This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-09-15 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The Return of Summons shows no effort was actually exerted and no positive step taken by either the process server or petitioners to locate and serve the summons personally on respondents. At best, the Return merely states the alleged whereabouts of respondents without indicating that such information was verified from a person who had knowledge thereof. Certainly, without specifying the details of the attendant circumstances or of the efforts exerted to serve the summons, a general statement that such efforts were made will not suffice for purposes of complying with the rules of substituted service of summons.[29] We explained in Venturanza v. Court of Appeals[30] how the impossibility of personal service should be shown by the process server:The substituted service should be availed only when the defendant cannot be served promptly in person. Impossibility of prompt service should be shown by stating the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the failure of such efforts. The statement should be made in the proof of service. This is necessary because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service. It has been held that substituted service is a method extraordinary in character, and hence may be used only as prescribed in the circumstances authorized by statute. Thus, the statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully, and any substituted service other than that authorized by the statute is considered ineffective.[31] Jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents never vested with the trial court since the manner of substituted service by the process server is deemed invalid and ineffective. Clearly, there was a violation of due process because of the defective service of summons. The judgment of the trial court should be annulled on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, since the respondents were not properly notified of the action filed against them, and denied them the chance to answer the complaint before the court, thus depriving them of an opportunity to be heard. | |||||