CASE #18

G.R. No. 147530

June 29, 2005

PABLO B. CASIMINA, !en Gene"#$ M#n#%e" o& !e P!'$'(('ne )'*!e"'e* +e,e$o(-en Au !o"' ., (e ' 'one", ,*. /ON. EMILIO B. LEGASPI, 'n !'* 0#(#0' . #* P"e*'1'n% Ju1%e o& R2C o& I$o'$o, B"#n0! 22 #n1 EMMAN3EL 2. ILLERA, "e*(on1en *. )#0 *4 1. Private respondent Emmanuel T. Illera was the Port Manager of the Iloilo Fishing Port Complex (IFPC) while petitioner Pa lo !. Casimina was the then "eneral Manager of the Philippine Fisheries #evelopment $uthorit% (PF#$) with offi&es in 'ue(on Cit%. ). Mar&h 1*+ ),,, - Petitioner Casimina issued .pe&ial /rder 0o. 1)1 re-assigning private respondent from Iloilo to the &entral offi&e in 'ue(on Cit%. 2. Mar&h ))+ ),,, - Private respondent sent a memorandum to petitioner pra%ing for a re&onsideration of the ./. It in&luded that he was surprised % the ./ and was not dis&ussed efore him. 3. Mar&h )4+ ),,, - Petitioner issued a memorandum to private respondent stating therein the reason for the reassignment stating that while in the Central /ffi&e+ private respondent is expe&ted to help review and formulate &redit and &olle&tion poli&ies that would negate the a&&umulation of un&olle&ted a&&ounts re&eiva les+ in addition to the other duties that ma% e assigned to him in the interest of the servi&e. It also ordered private respondent Illera to &ease and desist from the further performan&e of his duties as Port Manager of the Iloilo Fish Port Complex effe&tive ,2 $pril ),,, and to assume duties and responsi ilities as stated. 5. $fter re&eiving the memorandum+ private respondent immediatel% filed a &ase for in6un&tion with pra%er for temporar% restraining order and a writ of preliminar% in6un&tion against petitioner in the 7TC of Iloilo+ !ran&h )) do&8eted as Civil Case 0o. ,,-)911*+ to restrain petitioner from transferring him to the &entral offi&e in 'ue(on Cit%. 9. $pril 13+ ),,, - Petitioner filed an omni us motion for the dismissal of the &omplaint on the grounds of la&8 of 6urisdi&tion over his person and the su 6e&t matter+ and la&8 of &ause of a&tion. :e averred that he never re&eived an% summons or &op% of the &omplaint against him+ hen&e+ the &ourt never a&;uired 6urisdi&tion over his person. :e further &ontended that the &ase involved personnel movement of a government emplo%ee in the pu li& servi&e and should have een appealed to the Civil .ervi&e Commission instead of the regular &ourts. *. The trial &ourt denied petitioner<s motion to dismiss the &omplaint against him and granted the writ of preliminar% in6un&tion pra%ed for % private respondent ordering petitioner to =desist from giving effe&t to the re-assignment of plaintiff (herein private respondent) from his permanent station in Iloilo Cit% to the 'ue(on Cit% offi&e. 1. Petitioner moved for a re&onsideration of the a ove de&ision ut it was denied. :en&e+ this petition. ISS3ES4 >/0 7espondent :on. ?egaspi exer&ised grave a use of dis&retion whi&h is tantamount to la&8 of or in ex&ess of 6urisdi&tion in de&iding the &ase when the said trial &ourt has not a&;uired 6urisdi&tion over the person of the petitioner and the su 6e&t matter of the &ase /EL+4 @es. In the &ase at ar+ petitioner never re&eived the summons against him+ whether personall% or in his offi&e. The re&ords show that petitioner<s offi&ial address as the "eneral Manager of the Philippine Fisheries #evelopment $uthorit% (PF#$) was in 'ue(on Cit%. @et+ the summons+ together with a &op% of the &omplaint+ was served not in his Manila offi&e ut in PF#$<s Iloilo ran&h offi&e and re&eived % the re&ords re&eiving offi&er there. >e have held that the failure to faithfull%+ stri&tl% and full% &ompl% with the re;uirements of su stituted servi&e renders the servi&e ineffe&tive. The .C disagreed with 7espondent :on. ?egaspi in presuming that the said 7e&ords 7e&eiving /ffi&er (was) authori(ed to re&eive the &ommuni&ation or &ourt pro&esses addressed to the defendant. .C held that the do&trine of su stantial &omplian&e re;uires that for there to e a valid servi&e of summons+ a&tual re&eipt of the summons % the defendant through the person served must e shown. .C further re;uires that where there is su stituted servi&e+ there should e a report indi&ating that the person who re&eived the summons in the defendant<s ehalf was one with whom petitioner had a relation of &onfiden&e ensuring that the latter would re&eive or would e notified of the summons issued in his name. 0one of these was o served in the &ase at ar. >e &annot infer a&tual re&eipt of summons % petitioner from the fa&t that the government &orporate &ounsel filed a motion to dismiss the &ase against him and Mr. Cose6o appeared on his ehalf during the summar% hearing for the issuan&e of a temporar% restraining order to as8 for the postponement of the &ase. It is well-settled that a part% who ma8es a spe&ial appearan&e in &ourt &hallenging the 6urisdi&tion of said &ourt ased on the ground of invalidit% of summons+ among others+ &annot e &onsidered to have su mitted himself to the 6urisdi&tion of the &ourt. Even the assertion of affirmative defenses+ aside from la&8 of 6urisdi&tion over the person of the defendant+ &annot e &onsidered a waiver of the defense of la&8 of 6urisdi&tion over su&h person. PE2I2ION GRAN2E+.