G.R. No. L-29067 May 31, 1977
JAMES A. KEISTER, petitioner, vs. THE HON. PEDRO C. NAVARRO, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and BATJAK, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Batjak, Inc. filed a complaint for annulment of sale with attachment against petitioner James A. Keister, its former President-General Manager, and the Philippine Constabulary. Batjak alleged that Keister, without authority, sold a company-owned automobile to Juan T. Chuidian, who then reconveyed it to Keister. The complaint stated that Keister, an American citizen, had surreptitiously left the Philippines for the United States and could be served with summons “c/o Chuidian Law Office, Suite 801, J M T Bldg., Ayala Avenue, Makati, Rizal.” Summons was served at this law office address, received by a clerk. Keister, through counsel, filed a special appearance to contest jurisdiction, arguing the court did not acquire jurisdiction over his person due to improper substituted service of summons. The respondent judge denied Keister’s motion to dismiss and subsequent motion for reconsideration, ordering him to answer the complaint. Keister then filed this petition for prohibition.

ISSUE

Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner James A. Keister through the substituted service of summons effected at the Chuidian Law Office.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Keister. Jurisdiction over the defendant in a personal action is acquired only through valid service of summons or voluntary appearance. The service here was fatally defective. Substituted service under Section 8, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court is allowed only if the defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time. Such substituted service must be effected either (a) by leaving copies at the defendant’s dwelling house or residence with a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein, or (b) by leaving copies at the defendant’s office or regular place of business with a competent person in charge. The address used, the Chuidian Law Office, was neither Keister’s dwelling house, residence, office, nor regular place of business. It was merely an address for correspondence indicated in the complaint. The law office clerk who received the summons was not a person residing at Keister’s dwelling nor in charge of his office. Therefore, the purported substituted service was invalid and conferred no jurisdiction. The respondent judge’s orders were null and void. The writ of preliminary injunction was made permanent.