Summons Upon a Juridical Entity G.R. No. 172204
July 2, 2014
CA!A" #EA$ C%R&%RA'%N, C%R&%RA'%N, Petitioner, vs. $AGUNA (ES #U$')&UR&%SE C%%&ERA'*E, C%%&ERA'*E, 'NC., Respondent. $E%NEN, J.: +ACS
Respon Responden dentt Laguna Laguna West West MultiMulti-Pur Purpos pose e Cooper Cooperati ative ve is a cooper cooperati ative ve recognized under Republic Act No. 665 or t!e Co"pre!ensive Agrarian Re#or" Re#or" La$. La$. %t allegedl allegedl& & entered entered into into a 'oint 'oint venture venture agree"e agree"ent nt $it! #ar" #ar"er er-b -ben ene# e#ic icia iari ries es t!ro t!roug ug! ! Cert Certi# i#ic icat ates es o# Land Land ($ ($ne ners rs!i !ip p A$ar A$ard d )CL(A* )CL(A* in +ilang +ilang,, Cavite Cavite.. W!ile W!ile responde respondent nt $as negotiat negotiating ing $it! t!e #ar"er-bene #ar"er-bene#icia #iciaries, ries, petitioner petitioner Cat!a& Cat!a& Metal Corporatio Corporation n entered entered into %rrevocable clusive Rig!t to u& )%R* contracts $it! t!e sa"e #ar"erbene#i bene#icia ciarie ries. s. /nder /nder t!e %R, %R, t!e #ar"er #ar"er-be -bene# ne#ici iciari aries es co""itt co""itted ed t!e" t!e"se selv lves es to sell sell to peti petiti tion oner er t!ei t!eirr agri agricu cult ltur ural al prop proper erti ties es upon upon conversion to industrial or co""ercial properties or upon epiration o# t!e period o# pro!ibition #ro" trans#erring title to t!e properties. %n 0116, Laguna West Multi-Purpose Cooperative caused t!e annotation o# its adverse clai" on t!e #ar"er-bene#iciaries2 certi#icates o# title. %n 0111, Cat!a& Metal and t!e #ar"er-bene#iciaries eecuted contracts o# sale o# t!e properties. properties. 3rans#er certi#icates o# title $ere also issued in t!e na"e o# Cat!a& Metal. Laguna West Multi-Purpose Cooperative, t!roug! its 4ice President, Mr. dela Pea, $rote t$o letters bet$een Marc! and April 777 relative to its adverse clai"s in an atte"pt to a"icabl& settle $!at see"ed t!en as a bre$ing dispute. 3!ese letters $ere $ritten on respondent2s letter!eads indicating t!e addr-ss, No. 17, /aranay $ooc, Calama, $auna. (n +ept +epte" e"be berr 05, 05, 777 777,, petit petitio ione nerr #ile #iled d a cons consol olid idat ated ed peti petiti tion on #or #or cancellation o# adverse clai"s on its trans#er certi#icates o# title $it! t!e Regional 3rial Court o# 3aga&ta& Cit&. %t served a cop& o# t!e petition b& regist registere ered d "ail "ail to respon responden dent8s t8s allege alleged d o##ici o##icial al addr-ss addr-ss at /aranay /aranay
#ayapa, Calama, $auna.9 3!e petition $as returned to sender because respondent could not be #ound at t!at address. 3!e post"an issued a certi#ication stating t!at t!e reason #or t!e return $as t!at t!e :cooperative ;$as< not eisting.9 &-tition-r all--dly att-mpt-d to s-r3- t- p-tition upon r-spond-nt p-rsonally. !o5-3-r, tis s-r3ic- 6ail-d 6or t- sam- r-ason .
/pon Cat!a& Metal2s "otion, t!e Regional 3rial Court issued an order declaring petitioner2s substituted service, apparentl& b& registered "ail, to !ave been e##ected, t!us Laguna West Multi-Purpose Cooperative is !ereb& given a period o# #i#teen )05* da&s #ro" t!e deliver& o# said pleadings to t!e Cler= o# Court $it!in $!ic! to #ile t!eir opposition to t!e Consolidated petition #or cancellation o# adverse clai". Respondent, t!roug! Mr. (rlando dela Pea, #iled a "ani#estation and "otion, alleging t!at respondent never received a cop& o# t!e su""ons and t!e petition. %t "oved #or t!e service o# t!e su""ons and #or a cop& o# t!e petition to be sent t o No. 10, Narra A3-nu-, $ooc, Calama, $auna. Respondent argued t!at petitioner $as not being #air $!en it served su""ons to respondent2s old address despite =no$ledge o# its actual address. Petitioner argued t!at su""ons could onl& be validl& served to respondent2s o##icial address as indicated in its registration $it! t!e Cooperative >evelop"ent Aut!orit&. 3!is is because respondent as a registered cooperative is governed b& Republic Act No. 61?@, a substantive la$ t!at reuires su""ons to be served to respondent2s o##icial address. +ubstantive la$ ta=es precedence over procedural rules. Petitioner argued t!at respondent $as su##icientl& served $it! su""ons and a cop& o# its petition #or cancellation o# annotations because it allegedl& sent t!ese docu"ents to respondent2s o##icial address as registered $it! t!e Cooperative >evelop"ent Aut!orit&. Petitioner #urt!er argued t!at t!e Rules o# Procedure cannot tru"p t!e Cooperative Code $it! respect to notices. 3!is is because t!e Cooperative Code is substantive la$, as opposed to t!e Rules o# Procedure, $!ic! pertains onl& to "atters o# procedure.
