Manotoc versus Court of Appeals

So this case, the SC went into detail in explaining what should be done before resorting to substituted service. If you compare this to
Rule 13, does one have to go through this? The answer is no, you only need to explain. But in this rule, you have to try your darnest,
as explained here in Manotoc.
The question is this, who is authorized to serve in rule 14? Most of the time, it is the sheriff or the deputy. If the sheriff does not do
his job like in this case, he did not explain why he resorted to substituted service. Who will suffer? The plaintiff. The plaintiff who
paid the docket fees. He will be the one who suffers. The SC said bahala kayo jan! You resorted to substituted service without going
through the procedure required.
From the FT of the case: The following are the requirements for valid substituted service:
1.

2.

3.
4.

Impossibility of Prompt Personal Service - For substituted service of summons to be available, there must be several
attempts by the sheriff to personally serve the summons within a reasonable period [of one month] which eventually
resulted in failure to prove impossibility of prompt service. Several attempts means at least three (3) tries, preferably on
at least two different dates. In addition, the sheriff must cite why such efforts were unsuccessful. It is only then that
impossibility of service can be confirmed or accepted.
Specific Details in the Return - The date and time of the attempts on personal service, the inquiries made to locate the
defendant, the name/s of the occupants of the alleged residence or house of defendant and all other acts done, though
futile, to serve the summons on defendant must be specified in the Return to justify substituted service.
A person of suitable age and discretion Must be 18, understand English in order to understand the import of the
summons
A competent person in charge of the place, if the substituted service will be done at defendants office or regular place of
business

Potenciano versus Barnes

Theres nothing in Rule 14 that says the summons can be picked up from the RTC. In this case, somebody picked up the summons.
First of all there is no such thing as a pick up second there is no lawyer yet. They do not have an idea who the lawyer of the
defendant is yet.
From the FT of the case: The deputy sheriff just handed a copy of the summons to a messenger of E. Himan Law Office who came to
the office of the trial court claiming that E. Himan Law Office was the counsel of Barnes. Giving a copy of the summons to a
messenger of a law firm, which was not even the counsel of the defendant, cannot in any way be construed as equivalent to service
of summons on the defendant.
Sansio versus Mogol
Even though the sheriff return says that summons was not successfully served, that does not mean there was no proper service of
summons. You have to consider the circumstances of the case. The best place to serve is right there in the court room. This is
because its so obvious if you don't want to receive eh. But of course lawyers know that it is not required that the summons be
served in the residence. Yun na nga no. So even you have this doctrine of regularity of performance of duties, the SC said that the
service of summons was improper is a mere conclusion of law. And in this case, it is SC's finding that that was really an improper
service of summons.
From the FT of the case: Furthermore, the instruction of the counsel for respondent spouses not to obtain a copy of the summons
and the copy of the complaint, under the lame excuse that the same must be served only in the address stated therein, was a gross
mistake. Section 6, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court does not require that the service of summons on the defendant in person must be
effected only at the latters residence as stated in the summons. On the contrary, said provision is crystal clear that, whenever
practicable, summons shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant; or if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by
tendering it to him. Nothing more is required.
Sagana versus Francisco
This ruling is the liberal application of section 7. Which is ,for me, the fairer application. Because why should the plaintiff suffer for
the defendants avoidance of the summons. They were informed that the defendant does not live there. So what is the point? In the
Manotoc case, 3 times. But here there was already a statement that the defendant did not live there, so should the sheriff come
back? The courts should always look at the principle of regular performance of one's duties. For me, this really is the way to apply
Section 7. The Supreme Court said:

