Lawyerly

GR No. 194751

2014-11-26

AURORA N. DE PEDRO v. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

LEONEN, J.

Jurisdiction over the parties refers to the power of the court to make decisions that are binding on persons. The courts acquire jurisdiction over complainants or petitioners as soon as they file their complaints or petitions. Over the persons of defendants or respondents, courts acquire jurisdiction by a valid service of summons or through their voluntary submission.[78] Generally, a person voluntarily submits to the court's jurisdiction when he or she participates in the trial despite improper service of summons.

GR No. 194751

2014-11-26

AURORA N. DE PEDRO v. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

LEONEN, J.

Personal service of summons is the preferred mode of service of summons.[95] Thus, as a rule, summons must be served personally upon the defendant or respondent wherever he or she may be found. If the defendant or respondent refuses to receive the summons, it shall be tendered to him or her.[96]

GR No. 194751

2014-11-26

AURORA N. DE PEDRO v. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

LEONEN, J.

Moreover, to allow sheriffs to describe the facts and circumstances in inexact terms would encourage routine performance of their precise duties relating to substituted service for it would be quite easy to shroud or conceal carelessness or laxity in such broad terms.[106]

GR No. 194751

2014-11-26

AURORA N. DE PEDRO v. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

LEONEN, J.

In the case of Venturanza v. Court of Appeals, it was held that "x x x the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions by the sheriff is not applicable in this case where it is patent that the sheriff's return is defective." (Emphasis supplied) While the Sheriff's Return in the Venturanza case had no statement on the effort or attempt to personally serve the summons, the Return of Sheriff Cañelas in the case at bar merely described the efforts or attempts in general terms lacking in details as required by the ruling in the case of Domagas v. Jensen and other cases. It is as if Cañelas' Return did not mention any effort to accomplish personal service. Thus, the substituted service is void.[108]

GR No. 194751

2014-11-26

AURORA N. DE PEDRO v. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

LEONEN, J.

Lack of jurisdiction being a valid ground for annulment of judgments, circumstances that negate the court's acquisition of jurisdiction including defective service of summons are causes for an action for annulment of judgments.[114]

GR No. 199595

2014-04-02

PHILIPPINE WOMAN’S CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE UNION v. TEODORO R. YANGCO 2ND

REYES, J.

Foremost of which is the requirement on the service of summons for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants. Without a valid service of summons, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the defendant, unless the defendant voluntarily submits to it. Service of summons is a guarantee of one's right to due process in that he is properly apprised of a pending action against him and assured of the opportunity to present his defenses to the suit.[43]

GR No. 199687

2014-03-24

PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION v. CA

REYES, J.

"Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant's voluntary appearance in court. When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction or when there is no valid service of summons, 'any judgment of the court which has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is null and void.'"[51] "The defendant must be properly apprised of a pending action against him and assured of the opportunity to present his defenses to the suit. Proper service of summons is used to protect one's right to due process."[52]

GR No. 174077

2012-11-21

ELLICE AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. RODEL T. YOUNG

MENDOZA, J.

It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant's voluntary appearance in court. When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction or when there is no valid service of summons, any judgment of the court which has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is null and void.[27] The purpose of summons is not only to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, but also to give notice to the defendant that an action has been commenced against it and to afford it an opportunity to be heard on the claim made against it. The requirements of the rule on summons must be strictly followed, otherwise, the trial court will not acquire jurisdiction over the defendant.[28]

AM No. RTJ-12-2316

2012-10-09

OCA v. LIBERTY O. CASTAÑEDA

PER CURIAM

Fourth. In several cases, the process server or sheriff merely resorted to substituted service of summons, without strict compliance with the rule[8] thereon as well as the Court's ruling in Manotoc v. Court of Appeals[9] elucidating on the requirements for effecting a valid substituted service. Nonetheless, Judge Castañeda acted on these petitions.

GR No. 192935

2010-12-07

LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010

MENDOZA, J.

SOLICITOR GENERAL CADIZ: Yes, Your Honor. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO: That is why, that P.D. 1416 was issued. Now would you agree with me that P.D. 1416 should not be considered effective anymore upon the promulgation, adoption, ratification of the 1987 Constitution. SOLICITOR GENERAL CADIZ: Not the whole of P.D. [No.] 1416, Your Honor. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO: The power of the President to reorganize the entire National Government is deemed repealed, at least, upon the adoption of the 1987 Constitution, correct. SOLICITOR GENERAL CADIZ: Yes, Your Honor.[50]

GR No. 173379

2010-12-01

ABUBAKAR A. AFDAL v. ROMEO CARLOS

CARPIO, J.

