ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10649 March 1, 1916 - BENITO AFRICA v. KURT W. GRONKE

    034 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 10838 March 1, 1916 - ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL. v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 11148 March 1, 1916 - LIM BUN SU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10563 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BONIFACIO

    034 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 11262 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ

    034 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 7676 March 3, 1916 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. ESTEBAN ARCENAS

    034 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 10265 March 3, 1916 - EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN v. ISIDORO SANTOS

    034 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10918 March 4, 1916 - WILLIAM FRESSEL ET AL. v. MARIANO UY CHACO SONS & COMPANY

    034 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10971 March 4, 1916 - BEAUMONT & TENNEY v. BERNARD HERSTEIN

    034 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 11216 March 6, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    034 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 8473 March 7, 1916 - SANTIAGO YASON v. JULIO MAGSAKAY

    034 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 10437 March 7, 1916 - JESUSA LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO

    034 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 10729 March 7, 1916 - UY PO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 10793 March 17, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO

    034 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 11196 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO YUMUL

    034 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 11321 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SY BUN KUE

    034 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 10051 March 9, 1916 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. SWEDISH EAST ASIATIC CO.

    034 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 11115 March 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE YU TUICO

    034 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10297 March 11, 1916 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK ET AL.

    034 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 8135 March 13, 1916 - FRED J. LEGARE ET AL. v. ANTONIA CUERQUES

    034 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 10449 March 13, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL

    034 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8092 March 14, 1916 - RUFINA BONDAD ET AL. v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL.

    034 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 10578 March 14, 1916 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. MAURICIA SOTTO

    034 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 11000 March 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MENDIETA

    034 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 9497 March 15, 1916 - SIMONA GALICIA v. TEODORA NAVARRO

    034 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 11467 March 15, 1916 - NG HIAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 10462 March 16, 1916 - ANDREA DUMASUG v. FELIX MODELO

    034 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 9164 March 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VY BO TEC

    034 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 10354 March 17, 1916 - FELIPE DORADO v. AGRIPINO VIRIÑA

    034 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 10718 March 17, 1916 - United States v. Ramon FERRER

    034 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 11464 March 17, 1916 - VICTOR BIUNAS v. BENITO MORA

    034 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 8954 March 21, 1916 - DOROTEA CABANG v. MARTIN DELFINADO

    034 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9340 March 21, 1916 - MARGARITO PENALOSA LO INTONG v. ISIDORA JAMITO ET AL.

    034 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 10889 March 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MARTINEZ

    034 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 11098 March 21, 1916 - CO PAIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 11154 March 21, 1916 - E. MERRITT v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    034 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 8979 March 22, 1916 - ADRIANO PANLILIO v. PROVICIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA ET AL.

    034 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 10978 March 22, 1916 - SIXTO MANLAGNIT v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO

    034 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 11315 March 22, 1916 - DIONISION CHANCO v. CARLOS IMPERIAL

    034 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 8941 March 23, 1916 - GUILLERMO VELOSO v. LORENZO BECERRA

    034 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 9984 March 23, 1916 - PETRONA JAVIER v. LAZARO OSMEÑA

    034 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10769 March 23, 1916 - RAYMUNDO MELLIZA v. F. W. TOWLE

    034 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 11119 March 23, 1916 - JUANA RIVERA v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 8642 March 24, 1916 - STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. ANTONIO BABASA ET AL.

    034 Phil 354

  • G.R. Nos. 8765 & 10920 March 24, 1916 - PEDRO DIMAGIBA v. ANSELMO DIMAGIBA

    034 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 8806 March 24, 1916 - ALEJANDRO BALDEMOR v. EUSEBIA MALANGYAON

    034 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 9919 March 24, 1916 - ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL.

    034 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 9974 March 24, 1916 - CANG YUI v. HENRY GARDENER

    034 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 10560 March 24, 1916 - IN RE: Tan Po Pic v. JUAN L. JAVIER

    034 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 10624 March 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 10663 March 24, 1916 - JOSEPH E. FOX v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11384 March 24, 1916 - ANTONIO GUEVARA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 10045 March 25, 1916 - PHIL. RAILWAY COMPANY v. WILLIAM T. NOLTING

    034 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 10777 March 25, 1916 - ALEJANDRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN

    034 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 11157 March 25, 1916 - POLICARPIO RAMIREZ v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO

    034 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 10510 March 27, 1916 - LEONCIO ZARATE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    034 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 10580 March 27, 1916 - TEODORO DE LOS REYES v. MAXIMINO PATERNO

    034 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 11607 March 27, 1916 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV. CO. (LTD.) v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS

    034 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 9845 March 28, 1916 - J. C. RUYMANN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    034 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 10054 March 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL

    034 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 10264 March 28, 1916 - CHOA TEK HEE v. PHIL. PUBLISHING CO.