From the FT of the case : We do not intend this ruling to overturn jurisprudence to the effect that statutory requirements of
substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully, and fully, and that any substituted service other than that authorized by the
Rules is considered ineffective. However, an overly strict application of the Rules is not warranted in this case, as it would clearly
frustrate the spirit of the law as well as do injustice to the parties, who have been waiting for almost 15 years for a resolution of this
case. We are not heedless of the widespread and flagrant practice whereby defendants actively attempt to frustrate the proper
service of summons by refusing to give their names, rebuffing requests to sign for or receive documents, or eluding officers of the
court. Of course it is to be expected that defendants try to avoid service of summons, prompting this Court to declare that, "the
sheriff must be resourceful, persevering, canny, and diligent in serving the process on the defendant." However, sheriffs are not
expected to be sleuths, and cannot be faulted where the defendants themselves engage in deception to thwart the orderly
administration of justice.
Now, do you think the sheriff will really go out of his way? I don't think so. So if the plaintiff is really serious with his case,
i.accomodate nya yung sheriff. Pakainin nya. Oo, ganyan talaga yan. That's the reality of life.
Pascual versus Pascual
So in Pascual, they applied the ruling of Manotoc case. What is reasonable time? You have to make efforts within one month. Just
look at the returns in this case, I will read to you :
At the time of the service of the said summons, the defendant was not at her home and only her maid was there who
refused to receive the said summons [in spite] of the insistence of the undersigned.
The undersigned, upon his request with the Brgy. Clerk at the said place, was given a certification that he really exerted
effort to effect the service of the said summons but failed due to the above reason.
That was the first attempt. And then another report:
The defendant's car was parked inside her house and inquiries/verification made on her neighbors revealed that the
defendant was inside her house at the time of service of said summons and probably did not want to show-up when her
maid informed her of undersigned's presence.
I made another attempt. Her car was parked in their house.
How much more specific can he get? The SC said not specific enoguh! Not detailed enough! Then they copied the requisites in
Manotoc. This was just two months apart the Sagana case. This is the problem with strict application. This is super duper strict
constriction. Kulang nalang no sabihan nya, I climbed the fence, banged the door. So who suffers? The poor plaintiff.
Garcia versus Sandiganbayan
What is different about this case? In terms of Section 6? We have exhaustively discussed the guidelines in the Manotoc case. If there
is a joinder, how is summons served? It is served to one of the defendants.
So if there is a joinder, summons must be individually served upon each and every defendant. Here we have Garcia, his wife and his
children. What happened here is the summons was served to Garcia only since they live in the same house. O sige pakibigay nalang
sa asawa mu sa anak mu. That is tantamount to substituted service. Everyone has to be served. So in this case, its as if the sheriff
appointed Garcia to be the deputy sheriff.
From the FT of the case: From the foregoing requisites, it is apparent that no valid substituted service of summons was made on
petitioner and her children, as the service made through Maj. Gen. Garcia did not comply with the first two (2) requirements
mentioned above for a valid substituted service of summons. Moreover, the third requirement was also not strictly complied with
as the substituted service was made not at petitioners house or residence but in the PNP Detention Center where Maj. Gen. Garcia
is detained, even if the latter is of suitable age and discretion. Hence, no valid substituted service of summons was made.
Section 15. Extraterritorial service. When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action
affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which the
defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in

