Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SOLAR TEAM ENTERTAINMENT v. HELEN BAUTISTA RICAFORT

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 165769 2011-12-12	EDITO PAGADORA v. JULIETA S. ILAO PERALTA, J.
Section 11 [55] of Rule 13 requires service and filing of pleadings and other papers, whenever practicable, to be done personally; and if made through other modes, the party concerned must provide a written explanation as to why service or filing was done otherwise. Personal service is preferred because it is seen to expedite the action or resolution on a pleading, motion or other paper; and conversely, minimize, if not eliminate, delays likely to be incurred if service is done by mail, considering the inefficiency of the postal service. Likewise, it will do away with the practice of some lawyers who, wanting to appear clever, resort to less ethical practices to catch the opposing counsel off-guard or unduly procrastinate in claiming the parcel containing the pleading served. [56] Thus, personal service is the general rule, and resort to other modes of service is the exception, so that where personal service is practicable, in the light of the circumstances of time, place and person, personal service is mandatory. Only when personal service is not practicable may resort to other modes be had, which must then be accompanied by a written explanation as to why personal service or filing was not practicable to begin with. [57]
	GR No. 155806 2008-04-08	TIBLE v. ROYAL SAVINGS REYES, R.T., J.
SEC. 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. - Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed. (Emphasis supplied) In Solar Team Entertainment v. Ricafort,[32] the Court has unequivocally stated that "for the guidance of the Bench and the Bar, strictest compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 is mandated x x x."[33] The Court finds no cogent reason not to apply the same strict standard to petitioners.
	GR No. 149909 2007-10-11	GABRIEL v. RONQUILLO NACHURA, J.
On the second issue, the written explanation why another mode of service was resorted to is a mandatory and indispensable requirement in pleadings or papers filed before all the courts of the land. Parties must exert their best to effect personal service. The Rules of Court[24] provides that personal service of petitions and other pleadings is the general rule, while a resort to other modes of service and filing is the exception.[25] Strictest compliance with Section 11 of Rule 13 is mandated by the Court,[26] and noncompliance therewith is a ground for the denial of the petition or the expulsion of the pleading from the records.
	GR NO. 149051 2006-06-30	BIBLIA T. BANAGA v. JOSE S. MAJADUCON TINGA, J.
In adjudging the plausibility of an explanation, a court shall likewise consider the importance of the subject matter of the case or the issues involved therein, and the prima facie merit of the pleading sought to be expunged for violation of Section 11.[20] The basis of allowing the appellate review of the trial court's order approving the survey is to afford petitioner the opportunity to prove her claim that she bears the risk of being illegally deprived of a property belonging to her. Thus, the dismissal of this petition on a mere technicality will ignore the constitutional provision against depriving a person of his property without due process of law. Besides, the proximity between the offices of opposing counsel had not been clearly established. The Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.[21]
	GR NO. 144180 2006-01-30	COCA COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. v. RODOLFO CABALO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Solar,[19] as reiterated in the recent case of Ello v. Court of Appeals,[20] we explained that the court's discretionary power to consider a pleading or paper as not filed for violation of Section 11, Rule 13 must be exercised properly and reasonably, taking into account the following factors: (1) the practicability of personal service; (2) the importance of the subject matter of the case or the issues involved therein; and (3) the prima facie merit of the pleading sought to be expunged for violation of Section 11.
	GR NO. 141255 2005-06-21	LUCIANO ELLO v. CA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Still unconvinced, the Court of Appeals, in its Resolution dated October 8, 1999, denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration, invoking this Court's ruling in Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. vs. Judge Ricafort[12] that "strictest compliance with Section 11 of Rule 13 is mandated."[13]