liberal tendency and with

hence, as ruled in the case of Nantz v. Jugo the ends of justice unless something in the

and Cruz, 43 O.G. No. 11, p. 4620, it was nature of the factors just stated intervene. x x

held: x’
 “WHEREFORE, x x x in the interest of Note.—Compliance with the rules
justice, the Answer
35
of the [respondents] is regarding the service of summons is as
hereby admitted.” much an issue of due process as of
jurisdiction. (Ang Ping vs. Court of
Indiana Aerospace University v. 36 Appeals, 310 SCRA 343 [1999])
Commission on Higher Education
held that no practical purpose was ——o0o——
served in declaring the defendants in
default when their Answer had already _______________
been filed—albeit after the 15-day
period, but before they were declared 35 CA Rollo, p. 88.
as such. Applying that ruling to the 36 356 SCRA 367, April 4, 2001.
present case, we find that respondents
204
were, therefore, imprudently declared
in default.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is
hereby GRANTED IN PART, and the
Decision of the Court of Appeals
MODIFIED. The trial court’s Order of
Default dated May 22, 2001 and
Judgment of Default dated August 23, © Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
2001 are ANNULLED, and the case
remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings on the merits. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

          Puno (Chairman), Sandoval-

Gutierrez and Carpio-Morales, JJ.,
concur.
     Corona, J., On leave.

Petition granted in part, judgment

modified.