CARSON REALTY v. RED ROBIN SECURITY

Carson Realty and Management Corporation Vs. Red Robin Security Agency and Monina C. Santos

G.R. No. 225035

February 8, 2017

Facts:

On October 2, 2008 at around 12:51 in the afternoon, when a copy of Alias Summons dated September 9, 2008 issued in the entitled case together with a copy of the complaint and annexes attached thereto was brought for service to the President/General Manager of CARSON REALTY & MANAGEMENT CORP., in the person of Marcial M. Samson and/or Nieva A. Cabrera at its office address at Unit 601 Prestige Tower Condominium, Emerald Avenue, Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, undersigned was informed by the secretary of the company in the person of Ms. Vina Azonza that the above mentioned persons were not around and there was no one in the company authorized to receive the aforesaid summons. That the undersigned went back to the said office on October 16, 2008 at around 3:08 in the afternoon and was entered by Ms. Lorie Fernandez, also an employee of the company who is authorized to receive the said process.

On October 27, 2008, at around 2:23 in the afternoon, undersigned tried again to serve the same process to the President/General Manager of Carson Realty & Management Corp. but with the same result. Finally, on October 28, 2008 at around 1:03 in the afternoon, the undersigned went back to the said company to personally serve the Alias Summons together with the other pertinent documents, just the same, the President/General Manager of the company was not around, hence, substituted service of summons was resorted to by leaving the copy of the Alias Summons at the company's office through its employee, Ms. Lorie Fernandez, however, she refused to acknowledge receipt of the process.

Issue:

(1) Whether or not the RTC acquired jurisdiction over Carson.

(2) Whether or not Carson was properly declared in default.

Ruling:

The petition is bereft of merit. In actions in personam, such as the present case, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant through personal or substituted service of summons. However, because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service and personal service of summons is preferred over substituted service, parties do not have unbridled right to resort to substituted service of summons. Before substituted service of summons is resorted to, the parties must: (a) indicate the impossibility of personal service of summons within a reasonable time; (b) specify the efforts exerted to locate the defendant; and (c) state that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion who is residing in the address, or who is in charge of the office or regular place of business of the defendant.