G.R. No. 163749 - SPOUSES JULIAN SANTIAGO, SR. AND LEONILA SANTIAGO AND SPOUSES LIM JOSE ONG AND MIMI ONG LIM, VS. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF FAR EAST BANK & TRUST CO., SUBSTITUTED BY INVESTMENTS 2234 PHILIPPINES FUND I (SPV-AMC), INC.,[1].D E C I S I O N - Supreme Co

Ruling

WHEREFORE, on the ground that this Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the defendant because of improper service of summons, the prayer for the issuance of the restraining order is hereby dismissed and this case is likewise dismissed on the same ground. [16] Petitioners filed with the CA a petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a TRO and injunction. In a Resolution [17] dated October 17, 2002, the CA issued a TRO effective for 60 days, restraining private respondent from conducting the foreclosure sale of the subject properties. On January 8, 2003, the CA issued another Resolution [18] for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction upon petitioners' filing of a bond in the amount of one million pesos. On November 14, 2003, the CA issued its assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED and consequently the order decreeing the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction dated 08 January 2003 [is] set aside. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated June 2, 2004. The CA found that the RTC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in finding that summons served on the branch managers of BPI Dumaguete City was not valid and therefore the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of private respondent. The CA upheld the RTC's application of this Court's ruling in E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd v. Benito , [19] in which it was held that the designation of persons or officers who were authorized to accept summons for a domestic corporation or partnership was now limited and more clearly specified in Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The CA found no merit in private respondent's contention that the CA failed to acquire jurisdiction over it, since no copy of the petition for certiorari and motion for reconsideration were furnished to the bank through any of the persons enumerated under Section 11, Rule 14; that counsel was not one of the in-house counsels of private respondent, but was the counsel on record of the Dumaguete branch only. The CA ruled that there was no requirement of service of summons in the manner provided for under Section 11, Rule 14, relative to a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65. Hence herein petition raising the following issues: WHETHER OR NOT SERVICE OF SUMMONS UPON TWO (2) BRANCH MANAGERS OF BPI IN DUMAGUETE IS A SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE OF THE RULES. WHETHER OR NOT BPI'S MOTION TO DISMISS VIOLATES THE THREE-DAY NOTICE RULE. WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF LAW AVAILABLE FOR THE PETITIONERS WHEN CA G.R. SP NO. 73110 WAS FILED. [20] Petitioners filed a Motion for Leave of Court to admit the urgent motion for issuance of TRO since the notice of extra-judicial sale set the auction sale of the subject properties on September 7, 2003. On September 6, 2004, the Court issued a TRO [21] and ordered petitioners to post a bon