November 9, 2016

G.R. No. 182944

G.R. No. 191591               June 17, 2015

February 8, 2017

G.R. No. 225035

G.R. No. 162288             April 4, 2007

G.R. No. 166216               March 14, 2012

G.R. No. 175730               July 5, 2010

G.R. No. 183795               November 12, 2014

G.R. No. 194751               November 26, 2014

G.R. No. 78328             June 3, 1991

G.R. No. 101256. March 8, 1993.

July 1, 2019

G.R. No. 214163

RONALD GERALINO M. LIM and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioners

vs.
EDWIN M. LIM, Respondent

Service to DPWH

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 175299               September 14, 2011

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Department of Public Works and

Highways, through the Hon. Secretary, HERMOGENES EBDANE, Petitioner,
vs.
ALBERTO A. DOMINGO, Respondent.

Thereafter, summons was issued by the RTC. The Proof of Service8 of the Sheriff dated May 9,
2002 stated, thus:

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned personally served the copy of the Summons together with the complaint issued
in the above-entitled case upon defendant The Department of Public Works and Highways,
Region III, San Fernando Pampanga on May 6, 2002 through Nora Cortez, Clerk III of said
office as shown by her signature and stamped mark received by said office appearing on the
original Summons.

WHEREFORE, the original Summons respectfully returned to the Court "DULY SERVED", for
its record and information.

Malolos, Bulacan, May 9, 2002.

xxx

The Court finds merit in the Republic’s petition.

Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him. Service
of such writ is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over his person. Jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant is acquired through coercive process, generally by the service of
summons issued by the court, or through the defendant's voluntary appearance or submission to
the court.29

Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court states that:

SEC. 13. Service upon public corporations. – When the defendant is the Republic of the
Philippines, service may be effected on the Solicitor General; in case of a province, city or
municipality, or like public corporations, service may be effected on its executive head, or on
such other officer or officers as the law or the court may direct. (Emphasis ours.)

Jurisprudence further instructs that when a suit is directed against an unincorporated government
agency, which, because it is unincorporated, possesses no juridical personality of its own, the suit
is against the agency's principal, i.e., the State.30 In the similar case of Heirs of Mamerto
Manguiat v. Court of Appeals,31 where summons was served on the Bureau of
Telecommunications which was an agency attached to the Department of Transportation and
Communications, we held that:

Rule 14, Section 13 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure provides:

SEC. 13. Service upon public corporations. — When the defendant is the Republic of the
Philippines, service may be effected on the Solicitor General; in case of a province, city or
municipality, or like public corporations, service may be effected on its executive head, or on
such other officer or officers as the law or the court may direct.

It is clear under the Rules that where the defendant is the Republic of the Philippines, service of
summons must be made on the Solicitor General. The BUTEL is an agency attached to the
Department of Transportation and Communications created under E.O. No. 546 on July 23,
1979, and is in charge of providing telecommunication facilities, including telephone systems to
government offices. It also provides its services to augment limited or inadequate existing similar
private communication facilities. It extends its services to areas where no communication
facilities exist yet; and assists the private sector engaged in telecommunication services by
providing and maintaining backbone telecommunication network. It is indisputably part of the
Republic, and summons should have been served on the Solicitor General.

We now turn to the question of whether summons was properly served according to the Rules of
Court. Petitioners rely solely on the sheriff's return to prove that summons was properly served.
We quote its contents, viz:

"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on the 19th day of May 1999, the undersigned caused the service of
Summons and Complaint upon defendant J.A. Development Corporation at the address indicated
in the summons, the same having been received by a certain Jacqueline delos Santos, a person
employed thereat, of sufficient age and discretion to receive such process, who signed on the
lower portion of the Summons to acknowledge receipt thereof.

Likewise, copy of the Summons and Complaint was served upon defendant Bureau of
Telecommunications at the address indicated in the Summons, a copy of the same was received
by a certain Cholito Anitola, a person employed thereat, who signed on the lower portion of the
Summons to acknowledge receipt thereof."

