Further, this Court has ruled that "it is not necessary that the person in charge of the defendant's regular place of business be specifically authorized to receive the SUMMONS. It is enough that he appears to be in charge." In this case, Canave, a secretary whose job description necessarily includes receiving documents and other correspondence, would have the semblance of authority to accept the court documents.

"Xxx.The Issue Presented

The sole issue presented in this case is whether the CA correctly ruled that summons had not been properly served on respondent Consulta with the result that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over his person and that the judgment against him was void.

The Ruling of the Court

First of all, only Consulta brought an action for the annulment of the RTC decision. CTC and Sarayba did not. Consequently, the CA had no business deciding whether or not the latter two were properly served with summons. The right to due process must be personally invoked and its circumstances specifically alleged by the party claiming to have been denied such. [18]

Second, there is valid substituted service of summons on Consulta at his place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. According to the sheriff's return, which is prima facie evidence of the facts it states,[19] he served a copy of the complaint on Canave, an authorized representative of both Consulta and Sarayba.[20] Besides Consulta's bare allegations, he did not present evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity on the manner that the sheriff performed his official duty.[21] Nor did Consulta present clear and convincing evidence that Canave was not competent to receive the summons and the attached documents for him.

In fact, in his petition for annulment of judgment, Consulta said that CTC had been apprised of the civil action through Canave.[22] In other words, Canave was a person charged with authority to receive court documents for the company as well as its officers who held office in that company. Absent contrary evidence, the veracity of the return's content and its effectiveness stand.

Further, this Court has ruled that "it is not necessary that the person in charge of the defendant's regular place of business be specifically authorized to receive the summons. It is enough that he appears to be in charge."[23] In this case, Canave, a secretary whose job description necessarily includes receiving documents and other correspondence, would have the semblance of authority to accept the court documents.

It is true that this Court emphasized the importance of strict and faithful compliance in effecting substituted service.[24] It must, however, be reiterated that when the rigid application of rules becomes a conduit for escaping one's responsibility, the Court will intervene to set things right according to the rules.[25]

Further, Consulta does not deny a) that summons had been properly served on Sarayba, his vice-president, through Canave at the company's office; b) that the summons on him was served on the same occasion also through Canave; c) that the sheriff had succeeded in garnishing his company's bank deposits; and d) that his company subsequently made an offer to settle the judgment against it. The Court is not dumb as to believe that Consulta became aware of the suit only when the sheriff served a notice of execution sale covering his house and lot.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court REVERSES the Court of Appeals' Decision in CA-G.R. SP 94817 dated March 17, 2008 and REINSTATES the Regional Trial Court's Decision in Civil Case 70544 dated December 14, 2005.

SO ORDERED.

Xxx."

GENTLE SUPREME PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. RICARDO F. CONSULTA, Respondent. G.R. No. 183182, September 01, 2010.