'SSUE
W!et!er t!ere is valid service o# su""ons t!ru registered "ail. RU$'NG
Respondent $as not validl& served $it! su""ons. %n t!is case, petitioner served su""ons upon respondent b& registered "ail and, allegedl&, b& personal service at t!e o##ice address indicated in respondent2s Certi#icate o# Registration. +u""ons $as not served upon respondent2s o##icers. %t $as also not publis!ed in accordance $it! t!e Rules o# Court. As a result, respondent $as not given an opportunit& to present evidence, and petitioner $as able to obtain #ro" t!e Regional 3rial Court an order cancelling respondent2s annotations o# adverse clai"s. S-ction 11, Rul- 14 o6 t- Rul-s o6 Court pro3id-s t- rul- on s-r3ic- o6 summons upon a uridical -ntity. 't pro3id-s tat summons may - s-r3-d upon a uridical -ntity only trou its o66ic-rs. us
+ec. 00. +ervice upon do"estic private 'uridical entit&. B W!en t!e de#endant is a corporation, partners!ip or association organized under t!e la$s o# t!e P!ilippines $it! a 'uridical personalit&, service "a& be "ade on t!e president, "anaging partner, general "anager, corporate secretar&, treasurer, or in-!ouse counsel. We !ave alread& establis!ed t!at t!e enu"eration in +ection 00 o# Rule 0 is eclusive. +ervice o# su""ons upon persons ot!er t!an t!ose o##icers enu"erated in +ection 00 is invalid. %# su""ons "a& not be served upon t!ese persons personall& at t!eir residences or o##ices, su""ons "a& be served upon an& o# t!e o##icers $!erever t!e& "a& be #ound. 3!e Rules o# Court provides t!at notices s!ould be sent to t!e enu"erated o##icers. Petitioner #ailed to do t!is. No notice $as ever sent to an& o# t!e enu"erated o##icers. Court governs court procedures, including t!e rules on service o# notices and su""ons. 3!e Cooperative Code on notices cannot replace t!e rules
on su""ons under t!e Rules o# Court. Rule 0, +ection 00 o# t!e Rules o# Court provides an-eclusive enu"eration o# t!e persons aut!orized to receive su""ons #or 'uridical entities. 3!ese persons are t!e 'uridical entit&8s president, "anaging partner, general "anager, corporate secretar&, treasurer, or in-!ouse counsel. 3!e Cooperative Code provisions "a& govern "atters relating to cooperatives2 activities as ad"inistered b& t!e Cooperative >evelop"ent Aut!orit&. Do$ever, t!e& are not procedural rules t!at $ill govern court processes. A Cooperative Code provision reuiring cooperatives to !ave an o##icial address to $!ic! all notices and co""unications s!all be sent cannot ta=e t!e place o# t!e rules on su""ons under t!e Rules o# Court concerning a court proceeding. Petitioner insists t!at it s!ould not be "ade to inuire #urt!er as to t!e $!ereabouts o# respondent a#ter t!e atte"pt to serve t!e su""ons b& registered "ail to respondent2s address as allegedl& indicated in its Articles o# %ncorporation. 3!e Rules does not provide t!at it needs to do so. !o5-3-r, it pro3id-s 6or s-r3ic- y pulication. S-r3ic- y pulication is a3ailal- 5-n t- 5-r-aouts o6 t- d-6-ndant is un8no5n. +ection 0, Rule 0 o# t!e Rules o# Court providesE +ec. 0. +ervice upon de#endant $!ose identit& or $!ereabouts are un=no$n. B %n an& action $!ere t!e de#endant is designated as an un=no$n o$ner, or t!e li=e, or $!enever !is $!ereabouts are un=no$n and cannot be ascertained b& diligent inuir&, service "a&, b& leave o# court, be e##ected upon !i" b& publication in a ne$spaper o# general circulation and in suc! places and #or suc! ti"e as t!e court "a& order.
3!is is not a "atter o# acuiring 'urisdiction over t!e person o# respondent since t!is is an action in re". %n an action in re", 'urisdiction over t!e person is not reuired as long as t!ere is 'urisdiction over t!e res. 3!is case involves t!e issue o# #air pla& and ensuring t!at parties are accorded due process. %n t!is case, petitioner served su""ons upon respondent b& registered "ail and, allegedl&, b& personal service at t!e o##ice address indicated in respondent2s Certi#icate o# Registration. +u""ons $as not served upon
respondent2s o##icers. %t $as also not publis!ed in accordance $it! t!e Rules o# Court. As a result, respondent $as not given an opportunit& to present evidence, and petitioner $as able to obtain #ro" t!e Regional 3rial Court an order cancelling respondent2s annotations o# adverse clai"s. Respondent $as, t!ere#ore, not validl& served $it! su""ons.
