Summons
As is usual in negotiations of this kind, the exchange of
Laus vs. - GENERALLY, summons must be served personally and, if it cannot be
CA effected within a reasonable time, substituted service may be resorted
to.
- WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME contemplates a period of time longer than
the word “prompt.”
o Presupposes that a prior attempt at personal service within
a justifiable time frame as would be necessary to bring the
defendant within the jurisdiction of the court had failed.
- Service of summons may be made AT NIGHT as well as DURING THE DAY or
even on a SUNDAY or HOLIDAY.
- Service of summons is MINISTERIAL in character.
- If a defendant had not been properly summoned, the PERIOD TO FILE A
MOTION TO DISMISS for lack of jurisdiction over his person does not
commence to run until he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the
court.
Valmont To provide perspective, it will be helpful to determine first the nature of the
e vs CA action filed against petitioners Lourdes A. Valmonte and Alfredo D. Valmonte
by private respondent, whether it is an action in personam, in rem or quasi in
rem. This is because the rules on service of summons embodied in Rule 14
apply according to whether an action is one or the other of these actions.
In an action in personam, personal service of summons or, if this is not possible
and he cannot be personally served, substituted service, as provided in Rule 14,
7-8[2] is essential for the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the
person of a defendant who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority
of the court.[3] If defendant cannot be served with summons because he is
temporarily abroad, but otherwise he is a Philippine resident, service of
summons may, by leave of court, be made by publication.[4] Otherwise stated,
a resident defendant in an action in personam, who cannot be personally
served with summons, may be summoned either by means of substituted
service in accordance with Rule 14, 8 or by publication as provided in 17 and
18 of the same Rule.[5]
In all of these cases, it should be noted, defendant must be a resident of
the Philippines, otherwise an action in personam cannot be brought because
jurisdiction over his person is essential to make a binding decision.
On the other hand, if the action is in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is not essential for giving the court jurisdiction so long
as the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. If the defendant is a nonresident
and he is not found in the country, summons may be served extraterritorially
in accordance with Rule 14, 17,
In contrast, in the case at bar, petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte did not appoint
her husband as her attorney-in-fact. Although she wrote private respondent s
attorney that all communications intended for her should be addressed to her
husband who is also her lawyer at the latters address in Manila, no power of
attorney to receive summons for her can be inferred therefrom. In fact the
letter was written seven months before the filing of this case below, and it
appears that it was written in connection with the negotiations between her
and her sister, respondent Rosita Dimalanta, concerning the partition of the
property in question.
correspondence was carried on by counsel for the parties. But the authority
given to petitioners husband in these negotiations certainly cannot be
construed as also including an authority to represent her in any litigation.
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that there was no valid service on petitioner
Lourdes A. Valmonte in this case.
La Naval In summary, it is our considered view, as we now so hereby express,
Drug that —
Corp. vs.
CA (1) Jurisdiction over the person must be seasonably raised, i.e., that it is
pleaded in a motion to dismiss or by way of an affirmative defense in an
answer. Voluntary appearance shall be deemed a waiver of this defense. The
assertion, however, of affirmative defenses shall not be constructed as an
estoppel or as a waiver of such defense.
(2) Where the court itself clearly has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or
the nature of the action, the invocation of this defense may be done at any time.
It is neither for the courts nor the parties to violate or disregard that rule, let
alone to confer that jurisdiction, this matter being legislative in character.
Barring highly meritorious and exceptional circumstances, such as
hereinbefore exemplified, neither estoppel nor waiver shall apply.
In the case at bench, the want of jurisdiction by the court is indisputable, given
the nature of the controversy. The arbitration law explicitly confines the
court's authority only to pass upon the issue of whether there is or there is no
agreement in writing providing for arbitration. In
cthe affirmative, the statute ordains that the court shall issue an order
"summarily directing the parties to proceed with the arbitration in accordance
with the terms thereof." If the court, upon the other hand, finds that no such
agreement exists, "the proceeding shall be dismissed." The proceedings are
summary in nature.
Mason The case law applicable in the instant case, contends private respondent, is
vs CA Villarosa which squarely provides for the proper interpretation of the new rule
on the service of summons upon domestic corporation, thus:
The designation of persons or officers who are authorized to accept summons
for a domestic corporation or partnership is now limited and more clearly
specified in Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
The rule now states "general manager" instead of only "manager"; "corporate
secretary" instead of "secretary"; and "treasurer" instead of "cashier." The
phrase "agent, or any of its directors" is conspicuously deleted in the new rule.
According to private respondent, service through Ayreen Rejalde, a mere filing
clerk of private respondent and not one of those enumerated above, is invalid.