excluding the defendant from any interest therein, or the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines,
service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under section 6; or by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons
and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant, or in any other manner the
court may deem sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty (60)
days after notice, within which the defendant must answer.
Now what is this any other means that the court may deem sufficient?
Cariaga case
P filed an action against his father for compulsory acknowledgement but the father is already a resident of a foreign country. P was
considered as an indigent litigant. Can P afford to send or finance the personal service to the foreign country of his father? No. Can
he afford to publish? No
Yes. This is the manner the court deemed sufficient at that particular time.
In Valmonte versus CA, we have here a husband and wife. Atty. Valmonte.. The sister files a partition against the property. So the
summons intended for Lourdes was served in the office of the husband. So the husband presumably went to the US and served it to
her. The third mode applies only when you are serving summons abroad. Here the summons was served here in the Philippines. So
this not extraterritorial.
Section 16. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. When any action is commenced against a defendant who ordinarily
resides within the Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court, be also effected out of the
Philippines, as under the preceding section.
Section 16, we are talking about someone different. Someone on tour. Someone on vacation. In other words, for defendants outside
the country under Section 16, you apply Section 15. You have to apply leave of court. What do you mean by leave of court?
Section 17. Leave of court. Any application to the court under this Rule for leave to effect service in any manner for which
leave of court is necessary shall be made by motion in writing, supported by affidavit of the plaintiff or some person on his behalf,
setting forth the grounds for the application.
Now take note, who does the service of summons? The sheriff or the court authorized employee. It is not the sheriff who will do the
publication. It is the plaintiff. The defendant is known but his whereabouts are unknown. So that is how you do leave of court.
Section 18. Proof of service. The proof of service of a summons shall be made in writing by the server and shall set forth the
manner, place, and date of service; shall specify any papers which have been served with the process and the name of the person
who received the same; and shall be sworn to when made by a person other than a sheriff or his deputy.
Section 18.. Who does that? Its still the sheriff. So I read to you the case of Pascual; that is exactly how it should be. You write down
the details and it must be sworn. But if it was the sheriff himself who made the summons, no need for a sworn statement. Now, lets
go to Proof of service by publication:
Section 19. Proof of service by publication. If the service has been made by publication, service may be proved by the affidavit
of the printer, his foreman or principal clerk, or of the editor, business or advertising manager, to which affidavit a copy of the
publication shall be attached and by an affidavit showing the deposit of a copy of the summons and order for publication in the
post office, postage prepaid, directed to the defendant by registered mail to his last known address.
You have to get a copy of the printer, and attach a copy of the publication and the three newspapers. But it is not enough, you have
to get the affidavit. Affidavit of whom? The person who did the mailing. Section 20, the first part you already know.

Section 20. Voluntary appearance. The defendant's voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of
summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.
So in other words lets say you were the defendant and you were not properly served with summons, so you question the
jurisdiction. You file a motion to dismiss because of the improper service of summons. Now there are times, when there is a motion
to dismiss, meron ding additional issue brought out by the defendant such as strike out this motion of the pleading kasi scandalous,
may mga ganun. As long as the main focus of the defendant is thexxx This is called a special appearance, when this motion is filed.
Tysons Super Concrete versus Court of Appeals
First of all, if you look at the date of this case, it is 2005 case. Why is the SC applying the old rules which were amended in 199?. So
do not forget that the rule applicable is the rule at the time of the service of summons. And the service was made her in 1996. So
according to the old rules:
Sec. 13. Service upon private domestic corporation or partnership. If the defendant is a corporation organized under the
laws of the Philippines or a partnership duly registered, service may be made on the president, manager, secretary, cashier,
agent, or any of its directors.
Si manager kasali. That is vague. Now they changed it into general manger. The old rules also say secretary. That could mean a lot of
things; the one who sits on the front desk or thr one who answers the phone. Now it is the corporate secretary.
Now it is the duly elected treasurer; the corporate treasurer. In other words, it is the CFO. Si agent? Wala ni si agent. In house
counsel is a lawyer employed by the corporation so his part of the set up. A legal counsel could be a retainer or a lawyer who is hired
in relation to a case.
Aboitiz versus Court of Appeals
The case was decided under the old rules, why? The summons was served before the amendment since the service was in 1992.
Why do we need to discuss this? Because under the old rules, there are so many people who can be considered an agent. Claim
employee was even considered an agent. So we are done with the cases on the old rules.
Paramount versus Ordonez
From the FT of the case: Section 11, Rule 14 sets out an exclusive enumeration of the officers who can receive summons on behalf of
a corporation. Service of summons to someone other than the corporations president, managing partner, general manager,
corporate secretary, treasurer, and in-house counsel, is not valid.
So now according to this case the list is exclusive.
BD Long Span versus Ampeloquio
So if you look at the case of Paramount the SC was adamant in citing Rule 11 Section 14 . Dean Inigo say that it is the only way of
serving. It does not say you have to serve in person. What the SC did was relate it to section 6 and 7.I feel this is an obiter. Parang
suggestion lang ba: However, if the summons cannot be served on the defendant personally within a reasonable period of time,
then substituted service may be resorted to. That is the suggestion. This is an obiter.
Atiko trans versus Prudential
Cheng is a foreign corporation. For Atiko you apply section 7. For Cheng the resident agent is Atiko. Atiko is the resident agent of
Cheng. Here there was no proper service on Atiko then there was no proper service on Cheng. There should be one for Atiko and
one for Cheng.
From the FT of the case: In the case at bench, no summons was served upon Cheng Lie in any manner prescribed above. It should be
recalled that Atiko was not properly served with summons as the person who received it on behalf of Atiko, cashier Cristina
Figueroa, is not one of the corporate officers enumerated in Section 11 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. The MeTC acquired
jurisdiction over the person of Atiko not thru valid service of summons but by the latters voluntary appearance. Thus, there being

