This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-09-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Personal service of pleadings 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.[19] 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. Based on this explanation will the court then determine whether personal service is indeed not practicable so that resort to other modes is made.[20] At this stage, the judge exercises proper discretion but only upon the explanation given. In adjudging the plausibility of an explanation, the court shall consider not only the circumstances, the time and the place but also the importance of the subject matter of the case or the issues involved therein, and the prima facie merit of the pleading involved.[21] | |||||
|
2011-12-12 |
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] | |||||
|
2007-12-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| With regard to the requirement of a written explanation, Maceda v. De Guzman Vda. de Macatangay[10] is squarely in point. Therein, the Court held thus:In Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. Ricafort, this Court, passing upon Section 11 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, held that a court has the discretion to consider a pleading or paper as not filed if said rule is not complied with. | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Under said rule, personal service and filing of pleadings and other papers is a mandatory mode, especially when the peculiar circumstances of the case -- such as the proximity of the office of a party's counsel to the court or to the office of the opposing party's counsel -- make such mode practicable.[19] If another mode is employed, there must be attached to the pleading or paper, a written explanation of such recourse. Omission of a written explanation will give the court cause to expunge the pleading or paper not personally served or filed.[20] And ordinarily, such exercise of discretion by the court will not be overruled on appeal, except when: a) on the face of the affidavit of service, it is patent that personal service and filing is impractical, such as when the parties or their counsels live in different provinces;[21] b) there is prima facie merit in the pleading or paper expunged;[22] and c) the issue raised therein is of substantial importance.[23] Under these exceptional circumstances the lack of written explanation may be excused and the pleading or paper served or filed, accepted. | |||||