*In short the supreme court sides with the respondents, Columbus. Ayreen
Rejalde is not one of those enumerated to validly accept summons.
E. B. Facts: P filed a case against D for breach of contract. D is a limited partnership.
VILLARO Summons were served upon D through its Branch Manager X. D filed a motion
SA V. to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over its person because
BENITO
summons were improperly served. The trial court denied D’s motion.
Issue: Whether there was proper service of summons
Held: No. The enumeration of persons (provided under Sec. 11 Rule 14) upon
whom summons may be served to bind a domestic corporation or partnership
is restricted, limited, and exclusive. Service of summons upon persons other
than those mentioned in the Rule is improper. The branch manager is not
included in the list so service of summons upon him was improper.
Consequently, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of D.
- The designation of persons or officers who are authorized to accept
summons for a DOMESTIC CORPORATION or PARTNERSHIP is not limited and
more clearly specified in § 11, Rule 14.
o *Summons upon the branch manager of petitioner at its
branch office at Cagayan de Oro, instead of upon the general
manager at its principal office at Davao is improper.
Pinlac vs
CA ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A-QUO HAS ACQUIRED
JURISDICTION OVER RESPONDENT VILMA MALOLES SUBDIVISION BY
THE PUBLICATION OF THE SUMMONS AND PETITION AS ORDERED BY
THE COURT IN CIVIL CASE NO. Q-35672 AND SO THE PARTIAL DECISION
(ANNEX “B”) WAS LEGAL, VALID AND PROPER.
HELD: NEGAVOO
While the service of summons by publication may have been done with
the approval of the trial court, it does not cure the fatal defect that the
“Metropolitan Newsweek” is not a newspaper of general circulation in
Quezon City. The Rules strictly require that publication must be “in a
newspaper of general circulation and in such places and for such time as the
court may order.” The court orders relied upon by petitioners did not specify
the place and the length of time that the summons was to be published. In
the absence of such specification, publication in just any periodical does not
satisfy the strict requirements of the rules. The incomplete directive of the
court a quo coupled with the defective publication of the summons rendered
the service by publication ineffective. The modes of service of summons
should be strictly followed in order that the court may acquire jurisdiction over
the respondents, and failure to strictly comply with the requirements of the
rules regarding the order of its publication is a fatal defect in the service of
summons. It cannot be overemphasized that the statutory requirements of
service of summons, whether personally, by substituted service, or by
publication, must be followed strictly, faithfully and fully, and any mode of
service other than that prescribed by the statute is considered ineffective.
Be that as it may, even granting that the publication strictly complied
with the rules, the service of summons would still be ineffective insofar as
private respondents are concerned. At the time the complaint for Quieting of
Title was filed on November 2, 1983, Vilma Maloles Subdivision no longer
existed as a juridical entity. Vilma Maloles Subdivision, a partnership,
was dissolved more than six (6) years earlier, as evidenced by a
Certificate of Dissolution issued by the SEC dated January 26,
1976. Consequently, it could no longer be sued having lost its juridical
personality.
Oaminal FACTS: Petitioner filed a complaint for collection against respondents
vs Catillo with the RTC. The summons together with the complaint was served
upon the secretary of respondent. Respondents filed their ‘Urgent Motion
to Declare Service of Summons Improper and Legally Defective’ alleging
that the Sheriff’s Return has failed to comply on substituted service of
summons but said motion was not heard due to the Judge’s absence.
Petitioner then filed an Omnibus Motion to Declare [Respondents] in
Default and to Render Judgment because no answer [was] filed by [the
latter]. The respondents filed Omnibus Motion Ad Cautelam to Admit
Motion to Dismiss and Answer with. The judge denied [respondents’]
Motion to Dismiss, and admitted [their] Answer. However six months
after admitting their answer, the judge ruled that [respondents’]
‘Omnibus Motion Ad Cautelam to Admit Motion to Dismiss and Answer
with Counterclaim’ was filed outside the period to file answer, hence he
(1) denied the Motion to Admit Motion to Dismiss and Answer; (2)
declared [respondents] in default; and (3) ordered [petitioner] to present
evidence ex-parte within ten days from receipt of [the] order, [failing]
which, the case will be dismissed.
ISSUE: WON respondents were properly declared in default?
HELD: NO. Respondents herein were declared in default by the trial court
on May 22, 2001, purportedly because of their delay in filing an
answer. Its unexpected volte face came six months after it had ruled to
admit their Answer on November 16, 2000. Indiana Aerospace University
v. Commission on Higher Education held that no practical purpose was
served in declaring the defendants in default when their Answer had
already been filed — albeit after the 15-day period, but before they were
declared as such. Applying that ruling to the present case, we find that
respondents were, therefore, imprudently declared in default.
