Arnel Sagana vs. Richard Francisco G.R. No.

161952 (October 2, 2009) Petitioner: Respondent: Arnel Sagana Richard Francisco

Facts: Petioner filed a Complaint, before Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, to recover damages alleging that on November 20, 1992, respondent with intent to kill him and without justifiable reason, shot him with a gun hitting him on the right thigh. On January 31, 1995, Process Server Manuel Panlasigue attempted to personally serve summons at respondent s address at No. 36 Sampaguita Street, Baesa Q.C., but was unsuccessful. In his Servers Return, he stated that the occupant in that house refused to give his identity and that respondent is unknown at said residence. The Trial Court also attempted to serve summons to the respondent s office through registered mail, however, respondent failed to pick up summons. The case was dismissed by the Trial Court on account of petitioner s lack of interest to prosecute that he did not take action since the filing of the Servers Return. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, contended that he exerted efforts to locate the respondent, it was confirmed that respondent indeed lived at No. 36 Sampaguita Street, Bausa, Q.C. Trial Court granted the Motion with a condition upon the service of summon on the respondent within 10 days from the receipt of the Order. On August 25, 1995, Process Server Jarvis Iconar tried to serve summons at respondent s address but no avail. In his handwritten annotation, he stated that respondent s brother, Michael Francisco, told him that respondent no longer lived at the said address, however, Iconar left a copy of the summons to Michael Francisco. Petitioner filed a Motion to Declare Respondent in Default for failure off respondent to file Answer despite the service of summons. Trial Court declared that the summons was validly served to respondent, declared that respondent in default and allowed petitioner 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 prayed his name to be stricken off the records as having received the copy of summons. In his Affidavit of Merit, he asserted that he was 19 y/o, and respondent had left the house since 1993 and respondent would only write or call them without informing his whereabouts. On the other hand, petitioner attached in his Rejoinder, the Affidavit prepared by respondent dated December 23, 1992, where declared he was a resident of No. 36 Sampaguita St. Bausa Q.C. and the lawyer who notarized the affidavit was the same lawyer who represented his brother. Trial Court denied the Manifestation and Motion for lack of merit, it rendered a judgment infavor of the petitioner, ordered respondent to pay the damages. Respondent received the copy of the Trial Court s Decision, he then filed a Notice of Appeal to Court of Appeals. The appellate court directed the parties to file respective briefs, a copy of which was sent by respondent at No. 36 Sampaguita St. Bausa Q.C. Respondent prayed that the trial court 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 petitioner. Court of Appeals rendered decision granting the Appeal of respondent and setting aside the decision of the trial court for the irregularity of the service of summons. Petitioner filed Petition for Review on Certiorari to Supreme Court. Issue: Whether the substituted service of summons was validly made upon respondent through his brother. Held: The Petition for Review on Certiorari was granted, Court of Appeals decision was reversed and set aside, and the Trial Court decision was reinstated and affirmed. Although, in general, the statutory requirement of substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully and fully and that any substituted service other than that authorized by Rules is considered ineffective. The Supreme Court ruled that strict application of the Rules is not warranted to this case as it would clearly frustrate the spirit of laws as well as do injustice to the parties waiting almost 15 years for resolution of this case. The respondents 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. Respondent tried to avoid the service of summons, prompting the court to declare that sheriff must be resourceful, but sheriffs cannot be faulted of the respondent themselves engage in deception to thwart the orderly administration of justice.