Sagana v. Francisco

ARNEL SAGANA v. RICHARD A. FRANCISCO, (G)
G.R. No.161952, October 2, 2009

FACTS:

• December 13, 1994, petitioner Arnel Sagana filed a Complaint for Damages before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and raffled to Branch 99. Petitioner alleged that on 20 November 1992, respondent Richard A. Francisco, with intent to kill and without justifiable reason, shot him with a gun hitting him on the right thigh. As a result, petitioner incurred medical expenses and suffered wounded feelings, and was compelled to engage the services of a lawyer, due to respondent’s refusal to pay said expenses. Petitioner thus demanded payment of P300,000.00 as actual damages, P150,000.00 as moral damages,P50,000.00, exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
• January 31, 1995, process server Manuel S. Panlasigui attempted to serve summons at respondent’s address at No. 36 Sampaguita St., Baesa, Quezon City but was unsuccessful. In his Server’s Return, Panlasigui stated that he tried to personally serve the summons to respondent at his given address. However, the occupant of that house told him that respondent is unknown at said address. Panlasigui also declared that diligent efforts were exerted to serve the summons but these proved to be futile. Subsequently, the trial court attempted to serve summons to respondent’s office through registered mail. However, despite three notices, respondent failed to pick up the summons.
• August 25, 1995, Process Server Jarvis Iconar again tried to serve the summons at the address of the respondent but no avail. According to Iconar’s handwritten notation on the summons, he was informed by Michael Francisco, respondent’s brother, that respondent no longer lived at said address. However, he left a copy of the summons to Michael Francisco.
• November 10, 1995, petitioner filed a Motion to Declare Defendant in Default, alleging that despite service of summons, respondent still failed to file an Answer.
• February 16, 1996, the trial court issued an Order finding that the summons was validly served to respondent through his brother, Michael. It thus declared respondent in default and allowed petitioner to present his evidence ex parte. Nonetheless, copies of all pleadings and court documents were furnished to respondent.
• March 1, 1996, Michael Francisco, through his counsel, Atty. Bernardo Q. Cuaresma, filed a Manifestation and Motion denying that he received the summons or that he was authorized to receive summons on behalf of his brother. He alleged that the substituted service did not comply with Section 8, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
• October 4, 1996, the trial court issued an Order denying Michael Francisco’s Manifestation and Motion for lack of merit. Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and hereby orders defendant to pay plaintiff.
• November 23, 1999, respondent Richard A. Francisco filed a Notice of Appeal, claiming that he received a copy of the trial court’s Decision on 9 November 1999; that the same was contrary to the law, facts, and evidence, and praying that his appeal be given due course.
• August 13, 2003, the Court of Appeals rendered the herein assailed Decision granting the appeal and setting aside the Decision of the trial court. The appellate court held that the service of summons was irregular and such irregularity nullified the proceedings before the trial court. Since it did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent, the trial court’s decision was void.

ISSUE:

• Whether or not there was a valid service of summons upon the respondent.

HELD:

• Yes, there was a valid service of summons upon the respondent. The purpose of summons is two-fold: to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and to notify the defendant that an action has been commenced so that he may be given an opportunity to be heard on the claim against him. Under the circumstances of this case, we find that respondent was duly apprised of the action against him and had every opportunity to answer the charges made by the petitioner. However, since respondent refused to disclose his true address, it was impossible to personally serve summons upon him. Considering that respondent could not have received summons because of his own pretenses, and has failed to provide an explanation of his purported "new" residence, he must now bear the consequences.
• It is, at times, difficult to reconcile the letter of the law with its spirit. Thus, it is not altogether surprising that two competing values are usually discernable in every controversy – the principle of dura lex sed lex versus the notion that technicalities should yield to broader interests of justice. In our rules of procedure, for instance, judges often struggle to find a balance between due process considerations and a liberal construction to secure a just disposition of every action.