Sabado V Sabado - REM

35. Sabado v.
Sabado
G.R. No. 214270, May 12, 2021
JAY V. SABADO, Petitioner, v. TINA MARIE L. SABADO, FOR HERSELF AND

HER MINOR CHILDREN, Respondent.
HERNANDO, J.:
PERSONAL SERVICE OF SUMMONS - NOTICE TO COUNSEL
FACTS:
Tina Marie L. Sabado (Tina), respondent, is a bank employee who is married to Jay V. Sabado
(Jay), petitioner, who works overseas as a ship captain. Their marriage bore two (2) children.
However, their relationship became rocky which resulted in Jay’s abandonment and utter
disregard for his family. Because of this, Tina suffered psychological and emotional abuse.
Tina filed a petition for Temporary And Permanent Protection Order (TPO & PPO), Support
And Support Pendente Lite against Jay. The trial court issued the TPO in favor of Tina and
ordered Jay to stay away at a distance of 200 meters, and desist from publicly humiliating her
and other forms of abuse. Jay is given five (5) days from notice within which to file an
opposition. The court sheriff made several attempts to personally serve the summons, petition,
and TPO to Jay at his address, and at the office of his employer, but to no avail. Instead, Atty.
Palmero, Jay’s counsel in a criminal case, received a copy of the order and petition on November
16, 2012.
On January 17, 2013, Jay filed an Entry of Appearance with Opposition to the Issuance of
Permanent Protection Order where he asserted that he was merely a chief officer and not a ship
captain. He also claimed that the couple acquired four (4) properties during their marriage, and
that the condominium unit and parking slot are under the name of Tina. He also denied
humiliating her in public although they had disagreements, and claimed that he has been a good
provider. He prayed for the lifting of the TPO, denial of the PPO, the determination of support
and relieving the respondent from posting a bond. He also questioned the validity of the service
of summons which is fatal to the acquisition of jurisdiction over his person as he claimed that he
was out of the Philippines for his overseas work.
RTC Makati issued a TPO and PPO in favor of Tina, and denied the admission of Jay’s
opposition for having been belatedly filed two (2) months after the issuance of the TPO, instead
of the non-extendible period of five (5) days under A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC.
CA affirmed the findings of RTC and ruled that there was no improper service of summons. The
notice received by counsel representing a party in an action in court is equivalent to notice to the
party himself. Consequently, when Atty. Palmero received the copy of the Order and TPO, Jay
was considered to have been duly notified as well.
ISSUE:
Was the serving of the order and TPO to Atty. Palmero considered a valid service of summons?
RULING:
No, the serving of the order and TPO to Atty. Palmero is not considered a valid service of
summons. Under the Rules of Court and quoting GCP-Manny Transport Services, Inc. v.
Prinsipe, the notice to counsel is equivalent to notice to client, however, it must be a notice sent
to counsel of record in order to bind the client. In the case at hand, Atty. Palmero was Jay's
counsel in a separate criminal case filed against the latter for violation of RA 9262 pending at
that time before Branch 140 of the RTC of Makati. Therefore, Jay had no counsel of record yet
with Branch 136 of the RTC of Makati at the time Atty. Palmero received the copy of the order
and TPO. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant cannot be acquired notwithstanding his
knowledge of the pendency of a case against him, unless he was validly served with summons.
Thus, serving the order and TPO to Atty. Palmero cannot be considered a valid service of
summons.
However, We note that Jay voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court
when he filed the Entry of Appearance with Opposition to the Issuance of the Permanent
Protection Order on January 17, 2013. By seeking affirmative relief in his opposition without
objecting to the jurisdiction of the trial court, he thereby voluntarily submitted to its jurisdiction.
In effect, this cured the invalid service of summons.
Questions and Answers:
1. What is summons?
Summons is a procedural tool. It is a writ by which the defendant is

notified that an action was brought against him or her. In an action in
personam, brought to enforce personal rights and obligations, jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant is mandatory. In such actions, therefore,
summonses serve not only to notify the defendant of the filing of an action,
but also to enable acquisition of jurisdiction over his person.
2. What is the two-fold purpose of summons?
The purpose of summons is two-fold: (1) to notify the defendant that an action has been
brought against him; and (2) to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
3. Can an invalid service of summons be cured?
Yes. Court has ruled that voluntary appearance by the defendant results to
his submission to the court's jurisdiction.
There is voluntary appearance when a party, without directly

assailing the court's lack of jurisdiction, seeks affirmative relief from
the court. When a party appears before the court without
qualification, he or she is deemed to have waived his or her objection
regarding lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of
summons. When a defendant, however, appears before the court for the
specific purpose of questioning the court's jurisdiction over him or her, this is
a special appearance and does not vest the court with jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant.

Sabado V Sabado - REM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sabado V Sabado - REM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sabado V Sabado - REM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

35. Sabado v.

G.R. No. 214270, May 12, 2021

JAY V. SABADO, Petitioner, v. TINA MARIE L. SABADO, FOR HERSELF AND

PERSONAL SERVICE OF SUMMONS - NOTICE TO COUNSEL

Questions and Answers:

Summons is a procedural tool. It is a writ by which the defendant is

3. Can an invalid service of summons be cured?

There is voluntary appearance when a party, without directly

You might also like