Case Digest: SONIA MACEDA and GEMMA MACEDA-MACATANGAY v. ENCARNACION DE GUZMAN VDA. DE MACATANGAY

SONIA MACEDA and GEMMA MACEDA-MACATANGAY v. ENCARNACION DE GUZMAN VDA. DE MACATANGAY

481 SCRA 415 (2006), THIRD DIVISION

Spouses Sonia Maceda and Bonifacio Macatangay, executed a Kasunduan whereby they agreed to live separately. Bonifacio soon lived with his common law wife Carmen Jaraza. When Bonifacio died, Sonia claimed for his Social Security System (SSS) benefit, which was granted to her. However, the Social Security Commission (SSC) later ordered Sonia to refund the benefits in favor of Encarnacion De Guzman Macatangay, Bonifacio‘s mother, and his illegitimate children, on the ground that the Kasunduan is a proof that Sonia is not dependent upon Bonifacio for support.

Sonia filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the same was dismissed due to their failure to explain why they failed to personally serve copies of the petition to Encarnacion which is required in Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. In her affidavit, Sonia explains that they resorted to service by mail due to the distant addresses of Encarnacion‘s lawyer in Lopez, Quezon and Sonia‘s counsel in Lucena City, thereby making personal service impracticable.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the distant addresses made the personal service impracticable making the service by mail valid

HELD:

If only to underscore the mandatory nature of this innovation to our set of adjective rules requiring personal service whenever practicable, Section 11 of Rule 13 then gives the court the discretion to consider a pleading or paper as not filed if the other modes of service or filing were not resorted to and no written explanation was made as to why personal service was not done in the first place. The exercise of discretion must, necessarily consider the practicability of personal service, for Section 11 itself begins with the clause “whenever practicable”.

The Court thus take this opportunity to clarify that under Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, personal service and filing is the general rule, and resort to other modes of service and filing, the exception. Henceforth, whenever personal service or filing is practicable, in the light of the circumstances of time, place and person, personal service or filing is mandatory. Only when personal service or filing is not practicable may resort to other modes be had, which must then be accompanied by a written explanation as to why personal service or filing was not practicable to begin with. In adjudging the plausibility of an explanation, a court shall likewise consider the importance of the subject matter of the case or the issues involved therein, and the prima facie merit of the pleading sought to be expunged for violation of Section 11.

In the case at bar, the address of Encarnacion‘s counsel is Lopez, Quezon, while Sonia‘s counsel‘s is Lucena City. Lopez, Quezon is 83 kilometers away from Lucena City. Such distance makes personal service impracticable. As in Musa v. Amor, a written explanation why service was not done personally “might have been superfluous.”

Without preempting the findings of the Court of Appeals on the merits of Sonia‘s petition, if Sonia‘s allegations of fact and of law therein are true and the outright dismissal of their petition is upheld without giving them the opportunity to prove their allegations, Sonia would be deprived of her rightful death benefits just because of the Kasunduan she forged with her husband Bonifacio which contract is, in the first place, unlawful. The resulting injustice would not be commensurate to Sonia‘ counsel‘s “thoughtlessness” in not explaining why Encarnacion were not personally served copies of the petition.