|
G.R. No. 101699 – 325 Phil. 145 – 254 SCRA 673 – Remedial Law – Civil Procedure – Service of Summons – Jurisdiction over the person
In 1986, Gil Abaño, the treasurer of Mana Mining and Development Corporation (MMDC), sent a letter to Melvin Millena, a project accountant of MMDC, advising the latter that he is being laid-off due to the fact that the rainy season is on; that there is deteriorating peace and order in the area (Sorsogon), and that there will be little paperwork to do.
As a result, Millena filed an illegal dismissal case against MMDC before the labor arbiter. Eventually, Millena won and a writ of execution was issued against MMDC. However, since MMDC’s office closed down, the writ was served to Benjamin Santos, the former president of MMDC.
In his defense, Santos argued, among others, that he cannot be made personally liable because he was not served any summons or notice and that he did not even know the nature of the complaint because no copy was served upon him in compliance with Rule 14 (Summons) of the Rules of Court; that the lawyer who represented MMDC cannot be considered as Santos’ representative in court; that the labor arbiter and the NLRC (National Labor Relations Commission) never acquired jurisdiction over his person; that it would be violative of due process if he is made liable.
ISSUE: Whether or not Benjamin Santos was properly placed under the jurisdiction of the NLRC.
HELD: Yes. Although as a rule, modes of service of summons are strictly followed in order that the court may acquire jurisdiction over the person of a defendant, such procedural modes, however, are liberally construed in quasi-judicial proceedings, such as in the case at bar. Substantial compliance with the same is considered adequate.
In this case, summonses were actually sent to MMDC as well as to Santos and to another MMDC officer. When the lawyer of MMDC appeared, he did so in representation of MMDC, Santos, and the other corporate officer named in the summons. The lawyer actively participated in the proceeding, thus, Santos cannot claim that he was not duly represented in the proceedings nor can he claim that he was never placed under the custody of the labor arbiter or the NLRC.