Service of defective summons was cured by voluntary appearance. The
filing of Motions seeking affirmative relief -- to admit answer, for
additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment,
and to life order of default with motion for reconsideration -- are
considered voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
 Lapses in the literal observance of a rule of procedure will be overlooked
when they do not involve public policy, when they arose from an honest
mistake or unforeseen accident, when they have not prejudiced the
adverse party and have not deprived the court of its authority. Conceived
in the best traditions of practical and moral justice and common sense,
the Rules of Court frown upon hairsplitting technicalities that do not
square with their liberal tendency and the the ends of justicee unless
something in the nature of the factors just stated intervene.
Kawasak Extra-territorial service, when allowed
i Port (3) If the action is in personam, this mode of service will not be available.
Service There is no extraterritorial service of summons in an action in personam.
Corp. vs. Hence, extraterritorial service upon a nonresident in an action for injunction
Amores, which is in personam is not proper
199
SCRA
230;
HSBC vs. The Court has held that the filing of motions seeking affirmative relief such as,
Catalan to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a
default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration,
are considered voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
A party who makes a special appearance in court challenging the jurisdiction of
said court, cannot be considered voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the
court.
Casimin In substituted service of summons, actual receipt of the summons by the
a vs. defendant through the person served must be shown (Millennium Industrial
Legaspi Commercial Corp. vs. Tan, 383 Phil. 468). It further requires that where there is
substituted service, there should be a report indicating that the person who
received the summons in defendant‘s behalf was one with whom petitioner
had a relation of confidence ensuring that the latter would receive or would be
notified of the summons issued in his name
Velayo- - EXTRAJUDICIAL SERVICE apply only when the action is in rem or quasi in
Fong v. rem
Velayo o The rationale for this is that in such actions, jurisdiction
510 over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to
SCRA confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court
320 acquires jurisdiction over the res.
(2006) - Process Servers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the
performance of their duties. To overcome this, the evidence must be
clear and convincing.
- When a party files a motion to lift order of default, she must also
show that she has a MERITORIOUS DEFENSE or that something would be
gained by having the order of default set aside.
- *MERITORIOUS DEFENSE implies that the applicant has the burden of
proving such a defense in order to have the judgment set aside.
o TEST EMPLOYED: whether there is enough evidence to present
an issue for submission to the trier of fact.
o Motion must be accompanied by a statement of the evidence
which she intends to present if the motion is granted and
which is such as to warrant a reasonable belief that the
result of the case would probably be otherwise if a new trial
is granted.
Santos SEC. 14. Service upon defendant whose identity or whereabouts are unknown.
vs. PNOC In any action where the defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the
like, or whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by
diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of court, be effected upon him by
publication in a newspaper of general circulation and in such places and for
such times as the court may order. (emphasis supplied)
Since petitioner could not be personally served with summons despite diligent
efforts to locate his whereabouts, respondent sought and was granted leave of
court to effect service of summons upon him by publication in a newspaper of
general circulation. Thus, petitioner was properly served with summons by
publication.
Petitioner invokes the distinction between an action in rem and an action in
personam and claims that substituted service may be availed of only in an
action in rem. Petitioner is wrong. The in rem/in personam distinction was
significant under the old rule because it was silent as to the kind of action to
which the rule was applicable.[10] Because of this silence, the Court limited the
application of the old rule to in rem actions only.[11]
This has been changed. The present rule expressly states that it applies [i]n any
action where the defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or
whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent
inquiry. Thus, it now applies to any action, whether in personam, in rem or
quasi in rem.
Regarding the matter of the affidavit of service, the relevant portion of Section
19,[13] Rule 14 of the Rules of Court simply speaks of the following: an
affidavit showing the deposit of a copy of the summons and order for
publication in the post office, postage prepaid, directed to the defendant by
registered mail to his last known address.
Wong vs Evidently, the Return failed to relay if sufficient efforts were exerted by Sheriff
Factor Baloloy to locate Wong, as well as the impossibility of personal service of
Koyoma summons upon Wong within a reasonable time. Sheriff Baloloys three visits to
Wongs residence hardly constitute effort on his part to locate Wong; and
Wongs absence from his residence during Sheriff Baloloys visits, since Wong
was at the office or out-of-town, does not connote impossibility of personal
service of summons upon him. It must be stressed that, before resorting to
substituted service, a sheriff is enjoined to try his best efforts to accomplish
personal service on the defendant. And since the defendant is expected to try
to avoid and evade service of summons, the sheriff must be resourceful,
persevering, canny, and diligent in serving the process on the defendant.
