ARNEL SAGANA v.

RICHARD FRANCISCO (Rule 14) FACTS: Arnel Sagana filed a Complaint before w/ the RTC, to recover damages alleging that Richard A. Francisco shot him with a gun hitting him on the right thigh. Process Server Manuel Panlasigue attempted to personally serve summons at Franciscos address but was unsuccessful. RTC also attempted to serve summons to Franciscos office through registered mail, however, Francisco failed to pick up summons. The case was dismissed by the RTC on account of Saganas lack of interest to prosecute since he did not take action since the filing of the Servers Return. Sagana filed an MR, contended that he exerted efforts to locate the Francisco, it was confirmed that Francisco indeed lived at his given address in Q.C. RTC granted the Motion with a condition upon the service of summon on the Francisco within 10 days from the receipt of the Order. Process Server Jarvis Iconar tried to serve summons at Franciscos address but no avail. Franciscos brother, Michael Francisco, told him that Francisco no longer lived at the said address, however, Iconar left a copy of the summons to Francisco. Sagana filed a Motion to Declare Francisco in Default for failure to file Answer. RTC declared that the summons was validly served to Francisco, declared that Francisco in default and allowed Sagana to present his evidence ex parte. Michael Francisco, through his lawyer filed a Manifestation and Motion, he denied that he received the summons and he was authorized to receive on behalf of his brother. He asserted that he was 19 y/o, and Francisco had left the house since 1993 and Francisco would only write or call them without informing his whereabouts. RTC denied the Manifestation and Motion for lack of merit. Sagana had already sent numerous pleadings to R. Francisco at his last known address. Michael has not adduced evidence, except his affidavit of merit, to impugn the service of summons thru him. Michael herein also admits that his brother communicates with him through telephone. Michael, therefore, would be able to inform R. Francisco of the summons was sent to him. Having failed to file an answer or any responsive pleading, R. Francisco was declared in default and Sagana was allowed to present evidence ex parte. RTC ruled in favor of Sagana. R. Francisco appealed to the CA and prayed that the RTC erred in assuming jurisdiction over the person, despite the irregularity of the substituted service of summons by the court Process Server and in awarding of damages to Sagana. CA favored Francisco hence Sagana filed this petition for review. ISSUE: W/N the substituted service of summons was validly made upon Francisco through his brother?

HELD: The substituted service of summons was validly made RATIO: Section 8 of Rule 14 of the old Revised ROC, the rules of procedure then in force at the time summons was served: Section 8. Substituted service. If the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section [personal service on defendant], service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendants residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendants office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. (NEW RULE) Rule 14, Section 7. Substituted service. If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. For substituted service of summons to be valid, the following must be demonstrated: (a) that personal service of summons within a reasonable time was impossible; (b) that efforts were exerted to locate the party; and (c) that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion residing at the party's residence or upon a competent person in charge of the party's office or regular place of business. It is likewise required that the pertinent facts proving these circumstances be stated in the proof of service or in the officer's return. The Franciscos actively attempt to frustrate the proper service of summons by refusing to give their identity, rebuffing requests to sign for or receive documents or eluding the officers of court. Undeniably, no Sheriffs Return was prepared by process server Jarvis Iconar; the only record of the second service of summons was Mr. Iconars handwritten notation in the summons itself. However, the information required by law and prevailing jurisprudence, that is, that personal service was impossible because of the claim that respondent no longer lived at the stated address, that efforts were exerted to locate the respondent through the multiple attempts to serve summons, and that summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion, were already in the records of the trial court. The purpose of summons is two-fold: to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and to notify the defendant that an action has been commenced so that he may be given an opportunity to be heard on the claim against him. Under the circumstances of this case, the SC finds that Francisco was duly apprised of the action against him and had every opportunity to answer the charges made by Sagana.