RICHARD TEH V.

COURT OF APPEALS

Topic: SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Facts
Respondent EIM International Sales, Inc. filed before the RTC a complaint for collection of sum of money
against Wood Based Panels, Inc., Sinrimco, Manfred Luig and etitioner. Petitioner was impleaded
because he was the President of Wood Based Panels and Sinrimco. Subsequently, summons were
served upon the two corporations and Luig. The sheriff failed to serve summons to the petitioner because
the former cannot be located in the address stated in the complaint. Defendant filed motion to dismiss
which was denied by the trial court. Thereafter, they filed respective answers to the complaint.

On Oct. 19, 1999, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the court did not acquire
jurisdiction over his person since he was not served with summons. The trial court ordered the
cancellation of the pre-trial and the re-setting thereof. It likewise ordered the respondent to submit a reply
or opposition to petitioners motion to dismiss. On Oct. 20, respondent filed a comment explaining that
summons had not been served on petitioner. Petitioner filed Motion for Reconsideration of the trial courts
omnibus order (cancellation of the pre-trial and the re-setting). He contended that the case should be
dismissed in view of the trial courts failure to acquire jurisdiction over his person and the respondents
failure to prosecute, considering that more than one year has passed since the complaint was instituted
and yet, the summons has not been served still. Respondent opposed petitioners motion for
reconsideration.

Trial court denied the MR. Thereafter, petitioner filed before the CA a petition for certiorari and prohibition.
CA issued a resolution dismissing the petition for failure to attach certified true copies of relevant
documents. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the foregoing resolution, but said motion was
denied by the CA. CA averred that the petition should be dismissed on the ground that the order assailed
therein was one denying a motion to dismiss, an interlocutory order which is beyond the scope of a
petition for certiorari. CA furthered that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion
to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the petitioner and ordered the issuance of an alias
summons to the latter.

Issue: whether the trial court erred in denying petitioners motion for reconsideration.

Held:
No. when CA studied petitioners motion for reconsideration and found that the contention therein was
correct. It proceeded to look into the merits of the petition. However, it found that the same should be
dismissed for lack of merit since it found the trial courts order assailed by the petitioner therein was an
order denying motion to dismiss. Based on the factual circumstances, the CA ruled that the order sought
to be reversed was an interlocutory order which is beyond the scope of a petition for certiorari, and that
the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it denied the motion to dismiss on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner and ordered the issuance of an alias
summons to the latter.

Thus, the trial court was merely exercising its discretion under Rule 166, Sec 3of the Rules of Civil
Procedure. Under the same, after hearing the motion, a judge may dismiss the action, deny the motion to
dismiss or order the amendment of the pleading. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss based on its
findings that the issues alleged by the respondent in the complaint could not be resolved fully in the
absence of the petitioner. The trial court deemed fit necessary to properly acquire jurisdiction over the
petitioner by ordering the issuance of an alias summons.