    034 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 10595 March 28, 1916 - TEODORO KALAMBAKAL v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL.

    034 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 10810 March 28, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO v. GABRIEL TAVORA

    034 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10902 March 28, 1916 - SERAPIA DE JESUS v. PABLO PALMA

    034 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 11156 March 28, 1916 - IN RE: DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO

    034 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 11363 March 28, 1916 - BERNARDO MOLDEN v. INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 11366 March 28, 1916 - INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GOERGE R. HARVEY

    034 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9550 March 29, 1916 - BACHRACH GARAGE v. HOTCHKISS & CO.

    034 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 10019 March 29, 1916 - THOMAS A. WALLACE v. PUJALTE & CO.

    034 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS Ex Rel. MUN. OF CARDONA v. MUN. OF BINANGONAN ET AL.

    034 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 10474 March 29, 1916 - FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA v. SOLEDAD OSORIO

    034 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 10493 March 29, 1916 - FREDERICK L. COHEN v. BENGUET COMMERCIAL CO. (Ltd.)

    034 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 10751 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIA CABALLERO Y APARICI

    034 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 10778 March 29, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    034 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 11008 March 29, 1916 - MARIANO REAL ET AL. v. CESAREO MALLARI

    034 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11068 March 29, 1916 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. HAROLD M. PITT

    034 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 11274 March 29, 1916 - RAFAELA DALMACIO v. ALBERTO BARRETTO

    034 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 11585 March 29, 1916 - PABLO PERLAS v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    034 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 8697 March 30, 1916 - M. GOLDSTEIN v. ALIJANDRO ROCES ET AL.

    034 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 8988 March 30, 1916 - HARTFORD BEAUMONT v. MAURO PRIETO, ET AL.

    041 Phil 670

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 9550   March 29, 1916 - BACHRACH GARAGE v. HOTCHKISS & CO. <br /><br />034 Phil 506

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 9550. March 29, 1916. ]

    BACHRACH GARAGE and TAXICAB CO., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOTCHKISS & CO., Defendant-Appellee.

    O’Brien & DeWitt for Appellant.

    No appearance for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. PROCESS; SUBSTITUTED SERVICE. — But few rules of law are better established than the one which requires, in case of substituted service, a strict compliance with statutory provisions. If the law has not been followed, if the parties have omitted any of the provisions necessary to secure substituted service, then the courts will not obtain jurisdiction over the defendant to render judgment. To allow a judgment to stand, rendered against a person over whom the court had no jurisdiction, is not only repugnant to justice, but contrary to the organic law of the Philippine Islands. A judgment rendered against a defendant who has had no opportunity to be heard is null and void.

    2. ID.; ID,; PROOF OF SERVICE. — Where substituted service has been had the proof must show that the requirement by which the same may be obtained have been strictly complied with.


    D E C I S I O N


    JOHNSON, J. :


    On the 5th day of February, 1913, the plaintiff commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila against the defendant for the purpose of recovering the sum of P6,500. The complainant alleged that the plaintiff was a corporation duly organized and registered under the laws of Philippine Islands, with its principal office in the city of Manila; that the defendant, Hotchkiss & Co., is a corporation duly organized under the laws of France, having its principal office in Saint Denis, Paris, France, and is engaged in the business manufacturing and selling automobiles.

    The record shows that personal service of the defendant could not be obtained. The plaintiff therefore asked that service by publication be had.

    At the termination of the effort to obtain service by publication, the cause was set down for trial. The defendant did not appear. At the conclusion of the trial the Honorable A. S. Crossfield, judge, reached the conclusion that the evidence showed that the plaintiff had suffered damages by reason of the rescission of a contract in the sum of P1,500 and rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for that amount, with interest at 6 per cent from February 5, 1913, with costs. From that judgment the plaintiff appealed to this court.

    In this court, after the presentation of the bill of exceptions and brief on behalf of the plaintiff, a suggestion was made of record by Attorneys Lawrence, Ross & Block, that the record failed to shows that the plaintiff had secured substituted service upon the defendant, as required by law.

    Upon that suggestion we have carefully examined the record for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not such service had been had upon the defendant. Courts cannot render judgment against persons who have not been served with notice of the pendency of an action against them. That services must be personal, unless the law permits what is sometimes called "substituted service." But few rules of law are better established than the one which requires, in case of substituted service, a strict compliance with statutory provisions. If the law has not been followed, if the parties have omitted any of the provisions necessary to secure substituted service, then the courts will not obtain jurisdiction over the defendant to render judgment. To allow a judgment to stand, rendered against a person over whom the court had no jurisdiction, is not only repugnant to justice, but contrary to the organic law of the Philippine Islands. A judgment rendered against a defendant without an opportunity to be heard is null and void. (Jordan v. Giblin, 12 Cal., 100; Ricketson v. Richardson, 26 Cal., 149; Cohn v. Kember, 47 Cal., 144).