It is incumbent upon the party alleging that summons was validly served to prove that all
requirements were met in the service thereof. We find that this burden was not discharged by the
petitioners. The records show that the sheriff served summons on an ordinary employee and not
on the Solicitor General. Consequently, the trial court acquired no jurisdiction over BUTEL, and
all proceedings therein are null and void.32 (Emphases supplied.)

Xxx

In the instant case, the Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages filed by Domingo
specifically named as defendant the DPWH Region III. As correctly argued by the Republic, the
DPWH and its regional office are merely the agents of the former (the Republic), which is the
real party in interest in Civil Case No. 333-M-2002. Thus, as mandated by Section 13, Rule 14 of
the Rules of Court, the summons in this case should have been served on the OSG.

Xx
Here, there was no indication, and Domingo did not insist otherwise, that the OSG had any
notice of the filing of Civil Case No. 333-M-2002. Domingo speculates that, in the subsequent
civil actions against the DPWH Region III, the latter most likely brought the said cases to the
attention of the OSG. On the other hand, Domingo opines that the DPWH Region III apparently
neglected to inform the OSG of the pendency of Civil Case No. 333-M-2002. Accordingly,
Domingo asserted that he should not be faulted therefor. The Court disagrees. Domingo ought to
bear in mind that it is the duty of the plaintiff to implead all the necessary or indispensable
parties for the complete determination of the action.34 It was, thus, incumbent upon him to name
and implead the proper defendant in this case, i.e., the Republic, and cause the service of
summons to be made upon the officer mandated by law, that is, the OSG. As Domingo failed to
discharge this burden, he cannot now be allowed to shift the blame on the DPWH Region III or
hold in estoppel the OSG.1âwphi1

G.R. No. 150768             August 20, 2008

HEIRS OF MAMERTO MANGUIAT, represented by GERARDO MANGUIAT; HEIRS

OF FELIPE MARUDO, represented by JOSE MARUDO; HEIRS OF JULIANA
MAILON, represented by GAVINA MAILON MENDOZA; HEIRS OF LEONCIA
MERCADO, represented by ANIANA MANGUIAT; HEIRS OF VICENTE PEREZ,
represented by SOTERO PEREZ; HEIRS OF VICENTE GARCIA, represented by
MACARIO GARCIA LUCIDO; and HEIRS OF TRANQUILINA MENDOZA,
represented by RUFINA MENDOZA, petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and J.A. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
respondents

It is clear under the Rules that where the defendant is the Republic of the Philippines, service of
summons must be made on the Solicitor General. The BUTEL is an agency attached to the
Department of Transportation and Communications created under E.O. No. 546 on July 23,
1979, and is in charge of providing telecommunication facilities, including telephone systems to
government offices. It also provides its services to augment limited or inadequate existing similar
private communication facilities. It extends its services to areas where no communication
facilities exist yet; and assists the private sector engaged in telecommunication services by
providing and maintaining backbone telecommunication network.24 It is indisputably part of the
Republic, and summons should have been served on the Solicitor General.

We now turn to the question of whether summons was properly served according to the Rules of
Court. Petitioners rely solely on the sheriff's return to prove that summons was properly served.
We quote its contents, viz.:
 THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on the 19th day of May 1999, the undersigned caused the
service of Summons and Complaint upon defendant J.A. Development Corporation at the
address indicated in the summons, the same having been received by a certain Jacqueline
delos Santos, a person employed thereat, of sufficient age and discretion to receive such
process, who signed on the lower portion of the Summons to acknowledge receipt
thereof.

Likewise, copy of the Summons and Complaint was served upon defendant Bureau
of Telecommunications at the address indicated in the Summons, a copy of the same
was received by a certain Cholito Anitola, a person employed thereat, who signed on
the lower portion of the Summons to acknowledge receipt thereof.25 (Emphasis
supplied)

It is incumbent upon the party alleging that summons was validly served to prove that all
requirements were met in the service thereof. We find that this burden was not discharged by the
petitioners. The records show that the sheriff served summons on an ordinary employee and not
on the Solicitor General. Consequently, the trial court acquired no jurisdiction over BUTEL, and
all proceedings therein are null and void.