Santos, Jr. v. PNOC

PEDRO T. SANTOS, JR. v. PNOC,
G.R. No. 170943, September 23, 2008

FACTS:

• December 23, 2002, PNOC Exploration Corporation, respondent, filed a complaint for a sum of money against petitioner Pedro Santos Jr. in the RTC of Pasig. The amount sought to be collected was the petitioner’s unpaid balance of the car loan advanced to him by respondent when he was still a member of its board of directors.
• Personal service of summons were made to petitioner but failed because the latter cannot 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. Respondent caused the publication of the summons in Remate, a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. Thereafter, respondent submitted the affidavit of publication and the 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.
• Petitioner still failed to 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.
• 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.
• Trial court denied the said motion and held that the rules did not require such execution with the clerk of court. It also denied the motion to admit petitioner’s answer because the same was filed way beyond the reglementary period.
• Petitioner appeals to the CA via a petition for certiorari contending that the court committed grave abuse of discretion since it has no jurisdiction due to improper service of summons, failure to furnish him with copies of its orders and processes and upholding technicality over equity and justice.

ISSUE:

• Whether or not there was a failure on the part of the trial court to furnish Petitioner with copies of orders and processes issued in the course of the proceedings

HELD:

• No, Santos 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 Santos 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 impossible. 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.