    Unless the statute providing for substituted service has been strictly complied with, the courts are without jurisdiction to render a judgment. A strict compliance with the statute is a jurisdictional fact. Without jurisdiction the whole proceeding is coram non judice. It courts should be permitted to render judgments without having jurisdiction of the persons, persons and estates of individuals would be subject to hazard. (Galpin v. Page, 18 Wallace [U.S. ], 350; Guaranty Trust, etc., Co. v. Green Cove, etc., R. Co., 139 U.S., 137; Hunt v. Wickeliffe, 2 Peters [U.S. ], 437; Cheely v. Clayton, 110 U.S., 701; Noble v. Union River, etc., R. Co., 147 U.S., 165,173.) It is the duty of the court to require the fullest compliance with all the requirements of the statute permitting service by publication. Where service is obtained by publication, the entire proceeding should be closely scrutinized by the courts and a strict compliance with every condition of law should be exacted. Otherwise great abuses may occur, and the rights of persons and property may be made to depend upon the elastic conscience of interested parties rather than the enlightened judgment of the court or judge.

    Section 398 of Act No. 190 and section 399 of the same Act authorize service upon absent or unknown defendants by publication. Section 398 provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Service upon absent or unknown defendants. — Where the person on whom service is to be made resides out of the Philippine Islands, or has departed therefrom, or can not after due diligence, be found within the Islands, or conceals himself to avoid the service of summons, or is a foreign corporation having no managing or business agent, cashier or secretary within the Islands, and the fact appears by the action is pending, and it also appears by such affidavit that a cause of action exists against the defendant in respect to whom the service is to be made, or that he is a necessary or proper party to the action; and when it appears such affidavit, or by the complaint on file that it is an action which relates to, or the subject of which is, real or personal property within the foreign corporation defendant, has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists wholly or in part in excluding such person or foreign corporation from any interest therein, such judge may make an order that the service may be made by publication of the order which shall fix the date on which the defendant is required to appear."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Section 399 provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Order for service by publication. — The order must direct the publication to be made in such newspaper or newspaper, to be designated by the judge, as is, or are most likely to give notice to the person to be served, and for such length of time as may be deemed reasonable, at least once a week for three consecutive weeks; but the last publication against a defendant residing out of the Islands, or absent therefrom, must not be less than two months before the day on which the defendant is required to appear. In case of publication, where the residence of a nonresident, or absent defendant is known, the judge must direct a copy of the summons and complaint to be forthwith deposited by the clerk in the post office, postage prepaid, directed to the person to be served, at his place of residence. When publication is ordered, personal service of a copy of the summons and complaint outside of the Islands, is equivalent to publication and deposit in the post office, and in either case the service of the summons is complete at the expiration of the time prescribed by the order of publication."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Section 400 of the same Act provides the method by which such service by publication must be made. Section 400 provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Proof of the service. — Proof of the service of summons and complaint must be made, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. If served by the governor or his deputy, by his certificate thereof on the summons.

    "2. If by any other person, by his affidavit thereof; or

    "3. In case of publication, by the affidavit of the printer, or his foreman, or principal clerk, to which affidavit a copy of the publication shall be attached; and an affidavit showing the deposit of a copy of the summons, in the post-office, that the same has been deposited; or

    "4. The written admission of the defendant.

    "The certificate or affidavit must state the time and place of service."cralaw virtua1aw library

    While there are many defects existing in the effort to obtain service by publication appearing in the record, it is sufficient, under the necessity of a strict compliance with the statute, to examine one only.

    Paragraph 3 of section 400 provides that in case of publication, proof of service of summons and complaint must be made by the affidavit of the printer, or his foreman, or principal clerk, to which affidavit showing the deposit of a copy of the summons in the post office. By an examination of the record we find that the affidavit which was presented in court as proof of the service of the summons and complaint shows that it was not made by the printer, or his foreman, or his principal clerk, but was made by one who signs himself as "adv. manager" of the newspaper The Manila Daily Bulletin. It is assumed that the person who made such affidavit was the advertising manager of the newspaper.

    Without discussing the other defects of the record or the question whether or not substituted service may be had at all under facts like those appearing in the present record, we are of the opinion that, without prejudice to the writing of a more extensive opinion hereafter, the statute requiring substituted service by publication was not strictly with, and therefore the judgment of the lower court is hereby revoked and the defendant is hereby relieved from any liability under the complaint, and without any finding as to costs, it is so ordered.

    Torres and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    ARELLANO, C.J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I concur. The courts of these Islands have no jurisdiction over the defendant company. It would be still better to declare all the proceedings null and void.

    Moreland and Trent, JJ., dissent.

    G.R. No. 9550   March 29, 1916 - BACHRACH GARAGE v. HOTCHKISS & CO. <br /><br />034 Phil 506




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED