Philippine Commercial International Bank vs. Alejandro

G.R. No. 175587. September 21, 2007.

FACTS

Alejandro, a Hong Kong resident, executed a promissory note in favor of PCIB for the amount of P249,828,588.90. PCIB filed a complaint for sum of money with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment due to the alleged withdrawal of unassigned deposits. The trial court granted the application and the bank deposits of respondent with RCBC were garnished. Alejandro, through counsel, filed a manifestation informing the court that he is voluntarily submitting to its jurisdiction. He also filed a motion to quash the writ contending that the withdrawal of his unassigned deposits was approved by the PCIB. He also alleged that petitioner knew that he maintains a permanent residence in Quezon City and an office address in Makati City. He posits that there was  a regular communication with PCIB since he frequently travels back to the Philippines. Alejandro also filed a claim for damages in the amount of P25 Million on account of the wrongful garnishment of his deposits.

The Trial Court granted the Motion to Quash on the ground that petitioner misrepresented and suppressed the facts regarding respondent’s residence considering that it has personal and official knowledge that for purposes of service of summons. The Court also granted the damages without basis. 

ISSUE

Booking.com

Whether or not Alejandro can be considered a resident who is temporarily out of the Philippines upon whom service of summons may be effected by publication, and therefore qualifies as among those against whom a writ of attachment may be issued

RULING

Booking.com

No, in actions in personam, such as the instant case for collection of sum of money, summons must be served by personal or substituted service, otherwise the court will not acquire jurisdiction over the defendant. However, where the defendant is a resident who is temporarily out of the Philippines, attachment of his/her property in an action in personam, is not always necessary in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction to hear the case. Rule 16, Section 17 provides for extraterritorial service—(a) personal service out of the Philippines, (b) publication coupled with the sending by registered mail of the copy of the summons and the court order to the last known address of the defendant; or (c) in any other manner which the court may deem sufficient.

It must be stressed that the writ was issued by the trial court mainly on the representation of petitioner that respondent is not a resident of the Philippines. Obviously, the trial court’s issuance of the writ was for the sole purpose of acquiring jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. Had the allegations in the complaint disclosed that respondent has a residence in Quezon City and an office in Makati City, the trial court, if only for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction, could have served summons by substituted service on the said addresses, instead of attaching the property of the defendant. The rules on the application of a writ of attachment must be strictly construed in favor of the defendant. For attachment is harsh, extraordinary, and summary in nature; it is a rigorous remedy which exposes the debtor to humiliation and annoyance.

The misrepresentation of petitioner that respondent does not reside in the Philippines and its omission of his local addresses was thus a deliberate move to ensure that the application for the writ will be granted.

DOCTRINE

  • Substituted service of summons is the normal mode of service of summons that will confer jurisdiction on the court over the person of residents temporarily out of the Philippines.
  • Where the defendant is a resident who is temporarily out of the Philippines, attachment of his/her property in an action in persona, is not always necessary in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction to hear the case.
Share: