This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-08-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In resorting to the substituted service, the sheriff in this case pithily declared in his Report that he "also served copies to other defendants at their given addresses, but they refused to acknowledge receipt thereof." Obviously, the Sheriffs Report dated November 13, 2006 does not particularize why substituted service was resorted to and the precise manner by which the summons was served upon the individual petitioners. The disputable presumption that an official duty has been regularly performed will not apply where it is patent from the sheriffs or server's return that it is defective.[42] | |||||
|
2011-09-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence further instructs that when a suit is directed against an unincorporated government agency, which, because it is unincorporated, possesses no juridical personality of its own, the suit is against the agency's principal, i.e., the State.[30] In the similar case of Heirs of Mamerto Manguiat v. Court of Appeals,[31] where summons was served on the Bureau of Telecommunications which was an agency attached to the Department of Transportation and Communications, we held that: Rule 14, Section 13 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure provides: | |||||