Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=22587:g-r-no-l-29067-may-31,-1977-james-a-keister-v-pedro-c-navarro,-et-al&amp;catid=1094&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 01:56:36+00:00

Document:
JAMES A. KEISTER, Petitioner, v. THE HON. PEDRO C. NAVARRO, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and BATJAK, INC., Respondents.
Chuidian Law Office for Petitioner.
Jimenez B. Buendia for Respondents.
Special civil action of prohibition to prevent respondent Judge Pedro C. Navarro of the Court of First Instance of Rizal from enforcing his Order dated March 28, 1968 in Civil Case No. 10392 requiring the petitioner to answer the complaint and from proceeding with the trial of the case, on the ground that the Court has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.
Respondent Batjak, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, with offices at the NIDC Building, 259-263 Buendia Avenue, Makati, Rizal; while petitioner James A. Keister is an American citizen and a resident of 11 Narra Road, Forbes Park, Makati, Rizal. Said respondent Batjak, Inc. is the registered owner of an automobile, Dodge 440, 4-door Sedan, with Motor No. 4248123752, Serial No. VE-132825C which it bought on November 12, 1965 for P19,000.00 from the Filipinas Auto Motor Corporation, and covered by Registration Certificate No. 1160094, dated November 23, 1965 issued by the Land Transportation Commission.
On December 27, 1966, petitioner James A. Keister, as President-General Manager of respondent Batjak, Inc., sold the automobile to Juan T. Chuidian for P5,000.00. Two (2) days later, or on December 29, 1966, J.T. Chuidian also sold and reconveyed the same automobile for P5,000.00 to James A. Keister, who registered the same in his name with the Land Transportation Commission. It is claimed by respondent Batjak, Inc., that these transactions were without its authority, knowledge and consent.
On March 30, 1967, respondent Batjak, Inc. took possession of the automobile, but sometime in May, 1967 the said automobile disappeared from the NIDC Compound at 259-263 Buendia Avenue, Makati, Rizal, where it was parked. However, on October 16, 1967, the automobile was recovered by the Land Transportation Commission, which, in turn, delivered it to the Criminal Investigation Service of the Philippine Constabulary for investigation.
The sole issue for determination in this case is whether or not jurisdiction was lawfully acquired by the court a quo over the person of the petitioner.
It is not disputed that the dwelling house or residence of the defendant, herein petitioner James A. Keister, is at 11 Narra Road, Forbes Park, Makati, Rizal, and that his office or regular place of business, prior to his temporary departure to the United States on March 27, 1967, is at the Batjak Corporation office in Sarmiento Building, Ayala Avenue, Makati, Rizal. It is, however, conceded that in neither of these places was service of summons effected in the manner prescribed by the procedural law.
In Montalban v. Maximo, 24 this Court explained that summons in a suit in personam against a resident of the Philippines temporarily absent therefrom may be validly effected by substituted service under Section 8, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court, and that Section 18 of Rule 14 is not the sole provision that governs summons upon a defendant temporarily absent from the Philippines in personal actions.
As above indicated, the service of summons, in the case at bar, was fatally defective and, therefore, insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court a quo over the person of petitioner James A. Keister. Consequently, the Orders of January 12, 1968 and March 28, 1968 are null and void.
WHEREFORE, the petition for prohibition is hereby GRANTED, and the writ of preliminary injunction issued on June 22, 1968 is made permanent. Costs against respondent Batjak, Inc.
Barredo, J., concurs in the result.
1.	Annex "A", Petition, SC Rollo, pp. 5-10.
2.	Annex "B", Ibid., SC Rollo, p. 11.
3.	Paragraph 1 of the complaint alleges, among others, that: "defendant, James A. Keister, of legal age, American citizen, and the deposed President-General Manager of Plaintiff, which for purposes of this action he may be served with summons at ’c/o Chuidian Law Office, Suite 801, JMT Bldg., Ayala Avenue, Makati, Rizal.’"
4.	Annex "B-1", Petition, SC Rollo, p. 11.
5.	Annex "C", Ibid., SC Rollo, pp. 12-15.
7.	Annex "D", Petition, SC Rollo, p. 16.
8.	Annex "E", Ibid., SC Rollo, pp. 17-22.
9.	Annex "F", Ibid., SC Rollo, pp. 23-24.
10.	Annex "G", Ibid., SC Rollo, pp. 25-26.
11.	SC Rollo, p. 30.
12.	Salmon, Et. Al. v. Tan Cueco, 36 Phil. 556; Echevarria v. Parsons Hardware Co., 51 Phil. 980; Reyes v. Paz, Et Al., 60 Phil. 440; Pantaleon v. Asuncion, 105 Phil. 761; Government v. Botor, 69 Phil. 130; Caneda v. Court of Appeals, 116 Phil. 283; Trimica, Inc. v. Polaris Marketing Corporation, 60 SCRA 321, 325.
13.	Mosaic Templars of America v. Saines, Civ. App. 265, SW 721.
14.	72 C.J.S. 989; Mohr v. Manvierre, 101 U.S. 417, 25 L. ed. 1052.
15.	Section 7, Rule 14, Revised Rules of Court.
17.	I Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Ed., p. 444.
20.	Perkins v. Dizon, 69 Phil. 186; Dy Reyes v. Ortega, 16 SCRA 903.
21.	Section 8, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.