Likewise, nowhere in the return of summons or in the records of the case was it shown that Gary Acob, the person on whom substituted service of summons was effected, was a person of suitable age and discretion residing in petitioners' residence. In Manotoc v. Court of Appeals,[32] we said: If the substituted service will be effected at defendant's house or residence, it should be left with a person of "suitable age and discretion then residing therein." A person of suitable age and discretion is one who has attained the age of full legal capacity (18 years old) and is considered to have enough discernment to understand the importance of a summons. "Discretion" is defined as "the ability to make decisions which represent a responsible choice and for which an understanding of what is lawful, right or wise may be presupposed." Thus, to be of sufficient discretion, such person must know how to read and understand English to comprehend the import of the summons, and fully realize the need to deliver the summons and complaint to the defendant at the earliest possible time for the person to take appropriate action. Thus, the person must have the "relation of confidence" to the defendant, ensuring that the latter would receive or at least be notified of the receipt of the summons. The sheriff must therefore determine if the person found in the alleged dwelling or residence of defendant is of legal age, what the recipient's relationship with the defendant is, and whether said person comprehends the significance of the receipt of the summons and his duty to immediately deliver it to the defendant or at least notify the defendant of said receipt of summons. These matters must be clearly and specifically described in the Return of Summons.[33] (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 171916

2009-12-04

CONSTANTINO A. PASCUAL v. LOURDES S. PASCUAL

PERALTA, J.

This Court gave an in-depth discussion as to the nature and requisites of substituted service in Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, et al.:[22]

GR No. 170122

2009-10-12

CLARITA DEPAKAKIBO GARCIA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

VELASCO JR., J.

In Manotoc v. Court of Appeals,[23] we broke down the requirements to be: (1) Impossibility of prompt personal service, i.e., the party relying on substituted service or the sheriff must show that defendant cannot be served promptly or there is impossibility of prompt service within a reasonable time. Reasonable time being "so much time as is necessary under the circumstances for a reasonably prudent and diligent man to do, conveniently, what the contract or duty requires that should be done, having a regard for the rights and possibility of loss, if any[,] to the other party."[24] Moreover, we indicated therein that the sheriff must show several attempts for personal service of at least three (3) times on at least two (2) different dates.

GR No.161952

2009-10-02

ARNEL SAGANA v. RICHARD A. FRANCISCO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

We do not intend this ruling to overturn jurisprudence to the effect that statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully, and fully, and that any substituted service other than that authorized by the Rules is considered ineffective.[32] However, an overly strict application of the Rules is not warranted in this case, as it would clearly frustrate the spirit of the law as well as do injustice to the parties, who have been waiting for almost 15 years for a resolution of this case. We are not heedless of the widespread and flagrant practice whereby defendants actively attempt to frustrate the proper service of summons by refusing to give their names, rebuffing requests to sign for or receive documents, or eluding officers of the court. Of course it is to be expected that defendants try to avoid service of summons, prompting this Court to declare that, "the sheriff must be resourceful, persevering, canny, and diligent in serving the process on the defendant."[33] However, sheriffs are not expected to be sleuths, and cannot be faulted where the defendants themselves engage in deception to thwart the orderly administration of justice.

GR No. 183802

2009-09-17

ALEXANDER TAM WONG v. CATHERINE FACTOR-KOYAMA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him or her. In a civil action, jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant's voluntary appearance in court. When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction or when there is no valid service of summons, any judgment of the court, which has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, is null and void.[33]

GR No. 177007

2009-07-14

SANSIO PHILIPPINES v. SPS. ALICIA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

A summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him or her. In a civil action, jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant's voluntary appearance in court. When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction, or when there is no valid service of summons, any judgment of the court, which has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, is null and void.[27] Where the action is in personam, i.e., one that seeks to impose some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant through the judgment of a court,[28] and the defendant is in the Philippines, the service of summons may be made through personal or substituted service in the manner provided for in Sections 6 and 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which read: SEC. 6. Service in person on defendant. - Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him.