Nevertheless, even without valid service of summons, a court may still acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, if the latter voluntarily appears
before it. Section 20, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court recognizes that:
 Section 20. Voluntary Appearance.The defendants voluntary appearance in the The server’s return did not describe in detail the person who received the
action shall be equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to summons, on behalf of petitioner. It simply stated that the summons was
dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the received “by Mr. Roly Espinosa of sufficient age and discretion, the Security
defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance. (Emphasis ours.) Officer thereat.” It did not expound on the competence of the security officer to
receive the summons.
The RTC acquired jurisdiction over Wong by virtue of his voluntary appearance
before it in Civil Case No. C-21860. The Court is not referring to Wongs filing of Given that the meticulous requirements in Manotoc were not met, the Court is
his Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in Civil Case No. C-21860, on the ground of not inclined to uphold the CA’s denial of the petition for annulment of
lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over his person, because that clearly does not judgment for lack of jurisdiction over the person of petitioner because there
constitute voluntary appearance. The Court, instead, calls attention to the RTC was an invalid substituted service of summons. Accordingly, the decision in
Order dated 20 November 2008 allowing Wong to cross-examine Koyama. Civil Case No. 02-0306 must be declared null and void.
Wong, through his counsel, took advantage of the opportunity opened to him
by the said Order and aggressively questioned her during the 23 January 2009 The stricter rule in substituted service of summons was meant to address
hearing, despite his knowledge that the RTC had not yet lifted the 25 “[t]he numerous claims of irregularities in substituted service which have
September 2007 Order declaring him in default. By actively participating in the spawned the filing of a great number of unnecessary special civil actions of
23 January 2009 hearing, he effectively acknowledged full control of the RTC certiorari and appeals to higher courts, resulting in prolonged litigation and
over Civil Case No. C-21860 and over his person as the defendant therein; he is, wasteful legal expenses.”
thus, deemed to have voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of said Motions
trial court. Corpus
NM Since the action involved in the case at bar is in personam and since the vs.
Rothschi defendant, petitioner Rothschild/Investec, does not reside and is not found in Corpus
ld vs the Philippines, the Philippine courts cannot try any case against it because of Yap vs.
Lepanto the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over its person unless it voluntarily CA
appears in court. Azajar
vs. CA
A proceeding in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights and KKK vs.
obligations brought against the person and is based on the jurisdiction of the Calderon
person, although it may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, argas
specific property, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in Santos
accordance with the mandate of the court. The purpose of a proceeding in vs.
personam is to impose, through the judgment of a court, some responsibility or Liwag
liability directly upon the person of the defendant. Of this character are suits to Agcanas
compel a defendant to specifically perform some act or actions to fasten a vs.
pecuniary liability on him. It is likewise settled that an action in personam is Mercado
lodged against a person based on personal liability. Salita vs.
Magtolis
An action in rem is directed against the thing itself instead of the person; while Motion to Dismiss
an action quasi in rem names a person as defendant, but its object is to subject Ramos
that person’s interest in a property to a corresponding lien or obligation
vs.
Ong vc The server’s return utterly lacks sufficient detail of the attempts undertaken by Peralta
Co. the process server to personally serve the summons on petitioner. The server Lee Bun
simply made a general statement that summons was effected after several
Ting vs.
futile attempts to serve the same personally. The server did not state the
Aligaen
specific number of attempts made to perform the personal service of
PNB vs.
summons; the dates and the corresponding time the attempts were made; and
Hipolito
the underlying reason for each unsuccessful service. He did not explain either if
Guerrer
there were inquiries made to locate the petitioner, who was the defendant in
o vs. RTC
the case. These important acts to serve the summons on petitioner, though
Ilocos
futile, must be specified in the return to justify substituted service.
Continen
tal vs CA r vs.
Borje vs. Velez
CFI Demurer
Tribiana to
vs. Evidence
Tribiana Apelario
Danfoss vs. Ines
vs. Chavez
Continen & Co.
tal Capital
Cement Motors
Lu Ym vs. Yabut
vs.
Nabua
Aquino
vs. Aure
Heirs of
Dr. Favis
vs.
Gonzales
Modes of
Discover
y
Lopez vs
Meceren
Fortune
Corp vs.
CA
Hyatt vs.
Ley
Construc
tion
Ong vs
Mazo
Briboner
ia vs. CA
Koh vs
IAC
TRIAL
Yu vs. W/N the CFI validly dismissed the case on ground of plaintiff's failure to
Magpayo prosecute
NO.
The court held that the dismissal in untenable and contrary to law. The
defendant was not able to support his special defenses. The answer admitted
defendant's obligation as stated in the complaint, and pleaded special defences
hence the plaintiff had every right to insist that it was for the defendant to
come forward with evidence in support of his special defences. Judicial
admissions do not require proof.

Wassme