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.

FACTS

Respondent Alberto A. Domingo filed a Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages against the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Region III, in the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan. Domingo alleged that from April to September 1992, he entered into seven lease contracts with DPWH Region III for his construction equipment to implement emergency lahar control projects. After project completion, DPWH Region III had an unpaid balance of ₱6,320,163.05. Summons was served on May 6, 2002, upon DPWH Region III through its Clerk III, Nora Cortez. DPWH Region III failed to file a responsive pleading. The RTC granted Domingo’s Motion to Declare Defendant in Default, received his evidence ex parte, and rendered a Decision on February 18, 2003, ordering DPWH Region III to pay Domingo the principal amount plus interest and attorney’s fees. A writ of execution was issued. Subsequently, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the Court of Appeals. The Republic argued it was an indispensable party not impleaded and that no summons was served upon its statutory representatives (the OSG or the DPWH Legal Service), thus the RTC never acquired jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment; specifically, whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the Republic of the Philippines despite summons being served only on the DPWH Regional Office and not on the OSG or the DPWH Legal Service.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, and declared the RTC Decision null and void. The Court ruled that the Republic of the Philippines was an indispensable party to the suit as the contracts were entered into by DPWH officials “for and in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines.” Failure to implead the Republic as a party defendant rendered all subsequent proceedings of the trial court null and void. The Court further held that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the Republic. Service of summons upon the Republic must be made upon its authorized statutory representatives—the Solicitor General or the government agency’s legal officer—as mandated by Section 13, Rule 3 and Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. Service of summons solely on the DPWH Regional Office through a clerk was insufficient and did not bind the Republic. Since the Republic was not validly summoned, the default order and the subsequent judgment by the RTC were void for lack of jurisdiction. The case was dismissed without prejudice to Domingo refiling his action in the proper court.