By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
BLOOMBERRY RESORTS AND HOTELS, INC. VS. JOSEDELIO ASISTIO, ET AL.,
G.R. NO. 243604 (JULY 3, 2023): APPLICATION OF RULE 46 OF THE RULES OF COURT ON HOW THE
COURT OF APPEALS ACQUIRES JURISDICTION OVER A PARTY
Petitioner Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels, Inc. (“petitioner Bloomberry”) is a domestic
corporation which operates Solaire Resort and Casino (“Solaire”). This case stems from the criminal
action filed by Solaire against respondent Josedelio Eliz Asistio (“respondent Asistio”), a dealer and
employee, and respondent Anthony Noveno Clavito (“respondent Clavito”), a guest and patron, before
the Regional Trial Court of Paranaque City. The respondents were charged with Estafa under Article 315,
paragraph 3 (b) of the Revised Penal Code for engaging in “past-posting” or “late-betting”.
“Past-posting” is a scheme whereby a player, in connivance with the casino dealer, places his or
her bet at a time when the result of a certain game is already known, thereby ensuring success in the
said gambling game. According to petitioner Bloomberry and the surveillance it had conducted, the
respondents fraudulently conspired and confederated into asporting wining bets from a baccarat game
in Solaire by making it appear that respondent Clavito won, when in fact the deal was a “post-paid”
scheme. The scheme allegedly resulted in petitioner Bloomberry’s damage and prejudice in the amount
of Php220,000.00.
Respondent Asistio was never arrested and remained at-large while respondent Clavito was
arrested, posted bail, arraigned, jumped bail, but the trial continued with the prosecution presenting its
evidence. The trial court, however, acquitted respondent Clavito after the prosecution presented and
offered its evidence. The trial court held that the prosecution failed to prove accused Clavito’s guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
Petitioner Bloomberry filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the acquittal of
respondent Clavito. The Court of Appeals attempted to serve a minute Resolution to respondent Clavito
directing him to file Comment but to no avail because it was returned to sender since respondent
Clavito already moved out. The Court of Appeals eventually dismissed the case against respondent
Clavito for failure to acquire jurisdiction over his person. Hence, petitioner Bloomberry filed a Petition
for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court.
In its Decision dated 03 July 2023, the Supreme Court resolved the issue whether the Court of
Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari of petitioner Bloomberry for failure to acquire
jurisdiction over respondent Clavito’s person. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the Petition
for Certiorari by the Court of Appeals. Under relevant provisions of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, Section
4 thereof provides that the Court of Appeals shall acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent
by the service of the order or resolution indicating its initial action on the petition or by his or her
voluntary submission. Section 5 thereof also provides that the court may dismiss the petition outright
with specific reasons for such dismissal.
Citing Guy vs. Court of Appeals, 564 Phil. 540, 560 (2007), the Supreme Court held that: “It is
thus clear that in cases covered by Rule 46, the Court of Appeals acquires jurisdiction over the persons of
the respondents by the service upon them of its order or resolution indicating the initial action on the
petitions or by their voluntary submission to such jurisdiction. The reason for this is that, aside from the
fact that no summons or other coercive process is served on respondents, their response to the petitions
will depend on the initial action of the court thereon. Under Section 5, the court may dismiss petitions
outright, hence, no reaction is expected from respondents and under the policy adopted by Rule 46, they
are not deemed to have been brought within the court’s jurisdiction until after service on them of the
dismissal order or resolution.”
Under the erudite pen of this year’s Bar Chairperson, Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the Court
held that the Court of Appeals “correctly ruled that it never acquired jurisdiction over the person of
respondent Clavito because its minute Resolution dated October 24, 2017 was returned and remained
unserved.” The Court further held that the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the case against
respondent Clavito without violating petitioner Bloomberry’s right to due process. Finally, the Court held
that it dispensed with the service of its own resolutions because respondent Clavito is deceased, and its
own resolutions were returned and remained unserved.