Ang v Chinatrust

Summary: Chinatrust filed money claims against Nation and the Angs. Summons were improperly served. Instead of
giving the summons directly to the defendants, substituted service was done. While such is allowed, there are 4
requirements that must be followed for it to be a valid substituted service. Two of the four requirements were not met: 1)
impossibility of service was not proven as the servers did not make several attempts to deliver the summons to the
defendants personally and 2) that the person given the summons was not a competent person in charge of the office.

Chinatrust filed a money claims against Nation Petroleum Corporation and the Angs before RTC Makati.
RTC, thru its Branch Clerk Atty Jamora issued summonses to the defendants.
RTC heard ex parte the application for a preliminary attachment and subsequently granted Chinatrusts
application.
Process Server Joseph R. Dela Cruz and Assisting Sheriff Robert V. Alejo executed an Officer's Return reporting
their service of the summons:
o a copy of the summons was served to the defendants at the 39th Floor, Yuchengco Tower, RCBC Plaza,
6819 Ayala Ave. cor. Sen. Gil J. Puyat Ave., Makati City, thru Mr. RICKY ANG, personally, who
acknowledged receipt thereof but refused to sign in the original copy of summons, and the receptionist
them that the other defendants have not yet arrived and to return in the afternoon.
o On the afternoon, the summons were served thru Ms. Melinda Ang, Corporate Secretary of defendant
Nation Petroleum Corporation and instructed Ms. Charlotte Magpayo, Administrative Assistant of the
said corporation to receive the same.
o The other defendants could not be located because the Serves were not allowed to enter. Substituted
service was made by leaving their processes at their office with Magpayo affixing the "receiving stamp"
of Nation Petroleum and her notation
Defendants entered a Special Appearance with a Motion to Dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction:
o (1) that the RTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over Nation because service of summons was made on
Charlotte Magpayo, a mere property supply custodian instead of the president, managing partner, general
manager, corporate secretary, or in-house counsel; and (2) that the individual defendants were not validly
served summons because (3) the process server improperly resorted to substituted service and failed to
comply with its strict requirements.
RTC denied the MTD and held that the Nation's corporate secretary Melinda Ang authorized Charlotte Magpayo
as her agent for the limited purpose of receiving the summons. Ricky Ang was also validly served because he
acknowledged receipt of the process though refused to sign.
Defendants filed a petition for certiorari before the CA challenging RTCs jurisdiction.
Chinatrust assigned rights to Asian Debt Fund.
CA: affirmed RTC but dismissed suit against Nation because RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over Nation
because the list of corporate officers authorized to receive summons for a corporation is exclusive.
o Insufficient evidence that Nation's corporate secretary granted Charlotte Magpayo, a property supply
custodian, a special power of attorney to receive summons for the corporation on her behalf.
o Upheld process servers resort to substituted service with respect to the individuals defendants because
there was an impossibility of service as the servers were not allowed to enter.

WN RTC acquired jurisdiction over the defendants (both corporation and individuals)? NO. 2 of the 4
requirements set in Manotoc v CA were not complied with.

While personal service is the preferred method of serving summons, the Rules of Court are also mindful that this
is sometimes impracticable or even impossible.
1. Rule 14, Sec 7: Substituted service. If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served within a
reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the
summons at the defendants residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing
 therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendants office or regular place of business with some
competent person in charge thereof
Despite such section, owing to the constitutional requirement of due process, there must be strict compliance with
the requirements which have been discussed in Manotoc v CA:
1. Party relying on substituted service or the sheriff must establish the impossibility of prompt personal
service. Several attempts must have been made within a reasonable period of one month.
Several attempts = at least thrice at least two different dates
The return failed to establish the impossibility of prompt service as the process
server only made two attempts on the same date and did not even attempt to serve
the defendant in their homes.
2. To prove impossibility of service, there must be specific details in the return describing the circumstances
surrounding the attempted personal service.
Failure to make a disclosure is not conclusive as the plaintiff may still establish impossibility
during the hearing.
3. if substituted service is made at the defendants house or residence, the sheriff must leave a copy of the
summons with a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein.
age of full legal capacity and has sufficient discernment to comprehend the importance of a
summons and his duty to deliver it immediately to the defendant
4. if substituted service is made at the defendants office or regular place of business, the sheriff must
instead leave a copy of the summons with a competent person in charge thereof.
person managing the office or the business of the defendant, such as the president or the manager.
The rule presupposes the existence of a relation of confidence between such person and
the defendant. Charlotte Magpayo is a Property Custodian at Nation Petroleum. Her
position denotes limited responsibility to office equipment, inventory, and supplies and
Chinatrust did not submit evidence that Magpayos job included management of Nations
Makati Office.
With respect to Ricky Ang: he was personally served summons. Personal service may be effected by handing a
copy of the summons to the defendant in person or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him.

Thus, we have no choice but to grant the petition and dismiss the complaint in Civil Case No. 06-872 against all the
petitioners, except for Ricky Ang, for failure of the RTC to acquire jurisdiction over their persons. As a consolation to
ADF, this dismissal is without prejudice to the re-filing of the complaint against the petitioners or their subsequent
inclusion in the same case upon a valid service of summons.