PASCUAL V.

PASCUAL 607 SCRA 288

Facts: Constatino A. Pascual filed a complaint for Specific Performance before the RTC. In the Return Service, the Process Server reported that he failed to deliver the summons to the defendant. According to the report, the defendant[Dr. Lourdes Pascual] was not at her home and only her maid was there who refused to receive the summons. His efforts to effect the service is backed up by a certification of the Barangay in the area. The following day, the Process Server went back at the defendants place, but again she is not home. Thereafter, an alias summons was issued by the RTC. Subsequently, the Process Server returned with the report that a substituted service was effected. For failure of respondent to file a responsive pleading, petitioner, filed a Motion to Declare Defendant in Default to which Dr. Lourdes Pascual filed an opposition claiming that she was not able to receive any summons and a copy of the complaint hence the RTC cannot exercise jurisdiction over her person. RTC declared Dr. Lourdes Pascual in Default. She filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. Consequently, the RTC in its decision found favor on Mr. Constantino Pascual against Dr. Lourdes Pascual. She then filed a Motion to Set Aside Order of Default with the argument of non-service of Summons. RTC denied and on the same day issued a Certificate of Finality and Entry of Judgment. Dr. Lourdes filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 in the CA. The CA ruled favoring her. Petitioner herein [Constantino Pascual] through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 comes now to the SC. Issue: Whether the Service of Summons is valid?

Held: In a case where the action is in personam and the defendant is in the Philippines, the service may be done by personal or substituted. A plain reading of Rule 14, Sections 6 and 7 indicates that Personal Service should and always be the first option, only when the said summons cannot be served within a reasonable time can the process server resort to substituted service. The Court gave a discussion as to the nature of the requisites of substituted service in Manotoc v. Court of Appeals. We can break down this section into the following requirements to effect a valid substituted service: 1) 2) 3) 4) Impossibility of Prompt Personal Service Specific Details in the Return A Person Suitable of Age and Discretion A Competent Person in Charge

Petitioner contends that there was a valid substituted service of summons as shown in three officers return. However, this Court stresses that the Process Server must show that the defendant cannot be served promptly, or that there was an impossibility of service. The Return of Summons in this case does not show or indicate the actual exertion or any steps by the officer to serve the summons. In the absence of even the barest compliance with the procedure for substituted service of summons outlined in the Rules, the principle of Presumption of Regularity cannot apply. CA affirmed in toto.