This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-06-05 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It is no longer debatable that the statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully and fully, and any substituted service other than that authorized by statute is considered ineffective.[26] This is because substituted service, being in derogation of the usual method of service, is extraordinary in character and may be used only as prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by statute.[27] Only when the defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time may substituted service be resorted to. Hence, the impossibility of prompt personal service should be shown by stating the efforts made to find the defendant himself and the fact that such efforts failed, which statement should be found in the proof of service or sheriff's return.[28] Nonetheless, the requisite showing of the impossibility of prompt personal service as basis for resorting to substituted service may be waived by the defendant either expressly or impliedly.[29] | |||||
|
2002-07-03 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Granting that Gene Maga was an employee of petitioner at his district office, an assumption that we stress is contrary to the evidence on record, still it cannot be said that he was qualified to receive the summons. To be a "competent" person to receive the summons means that he should be "duly qualified" and "having sufficient capacity, ability or authority."[31] In Keister v. Navarro[32] we set out the qualifications of the persons designated by the Rules of Court to whom copies of the process may be left: "The rule presupposes that such a relation of confidence exists between the person with whom the copy is left and the defendant and, therefore, assumes that such person will deliver the process to defendant or in some way give him notice thereof." | |||||