GR No. 172595

2008-04-10

BIENVENIDO EJERCITO v. M.R. VARGAS CONSTRUCTION

TINGA, J,

Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant's voluntary appearance in court. When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction or when there is no valid service of summons, any judgment of the court, which has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is null and void. In an action strictly in personam, personal service on the defendant is the preferred mode of service, that is, by handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person.[32]

	GR No. 194751 2014-11-26	AURORA N. DE PEDRO v. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
Jurisdiction over the parties refers to the power of the court to make decisions that are binding on persons. The courts acquire jurisdiction over complainants or petitioners as soon as they file their complaints or petitions. Over the persons of defendants or respondents, courts acquire jurisdiction by a valid service of summons or through their voluntary submission.[78] Generally, a person voluntarily submits to the court's jurisdiction when he or she participates in the trial despite improper service of summons.
	GR No. 194751 2014-11-26	AURORA N. DE PEDRO v. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
Personal service of summons is the preferred mode of service of summons.[95] Thus, as a rule, summons must be served personally upon the defendant or respondent wherever he or she may be found. If the defendant or respondent refuses to receive the summons, it shall be tendered to him or her.[96]
	GR No. 194751 2014-11-26	AURORA N. DE PEDRO v. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
Moreover, to allow sheriffs to describe the facts and circumstances in inexact terms would encourage routine performance of their precise duties relating to substituted service for it would be quite easy to shroud or conceal carelessness or laxity in such broad terms.[106]
	GR No. 194751 2014-11-26	AURORA N. DE PEDRO v. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
In the case of Venturanza v. Court of Appeals, it was held that "x x x the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions by the sheriff is not applicable in this case where it is patent that the sheriff's return is defective." (Emphasis supplied) While the Sheriff's Return in the Venturanza case had no statement on the effort or attempt to personally serve the summons, the Return of Sheriff Cañelas in the case at bar merely described the efforts or attempts in general terms lacking in details as required by the ruling in the case of Domagas v. Jensen and other cases. It is as if Cañelas' Return did not mention any effort to accomplish personal service. Thus, the substituted service is void.[108]
	GR No. 194751 2014-11-26	AURORA N. DE PEDRO v. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
Lack of jurisdiction being a valid ground for annulment of judgments, circumstances that negate the court's acquisition of jurisdiction including defective service of summons are causes for an action for annulment of judgments.[114]
	GR No. 199595 2014-04-02	PHILIPPINE WOMAN’S CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE UNION v. TEODORO R. YANGCO 2ND REYES, J.
Foremost of which is the requirement on the service of summons for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants. Without a valid service of summons, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the defendant, unless the defendant voluntarily submits to it. Service of summons is a guarantee of one's right to due process in that he is properly apprised of a pending action against him and assured of the opportunity to present his defenses to the suit.[43]
	GR No. 199687 2014-03-24	PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION v. CA REYES, J.
"Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant's voluntary appearance in court. When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction or when there is no valid service of summons, 'any judgment of the court which has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is null and void.'"[51] "The defendant must be properly apprised of a pending action against him and assured of the opportunity to present his defenses to the suit. Proper service of summons is used to protect one's right to due process."[52]
	GR No. 174077 2012-11-21	ELLICE AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. RODEL T. YOUNG MENDOZA, J.
It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant's voluntary appearance in court. When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction or when there is no valid service of summons, any judgment of the court which has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is null and void.[27] The purpose of summons is not only to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, but also to give notice to the defendant that an action has been commenced against it and to afford it an opportunity to be heard on the claim made against it. The requirements of the rule on summons must be strictly followed, otherwise, the trial court will not acquire jurisdiction over the defendant.[28]
	AM No. RTJ-12-2316 2012-10-09	OCA v. LIBERTY O. CASTAÑEDA PER CURIAM
Fourth. In several cases, the process server or sheriff merely resorted to substituted service of summons, without strict compliance with the rule[8] thereon as well as the Court's ruling in Manotoc v. Court of Appeals[9] elucidating on the requirements for effecting a valid substituted service. Nonetheless, Judge Castañeda acted on these petitions.
	GR No. 192935 2010-12-07	LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010 MENDOZA, J.
SOLICITOR GENERAL CADIZ: Yes, Your Honor. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO: That is why, that P.D. 1416 was issued. Now would you agree with me that P.D. 1416 should not be considered effective anymore upon the promulgation, adoption, ratification of the 1987 Constitution. SOLICITOR GENERAL CADIZ: Not the whole of P.D. [No.] 1416, Your Honor. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO: The power of the President to reorganize the entire National Government is deemed repealed, at least, upon the adoption of the 1987 Constitution, correct. SOLICITOR GENERAL CADIZ: Yes, Your Honor.[50]
