Reyno C. Dimson vs.
Gerry T. Chua
G.R. No. 192318.
December 5, 2016
Facts
The instant case filed
by the petitioner, representing the other 14 complainants, against
the respondent, is an offshoot of the labor case entitled "Reyno
Dimson, et al. v. SEASUMCO, MAC, United Coconut Planters Bank (UPCB),
and Cotabato Sugar Central Co., Inc. (COSUCECO)." On September
22, 2003, the said labor case for illegal dismissal with monetary
claims was decided in favor of the complainants. Hence, SEASUMCO and
MAC, as well as the members of their board of directors, were ordered
to pay jointly and severally the sum of Three Million Eight Hundred
Twenty-Seven Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Pesos and Fifty-One
Centavos (P3,827,470.51).
The LA's decision became
final and executory but the judgment remained unsatisfied.
Consequently, the petitioner filed an Ex-parte Motion for the
issuance of an amended alias writ of execution asking for the
inclusion of the board of directors arid corporate officers of
SEASUMCO and MAC to hold them liable for satisfaction of the said
decision.
In an Order dated August
16, 2007, the LA granted the motion; hence, an amended alias writ of
execution was issued which now included the respondent. Aggrieved,
the respondent elevated the matter to the NLRC by filing a Memorandum
of Appeal arguing that he was denied due process.
In a Resolution dated
January 11, 2008, the NLRC dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and
sustained the findings of the LA. The respondent filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, but the NLRC Resolution dated July 31, 2008 denied
his motion.
Hence, he filed a
petition for certiorari with application for temporary restraining
order (TRO)/preliminary injunction before the CA. He maintained that
the labor tribunals violated his right to due process when the LA
authorized the issuance of the amended alias writ of execution
against him for the corporation's judgment debt, although he has
never been a party to the underlying suit.
Issue
Whether the respondent
can be held solidarily liable with the corporation, of which he was
an officer and a stockholder, when he was not served with summons and
was never impleaded as a party to the case.
Ruling
No. Following the
explicit language of the NLRC Rules, notices or summons shall be
served on the parties to the case personally. The same rule allows
under special circumstances, that service of summons may be effected
in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court. The service
of summons in cases before the LAs shall be served on the parties
personally or by registered mail, provided that in special
circumstances, service of summons ,.nay be effected in accordance
with the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court.
It is basic that the LA
cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent without
the latter being served with summons. However, if there is no valid
service of summons, court can still acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant by virtue of the latter's voluntary
appearance. In this case, since the respondent is one of the officers
of SEASUMCO, service of summons must be made to him personally or by
registered mail. However, as borne by the records, it is evident that
no service of summons and notices were served on the respondent and
he was not impleaded in NLRC RAB Case No. 12-01-00005-03. He was
hauled to the case after he reacted to the improper execution of his
properties and was actually dragged to court by mere motion of the
petitioner with whom he has no privity of contract and after the
decision in the main case had already become final and executory.
The Court scanned the
records but found nothing to indicate that summons with respect to
the said complaints were ever served upon the respondent. The
petitioner in fact does not even dispute· the respondent's claim
that no summons or notices were ever issued and served on him either
personally or through registered mail. True to his claim, the
respondent, indeed, was never summoned by the LA. Besides, even
assuming that the respondent has knowledge of a labor case against
SEASUMCO, this will not serve the same purpose as summons to him.
More so, the respondent
did not voluntarily appear before the LA as to submit himself to its
jurisdiction. Contrary to the petitioner's position, the validity of
a judgment or order of a court or quasi-judicial tribunal which has
become final and executory may be attacked when the records show that
it lacked jurisdiction to render the judgment. For a judgment
rendered against one in a case where jurisdiction over his person was
not acquired is void, and a void judgment maybe assailed or impugned
at any time either directly or collaterally by means of a petition
filed in the same or separate case, or by resisting such judgment in
any action or proceeding wherein it is invoked.
Guided by the foregoing
norms, the CA properly concluded that the proceedings before the LA
deprived the respondent of due process. Considering that the
respondent was never impleaded as a party respondent and was never
validly served with summons, the LA never acquired jurisdiction over
his person. Perforce, the proceedings conducted and the decision
rendered are nugatory and without effect. This utter lack of
jurisdiction voids any liability of the respondent for any monetary
award or judgment in favor of the petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 13, 2009 and
Resolution dated April 14, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 02575-MIN are AFFIRMED.
No comments:
Post a Comment