The Supreme Court ruled that summons was not properly served upon the respondents. According to Sections 6 and 7 of the Rules of Court, summons must be served personally on the defendant whenever practicable. Only when a defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time can substituted service be made by leaving copies at the defendant's residence or office. In this case, the Sheriff's Return did not demonstrate that personal service could not be effected, nor did it provide facts and circumstances to justify the substituted service. Failure to strictly comply with the requirements for substituted service renders it ineffective and does not give the court jurisdiction over the person.
The Supreme Court ruled that summons was not properly served upon the respondents. According to Sections 6 and 7 of the Rules of Court, summons must be served personally on the defendant whenever practicable. Only when a defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time can substituted service be made by leaving copies at the defendant's residence or office. In this case, the Sheriff's Return did not demonstrate that personal service could not be effected, nor did it provide facts and circumstances to justify the substituted service. Failure to strictly comply with the requirements for substituted service renders it ineffective and does not give the court jurisdiction over the person.
The Supreme Court ruled that summons was not properly served upon the respondents. According to Sections 6 and 7 of the Rules of Court, summons must be served personally on the defendant whenever practicable. Only when a defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time can substituted service be made by leaving copies at the defendant's residence or office. In this case, the Sheriff's Return did not demonstrate that personal service could not be effected, nor did it provide facts and circumstances to justify the substituted service. Failure to strictly comply with the requirements for substituted service renders it ineffective and does not give the court jurisdiction over the person.
The Supreme Court ruled that summons was not properly served upon the respondents. According to Sections 6 and 7 of the Rules of Court, summons must be served personally on the defendant whenever practicable. Only when a defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time can substituted service be made by leaving copies at the defendant's residence or office. In this case, the Sheriff's Return did not demonstrate that personal service could not be effected, nor did it provide facts and circumstances to justify the substituted service. Failure to strictly comply with the requirements for substituted service renders it ineffective and does not give the court jurisdiction over the person.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
G.R. No.
139283 November 15 , 2000
ALLEN LEROY HAMILTON, petitioner, vs. DAVID LEVY and FE QUITANGON
Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money and damages with prayer for preliminary attachment against respondents and Pablo de Borja. RTC issued a writ of preliminary attachment
on an aircraft allegedly owned by David Levy. The Sheriff’s Return manifested that the sheriff personally served summons and a copy of the writ of preliminary attachment to respondents
through Reyes and Araneta, secretaries of WEL Phils at the address of respondents stated in the complaint; and levied on said aircraft. Araneta filed an Affidavit of Third-Party Claim asserting
ownership of the levied aircraft by virtue of a sale from WEL Phils. represented by Levy. Petitioner moved to declare defendants in default for failure to file any responsive pleading
within the reglementary period which the RTC granted. It proceeded with the presentation of evidence ex parte. Prior to the presentation, respondents’ counsel filed a Special Appearance to
Question the Jurisdiction of the RTC. When no action was made, respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari with CA. While the petition was pending, proceedings before the RTC continued. CA
granted the petition, dismissing the case before RTC on its finding that summons was not validly served upon respondents, hence, RTC never assumed jurisdiction over their persons.
Issue: Whether or not summons was properly served upon respondents.
Ruling: No. (Legal Basis lang) Sec 6 & 7 of RoC provides that 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. If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot
be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence with some person of suitable
age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendant’s office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. These modes of
service should be strictly followed in order that the court may acquire jurisdiction over the person. It is only when a defendant cannot be served personally "within a reasonable
time" that substituted service may be made.
The Sheriff’s Return showed that there was no reason why personal service could not be effected. The impossibility of prompt, personal service should be shown by stating in the proof
of service that efforts were made to serve the defendant personally and that said efforts failed, hence the resort to substituted service. The pertinent facts and circumstances attendant to the
service of summons must be stated in the proof of service or Officer’s Return; otherwise, any substituted service made in lieu of personal service cannot be upheld. This is necessary because
substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service. It is a method extraordinary
in character and hence may be used only as prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by
statute. Here, no such explanation was made. Failure to faithfully, strictly, and fully comply with the requirements of substituted service renders said service ineffective.
***Pag gusto mo lang malaman kung anong nakasulat dun sa Sheriff’s Return (d naman gaano
importante):
The Sheriff’s Return reads –
“The undersigned personally effected the service of the copies of the summons and the Writ of Preliminary Attachment upon the defendants, thru the Secretaries at their Office (W.E.L. Phil.,
Inc.) by the names of Mercita S. Reyes and Ramon Araneta.”