	GR No. 173379 2010-12-01	ABUBAKAR A. AFDAL v. ROMEO CARLOS CARPIO, J.
Likewise, nowhere in the return of summons or in the records of the case was it shown that Gary Acob, the person on whom substituted service of summons was effected, was a person of suitable age and discretion residing in petitioners' residence. In Manotoc v. Court of Appeals,[32] we said: If the substituted service will be effected at defendant's house or residence, it should be left with a person of "suitable age and discretion then residing therein." A person of suitable age and discretion is one who has attained the age of full legal capacity (18 years old) and is considered to have enough discernment to understand the importance of a summons. "Discretion" is defined as "the ability to make decisions which represent a responsible choice and for which an understanding of what is lawful, right or wise may be presupposed." Thus, to be of sufficient discretion, such person must know how to read and understand English to comprehend the import of the summons, and fully realize the need to deliver the summons and complaint to the defendant at the earliest possible time for the person to take appropriate action. Thus, the person must have the "relation of confidence" to the defendant, ensuring that the latter would receive or at least be notified of the receipt of the summons. The sheriff must therefore determine if the person found in the alleged dwelling or residence of defendant is of legal age, what the recipient's relationship with the defendant is, and whether said person comprehends the significance of the receipt of the summons and his duty to immediately deliver it to the defendant or at least notify the defendant of said receipt of summons. These matters must be clearly and specifically described in the Return of Summons.[33] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 171916 2009-12-04	CONSTANTINO A. PASCUAL v. LOURDES S. PASCUAL PERALTA, J.
This Court gave an in-depth discussion as to the nature and requisites of substituted service in Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, et al.:[22]
	GR No. 170122 2009-10-12	CLARITA DEPAKAKIBO GARCIA v. SANDIGANBAYAN VELASCO JR., J.
In Manotoc v. Court of Appeals,[23] we broke down the requirements to be: (1) Impossibility of prompt personal service, i.e., the party relying on substituted service or the sheriff must show that defendant cannot be served promptly or there is impossibility of prompt service within a reasonable time. Reasonable time being "so much time as is necessary under the circumstances for a reasonably prudent and diligent man to do, conveniently, what the contract or duty requires that should be done, having a regard for the rights and possibility of loss, if any[,] to the other party."[24] Moreover, we indicated therein that the sheriff must show several attempts for personal service of at least three (3) times on at least two (2) different dates.
	GR No.161952 2009-10-02	ARNEL SAGANA v. RICHARD A. FRANCISCO DEL CASTILLO, J.
We do not intend this ruling to overturn jurisprudence to the effect that statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully, and fully, and that any substituted service other than that authorized by the Rules is considered ineffective.[32] However, an overly strict application of the Rules is not warranted in this case, as it would clearly frustrate the spirit of the law as well as do injustice to the parties, who have been waiting for almost 15 years for a resolution of this case. We are not heedless of the widespread and flagrant practice whereby defendants actively attempt to frustrate the proper service of summons by refusing to give their names, rebuffing requests to sign for or receive documents, or eluding officers of the court. Of course it is to be expected that defendants try to avoid service of summons, prompting this Court to declare that, "the sheriff must be resourceful, persevering, canny, and diligent in serving the process on the defendant."[33] However, sheriffs are not expected to be sleuths, and cannot be faulted where the defendants themselves engage in deception to thwart the orderly administration of justice.
	GR No. 183802 2009-09-17	ALEXANDER TAM WONG v. CATHERINE FACTOR-KOYAMA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him or her. In a civil action, jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant's voluntary appearance in court. When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction or when there is no valid service of summons, any judgment of the court, which has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, is null and void.[33]
	GR No. 177007 2009-07-14	SANSIO PHILIPPINES v. SPS. ALICIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him or her. In a civil action, jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant's voluntary appearance in court. When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction, or when there is no valid service of summons, any judgment of the court, which has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, is null and void.[27] Where the action is in personam, i.e., one that seeks to impose some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant through the judgment of a court,[28] and the defendant is in the Philippines, the service of summons may be made through personal or substituted service in the manner provided for in Sections 6 and 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which read: SEC. 6. Service in person on defendant. - Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him.
	GR No. 172595 2008-04-10	BIENVENIDO EJERCITO v. M.R. VARGAS CONSTRUCTION TINGA, J,
Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant's voluntary appearance in court. When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction or when there is no valid service of summons, any judgment of the court, which has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is null and void. In an action strictly in personam, personal service on the defendant is the preferred mode of service, that is, by handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person.[32]

MA. IMELDA M. MANOTOC v. CA