no proper service of summons upon Atiko to speak of, it follows that the MeTC never acquired jurisdiction over the person of Cheng
Lie.
Voluntary appearance made by Attico by filing a Motion of Filing Relief. Atiko did not even mention that the court did not acquire
jurisdiction.If you ask for affirmative relief from the court, you are considered to have voluntarily submitted.
From the FT of the case: In the case at bench, when Atiko filed its Notice of Appeal Memorandum of Appeal,Motion for
Reconsideration of the April 8, 2003 Decision of the RTC, and Petition for Review, it never questioned the jurisdiction of the MeTC
over its person. The filing of these pleadings seeking affirmative relief amounted to voluntary appearance and, hence, rendered the
alleged lack of jurisdiction moot.
HSBC versus Catalan
Here the court acquired jurisdiction over HSBank but not over HSBC Trustee.
From the FT of the case: It must be noted that HSBANK initially filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer or Motion to
Dismiss. HSBANK already invoked the RTCs jurisdiction over it by praying that its motion for extension of time to file answer or a
motion to dismiss be granted. In contrast, the filing by HSBC TRUSTEE of a motion to dismiss cannot be considered a voluntary
submission to the jurisdiction of the RTC. It was a conditional appearance, entered precisely to question the regularity of the service
of summons. It is settled that a party who makes a special appearance in court challenging the jurisdiction of said court, e.g.,
invalidity of the service of summons, cannot be considered to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
At that time, it was very difficult to sue a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines. At that time, only HSBank was in
the jurisdiction of the court. But now we have this AM 11-3-6-SC.
Pioneer versus Guadiz
The foreign corporation has an agent here. The summons was served on the executive assistant. If the old rule was controlling, then
it would have been valid because he is an agent. How about on the Philippine corporation? The service was still invalid because of
the exclusive list under Section 11.
NM Rothschild versus Lepanto
In this case, the SC discussed the difference of Section 12 of 1997 rules and Section 14 of the 1964 rules:
(1997 rules) Sec. 12. Service upon foreign private juridical entity. When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity
which has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with
law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of
its officers or agents within the Philippines.
(1964 rules) Sec. 14. Service upon private foreign corporations. If the defendant is a foreign corporation, or a
nonresident joint stock company or association, doing business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident
agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or if there be no such agent, on the government official
designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.
Here we have a defendant that is a foreign corporation; a corporation is in Austrailia. The old term is doing business in the
Philippines. You have to relate this to corporation law. They have an office here or doing business here. The old rule emphasizes
that the corporation must be doing business. In the HSBC case, the corporation never did business here so it is not covered by
Section 12.
What is the issue in this case that is quite bothersome? Section 12 applies to foreign corporation doing business here in the
Philippines. The corporation in this case must have been doing business with Lepanto. But what was applied here was Section 15 on
extrajudicial service of summons. Can Section 15 be made applicable when we have a specific provision on foreign corporations? It
seems in this case yes.
The moment you ask for affirmative relief you are already deemed to have submitted jurisdiction to the court.
RP versus Domingo

