Rule 14

INTERLINK MOVIE HOUSES, INC. vs COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 203298

Facts: Petitioner Interlink Movie Houses filed before the R TC a complaint for sum of
money and damages against respondents Expressions Stationery ShopInter for the
latter's unpaid rentals and damages resulting from its alleged breach of their lease
contract.

In the service of summons, Sheriff Benedict R. Muriel served it at the defendant

company’s office.Interlink then filed a motion to declare herein respondents in default for
their failure to file their answer. Respondents entered a special appearance alleging that
the service of the summons was defective and, as such, the RTC did not acquire
jurisdiction over them.

RTC denied Interlink's motion to declare defendants in default. The trial court agreed
that the summons was not served in accordance with Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules
of Court rendering such service defective.

Again in the Sheriff’s return, an order of issuance of summons was delivered to the
respondents through a certain Amee Ochotorina, who introduced herself as a secretary.

Interlink filed another motion to declare defendants in default. To this motion,

respondent again entered a special appearance and alleged that the second service of
the summons was still defective because Ochotorina did not work for nor was
connected with the office of the president of Expressions.

The RTC granted the motion to declare defendants in default and allowed Interlink to
present evidence ex parte. The trial court was convinced that there was sufficient
compliance with the rules on service of summons to a juridical entity considering that
the summons was received by the assistant/secretary of the president.

Issue: Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents

Ruling: No. There was no valid service of summons. It is settled that jurisdiction over a
defendant in a civil case is acquired either through service of summons or through
voluntary appearance in court and submission to its authority. In the absence of service
or when the service of summons upon the person of the defendant is defective, the
court acquires no jurisdiction over his person, and a judgment rendered against him is
null and void.

In actions in personam, such as collection for a sum of money and damages, the court
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant through personal or substituted
service of summons.
Rule 15
JOSE DELOS REYES VS OSEPHINE ANNE B. RAMNANI G.R. No. 169135

Facts: A judgment debt is enforced by the levy and sale of the debtor’s property. The
trial court rendered a decision in favor of respondent Josephine Anne B. Ramnani.
Thereafter, a writ of execution was issued by the trial court. Branch Sheriff Pedro T.
Alarcon conducted a public bidding and auction sale over the property covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title during which respondent was the highest bidder.
Consequently, a certificate of sale was executed in her favor on even date.

Respondent filed a motion (subject motion) for the issuance of an order directing the
sheriff to execute the final certificate of sale in her favor. Petitioner opposed on the twin
grounds that the subject motion was not accompanied by a notice of hearing and that
the trial court’s October 11, 1977 Decision can no longer be executed as it is barred by
prescription.

The trial court ruled that the prescription for the issuance of a writ of execution is not
applicable in this case.

Issue: Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the fatally defective motion. Although the
certificate of sale was annotated on the transfer certificate title, petitioner did not
exercise his right to redeem the subject property within one year from said registration.
Thus, what remains to be done is the issuance of the final certificate of sale which was,
however, not promptly accomplished at that time due to the demise of the trial court’s
sheriff

Ruling: No. Decision was not timely executed because of respondent’s failure to secure
the final certificate of sale within 10 years from the entry of said judgment. This is
erroneous. It is not disputed that shortly after the trial court rendered the aforesaid
judgment, respondent moved for execution which was granted by the trial court. The
subject property was sold on execution sale. Respondent emerged as the highest
bidder, thus, a certificate of sale was executed by the sheriff in her favor on the same
day.

Decision was already enforced when the subject property was levied and sold on June
6, 1978 which is within the five-year period for the execution of a judgment by motion
under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
Rule 15
EDWARD ANTHONY RAMOS vs REYNALO TEVES A.M. No. P-12-3061

Facts: Atty. Edward Anthony B. Ramos filed a complaint for money in his client’s behalf
in which complaint he sought the ex parte issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment.

Since the MTCC already served summons on the defendant but did not yet act on
his ex parte request for preliminary attachment, Atty. Ramos went to the court
personally file an urgent ex parte motion to resolve the pending incident. But respondent
Reynaldo S. Teves, the branch clerk of court, refused to receive the motion for the
reason that it did not bear proof of service on the defendant. Atty. Ramos explained
that ex parte motions did not require such service. A heated argument between Atty.
Ramos and Teves ensued, prompting the presiding judge who heard it to intervene and
direct the clerk in charge of civil cases to receive the ex parte motion.

Atty. Ramos charged Teves before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) with
arrogance and discourtesy in refusing to receive his motion despite his explanation.

Teves claimed that he was neither arrogant nor discourteous and that his argument with
Atty. Ramos had been cordial and professional. Citing Rule 19 of the Rules of Court,
Teves asserted that he acted correctly in refusing to accept Atty. Ramos non pro forma
motion for failure to furnish the adverse party with a copy of the notice of hearing.
Issue: Whether the branch clerk of court may refuse to receive a pleading that does not
conform with the requirements of the Rules of Court.

Ruling: No. Clearly Teves erred in refusing to receive Atty. Ramos motion on the ground
that it did not bear proof of service on the defendant. Unless specifically provided by the
rules, clerks of court have no authority to pass upon the substantive or formal
correctness of pleadings and motions that parties file with the court. Compliance with
the rules is the responsibility of the parties and their counsels.And whether these
conform to the rules concerning substance and form is an issue that only the judge of
the court has authority to determine.

The duty of clerks of courts to receive pleadings, motions, and other court-bound papers
is purely ministerial. Although they may on inspection advise the parties or their
counsels of possible defects in the documents they want to file, which may be regarded
as part of public service, they cannot upon insistence of the filing party refuse to receive
the same.