The OSG is the real party in interest when a case is filed against a department. You have to serve summons to the Solicitor General
since the real party in interest is the republic of the Philippines.
Santos versus PNOC
Kasi baka ma.anu pa, ma.declare invlaid yan based on the Pascual case.Iif you cannot find the defendant because the brother says he
is missing then ito na. You file a motion for leave of court for publication. This is the easier one. It does not matter if in personman,
in rem or quasi rem.
From the FT of the case: The present rule expressly states that it applies [i]n any action where the defendant is designated as an
unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry. Thus, it now
applies to any action, whether in personam, in rem or quasi in rem.
Service of summons by publication is proved by the affidavit of the printer, his foreman or principal clerk, or of the editor, business
or advertising manager of the newspaper which published the summons. The service of summons by publication is complemented
by service of summons by registered mail to the defendants last known address. This complementary service is evidenced by an
affidavit showing the deposit of a copy of the summons and order for publication in the post office, postage prepaid, directed to
the defendant by registered mail to his last known address.
The rules, however, do not require that the affidavit of complementary service be executed by the clerk of court. While the trial
court ordinarily does the mailing of copies of its orders and processes, the duty to make the complementary service by registered
mail is imposed on the party who resorts to service by publication.
Was there competent proof of the service of publication? Yes there was an affidavit of the person mailing.
Romuladez versus Licaros
The proper mode applied here is the third mode.
Acance versus Court of Appeals
It is not to get the approval of the court. You have to prove you complied with the rules under Section 15 and Section 19. In this
case, there was only a bare allegation that the summons was mailed.
Velayo-Fong versus Velayo
This is an action for sum of money against a foreign defendant.
Perkin versus Dakila
Perkin is a foreign corporation; Dakila is local corporation.Didnt Perkin have properties here? Why is it not considered quasi rem?
Because the main action is collection of sum of money and the property was not attached.
From the FT of the case: Respondents allegation in its Amended Complaint that petitioner had personal property within the
Philippines in the form of shares of stock in PEIP does not convert Civil Case No. MC99-605 from an action in personam to one quasi
in rem, so as to qualify said case under the fourth instance mentioned in Section 15, Rule 14 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure (i.e., when the non-resident defendants property has been attached within the Philippines), wherein extraterritorial
service of summons upon the petitioner would have been valid. It is worthy to note that what is required under the aforesaid
provision of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure is not a mere allegation of the existence of personal property belonging to the nonresident defendant within the Philippines but, more precisely, that the non-resident defendants personal property located within
the Philippines must have been actually attached.
Regner versus Logarta
Three defendants,sisters all of them must be served summons. One sister Teresa is outside the Philippines cannot be served because
it is action in personam. Since she is a indispensable party, the action is as good as dead.
Montefalcon versus Vasquez
If the defendant is temporarily put of the country, Section 16 would apply. You would think that the way to apply Section 16 is like
Section 15. The court says you can actually resort to other rules such as Section 6. Now what about the Manotoc guidelines? That
would be absurd. You know that he is out of the country, so why will the sheriff keep coming back to their residence?

From the FT of the case: Section 16 of Rule 14 uses the words may and also, thus it is not mandatory. Other methods of service
of summons allowed under the Rules may also be availed of by the serving officer on a defendant-resident who is temporarily out of
the Philippines. Thus, if a resident defendant is temporarily out of the country, any of the following modes of service may be
resorted to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

substituted service set forth in section 7,Rule 14

personal service outside the country, with leave of court
service by publication, also with leave of court
(4) in any other manner the court may deem sufficient.

Palma versus Judge Galvez

In this case, when the sheriff was informed that Elena was outside the country, he immediately gave the summons to the husband.
Is this allowed? Yes. Why? Please explain to the class.
You can go straight to Section 7 if the defendant is temporarily out of the country, you do not keep on coming back. Obviously there
is a person in the house of sufficent age and discretion. At this day and age, we already have means to inform and communicate.
She does not even have to come back to file an answer. She can just have her lawyer file an answer.
From the FT of the case: Considering that private respondent was temporarily out of the country, the summons and complaint may
be validly served on her through substituted service under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. We have held that a dwelling,
house or residence refers to the place where the person named in the summons is living at the time when the service is made, even
though he may be temporarily out of the country at the time. It is, thus, the service of the summons intended for the defendant that
must be left with the person of suitable age and discretion residing in the house of the defendant. Compliance with the rules
regarding the service of summons is as important as the issue of due process as that of jurisdiction.